“UKA has today outlined its position relating to transgender participation in athletics in the UK.”

[Helleofabore]

www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

This is what Jon Pike said was coming.

Sorry everyone for the title.... I was so excited I just copied their tweet....

I can see I should have put 'EXCELLENT NEWS!:' in the front.

Should have been the obvious solution from the very start

Great news, let's hope it will cause even wider ripples.

What a week it’s been 🥳

Fantastic

Stories like yours are so important @Galarunner. The vast majority of us, howeer hard we try, will never reach the rarefied heights of any sport, but it matters where we place, whatever the level of the competition. Congratulations on your 3rd place!

What good news.

This paragraph is particularly welcome in my opinion:

The category of “women’s athletics” arose as a way of enabling the inclusion of women in athletics. Women who wished to compete in athletics could not do so fairly with men, because of the physical advantages men enjoy due to their (male) biological sex. Therefore, the decision was made to create a separate, sex-based category in which people of the female sex could fairly compete against one another. The category of women’s sport arose not as a response to women’s social role or personal gender identity, but to ensure fair competition amongst female athletes by eliminating the advantages enjoyed by male athletes on account of their sex.

Great news.

I'm still a bit confused by the language though and suspect others who are not well versed in the terminology also might be.

They use phrases like "transgender women", which I assumed would mean women who present as men. I would have expected them to say "transwomen" or "transgender men/males" or something if they meant males who present as females.

Well done to UKA for an outbreak of common sense.

It has made me so happy reading this. Might check how it’s going down on twitter….

Has the shit hit the proverbial about this yet on twatter?

I hope Australia takes note of this (and everything else that has been happening this week), and reacts accordingly. Things are very bad here.

We still need cycling and cricket to tidy up their rules.

This is promising. I welcome the grounded language and the fact that they have taken on the guidance from SCEG. But...

1. this document doesn't mention male DSD athletes who are recorded as female at birth. Obviously this is not as big an issue in a developed country, but still...
2. the integrity of the female category depends on a change in the law and GRC numbers not exploding via easier self-ID in the meantime.

I was surprised to read that s195 EA2010 does not in fact protect women's sports from male incursion. It seems that this was a case of bad drafting - not making reference to the GRA2004 when the sporting exception clauses were inserted and repealed in the respective Acts, because I feel sure, given the rest of the exceptions, that this is what was intended. Still, more reason to strengthen the EA2010.

Crikey. Yet more common sense. Has Twitter exploded yet?

But what about the DSD athletes?
Mbomba, Semenya etc ☹️

I guess they won't slip through the net in the UK as they seem to in other countries..

Between this from UKA:

"13. UKA therefore requests that a legislative change is made to extend the sporting exemption in the EA 2010 to cover the GRA 2004. This would enable UKA and other sporting bodies the ability to ensure the women’s category can be lawfully reserved for female competitors"

And this from Sex Matters:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-are-lawyers-giving-faulty-advice-about-women-only-sports/

And the Haldane judgement, and the focus provided by the GRR and prisons clusterfuck, something is going to have to give.

It's not going to be us though!

Presumably it's fear that makes sports bodies follow the demands of this immensely powerful lobby that's been (almost) successful in coercing the world to believe fantasies and untruths and to unravel the safeguarding of children?
And as "courage speaks to courage" once quivering governing bodies are finding their voice and speaking out?

There is so much confusion Rex. I haven’t had time to read through that sex matters article.

As you say. Something has go to give regards clarity around the Act.

The difficulty is that a GRA means that a male can get a birth certificate saying that they were female at birth.

There will definitely be legal challenges ahead

Yes, quite so, but I'm betting the vast majority of chancers don't have one at the mo. It's really a question of officials feeling that they have the sport's governing body's authority to challenge them.

Good to see them citing scientifically robust, independent research (or the lack of it). It's hard to argue with that!

@jellyfrizz
(reposting because I was replying to you)

The difficulty is that a GRA means that a male can get a birth certificate saying that they were female at birth.

Yes, quite so, but I'm betting the vast majority of chancers don't have one at the mo. It's really a question of officials feeling that they have the sport's governing body's authority to challenge them.

The Twitter response is as expected.

Lot of emotional outpouring with ‘banning’ as a focus.

And of course the declarations that as drug induced impaired males they could not possibly compete with other males. almost like these males want to compete to win… yet they are happy for women to be told they are just not good enough and should try harder if they can’t compete with hormone modified males.

Like those philosophers who declare it is that women haven’t been trying hard enough have not said the same to those hormone modified males who are saying that they cannot compete with other males.

And those philosophers who declare that sport should be about participation and inclusion haven’t talked to those males either. Or those males missed the memo on what line they are supposed to be pushing now.

The hypocrisy is wild today.