“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.

💥💥Boom!

Wasn't there a thing about females should just appreciate the taking part and stop fixating on winning? Surely that applies equally?

they are happy for women to be told they are just not good enough and should try harder

I remember reading that Paula Radcliffe's marathon record was discounted because she'd had a male pacemaker, even though she ran alongside rather than behind him in order not to benefit physically. It's astounding that 'having a male body' has ever been seen as OK in women's races whereas 'running next to one' wasn't.

@Galarunner and @jellyfrizz
I wonder if a policy(or advice from on high) to use common sense and weed out obvious males at least when it comes to podiums or official placings, or to ask for birth certificates before recording final results if a competitor is challenged would work?

I wonder if with an open category that middling men who never win in the men's category will think "hummmm, I could be in with a chance in the open".
In effect middling men who can't be arsed to play the trans game could do to trans women what trans women did to women.
How funny / poetic would that be?
I wonder if trans women feeling they stood no chance against men would try and get men excluded from the open category. The circle would be complete.

Absolutely brilliant. Like others I particularly like a strong statement that sport shouldn't involve doping yourself to be weaker any more than it does doping yourself to be stronger.

Hope British Rowing, Cycling and Swimming are taking note.

As I understand it, the men's category is being renamed Open - there will be no third category.

Speaking as a man, I believe that on the whole we will be very accepting of trans athletes into the Open category. We would also welcome them in our prisons, changing rooms, toilets, rape crisis centres etc. We support inclusivity and diversity.

Clear and sensible.

Hope the other sporting bodies follow suit soon and the whole conversation can end and we can look back and laugh at this weird period in future.

Another thought. By calling for a law change in an area in which it is so obvious who is male or female, the UKA is helping to really push the issue with the government.

The government is going to have to state very clearly why these proposals are, or are not necessary.

😎

Great news. We need more announcements like this which are clear and void of emotive statements as they are harder for the genderists to argue against without looking unhinged.

Quite

Good news

The guardian headline on this is interesting and by interesting I mean absolutely fucking shameful

if you just read thar you’d assume it’s currently against the law to stop TW competing in women’s sports Guardian going to guardian!

A bit surprised by that - Sean Ingle is normally pretty good on this subject

Well isnt this the week that keeps on giving?

The EHRC has issued a formal response to the UKA statement.

It makes interesting (good) reading:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-position-uk-athletics-trans-people’s-participation-sport

"It is therefore likely to be lawful for a sporting body or organisation to adopt a trans exclusive policy in relation to gender-based sporting competition where they can evidence that it is necessary to do so in order to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors. This understanding of the law has not altered following the Court of Session's decision in For Women Scotland and other sporting bodies agree with this interpretation.
We reached out to UK Athletics and offered to discuss the legal advice underpinning their statement. We are disappointed that they have chosen to publicise their inaccurate advice and we would urge all organisations to consult our website which explains equality law and how it relates to these issues."

Original statement by UKA not legally accurate and EHRC has corrected them. It has always been possible to exclude by sex and by 'gender activity' which is also defined by sex.

“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity”.

I hope by 'we' you mean 'me' as you don't speak for anyone other than yourself and 'as a man' you certainly don't speak for me, a woman.

Be as inclusive as you like but stay within the remits of the law and consider women and children every now and again, if you can.

But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.

This exactly is why the Equality Act needs updating to make clear that the protected characteristic “sex “ is biological.

Please sign and share the petition to update the Equality Act in the hope of sorting out the confusion.
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243
✍️ & 📣📣📣

Why would UkA pretend to think it’s not legal to have separate sex based categories when the ehrc has told them it is? Seems a very strange thing to do.
they seem to be saying yes we agree that males have an advantage and we’d very much like to have separate sex categories but sadly the law is stopping us ( sad face) and hoping no one notices.
which is a new position to take 🙄

I believe that oldwhyno is saying exactly that as a man he and others will be welcoming (ie. make sure that males are very welcome to be in the male spaces with no violence etc)

That is exactly as it should be. Male people budging over for other male people.

@OhHolyJesus
What an odd response. It seemed perfectly clear to me that@oldwhynowas expressing his belief that men would on the whole be accepting of gnc males in male single sex spaces. He didn't reference women at all.

The EHRC. Starts off well:

"Section 195 (1) creates a general exemption to enable sporting organisations to discriminate on grounds of sex in relation in sporting activity and provides that sports can be lawfully segregated where an activity is ‘affected by gender’..."

But then:

"It is therefore likely to be lawful for a sporting body or organisation to adopt a trans exclusive policy..."

LIKELY TO BE

Let's have it clear. Let's have it flushed out. All of it.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-uk-athletics-position-trans-people%E2%80%99s-participation-sport

I've resisted opening this thread all day, thinking it would just be bad news but I'm very pleasantly surprised.

I like the way they have thrown it back to government; we think it would be unfair to allow biological males to compete in women's sport, here's why, and now we want you to give us the legal protection to create an open category.

AND it's the men's category which becomes open. There has been an outbreak of common sense at UKA.