British Rowing consultation on trans and NB policy

[cakesandchocolate]

https://www.britishrowing.org/2022/09/british-rowing-announces-revised-trans-and-non-binary-inclusion-competition-policy-and-procedures/

information with a link to feedback form open to all, not just BR members.
An opportunity to offer opinion on sport inclusion policy going forward

Thank you for posting this.

I left a response imploring them to consider the review from Emma Hilton & Tommy Lundberg regarding male categorical advantage and how testosterone suppression doesn't eliminate this.

Also I asked them to consider that 'inclusive' policies which allow males to compete in the women's category often end up in practice excluding female athletes, and gave women's cycling as an example of where this has happened recently.

Wasn’t it rowing that said TW could compete in women’s races, but mixed boats had to have a minimum number of biological women - because obviously the men involved shouldn’t be disadvantaged by competing against a boat crewed by men and TW. It’s almost as if they can see there’s an issue…..

It's so bizarre. With every single trans issue there are exeptions like this because they know there is a difference yet still they submit women to this bullshit.

Oh I had a quick look, it’s still all about T levels - no recognition that eg height plays a fairly fundamental role in rowing ability.

Really, it is so fucking obvious that men cannot compete fairly against women. Women’s categories were set up because there are differences which don’t go away because of what people wear, what they want to call themselves. Or even what hormones they are taking. They know it’s not fair - I’ve never heard a single sports administrator stand up and say it’s fair.

Why is it that there isn’t more focus on educating and encouraging men to welcome TW properly so they feel comfortable competing in the appropriate sex class?

It's always the 5 mnol/l in males which is just crazy. You would think if they know that women only have 0.5-2.4 mnol/l they would already know just from that that it's unfair. But no...

Really, it's so fucking obvious that tall people cannot compete fairly against small people. That's what genuine recognition that eg height plays a fairly fundamental role in rowing ability would really entail.

FTFY

Perhaps a genuinely inclusionary policy would have height classes for rowers (a bit like weight divisions for boxers) ... crews could compete in divisions according to their height and then no-one need ever worry about what any competitors are packing in their shorts ... would that be "fair" enough? Or does it always have to be discriminating by sex first and other criteria second? If so, why?

Height is the #1 advantage in rowing. Longer legs make bigger levers and therefore bigger strokes in the water. Mind you I loved rowing in mixed eights, the power and speed were something else!

Rowing has introduced a 'light weight' category which is essentially for shorter rowers.
I'm 5'9" any division by height would probably put me in the male group which is not fair - there is a pretty big over lap between men's heights and women's heights but a man the same height as a woman will (in the vast majority of cases be stronger). Sex separation first then weight/height classes where necessary. We don't put shortish male boxers in with the women.

Why can’t sport just be based on biological sex? We don’t have women’s teams so that we can feel girlie or womanly, they’re because of fundamental physiological sex based differences. Why cant anyone express their identity however they like without demanding an acceptance of things that simply aren’t true. How did we ever end up here? It’s fucking madness.

thanks for the link OP.

How did we ever end up here? It’s fucking madness.

I think a lot of it is down to gender nonsense like this being repeated again and again and again through elite channels, until it became normalised amongst decision-makers:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=93df9872940096802c0db6408d064c03333de35e

no-one need ever worry about what any competitors are packing in their shorts

In the case of sports, it really has nothing to do with what competitors are packing in their shorts.

Biological sex affects skeletal structure, muscle composition, 'normal' range of lung and heart pumping capacity, what organs we have... Outward appearance of genitalia is really not the issue.

So nothing to stop non members and activists from either side abusing the vote?

Sex confers an advantage; it’s as simple as that.

Why are you obsessed with genitals?

So all this 'sex confers an advantage' malarkey ... are we going to revisit some of the other instances where society has legislated away this apparently obvious fact? Is it only on the sports field that this matters, or are we prepared to also revise our views about performance in many workplace settings, too? Or does sex not confer an advantage when there's incomes and livelihoods to protect? Or is it that the advantages conferred by height, or strength, are fair, provided that those advantages are only allowed to influence results within the category of sex?
I'm confused ... and it's not got anything to do with an obsession about genitalia. If anything ... that's the easiest part to understand. GCs want to discriminate on grounds of sex, but apparently only when it suits them.

Try not to worry too much Mark19735 . When you reach adulthood, you'll understand that life is complex, that sex matters, that respect for difference and making reasonable adjustments is a good thing.
Stick around and read some of the insightful and well researched posts from women on here - it'll be an education.

I quite literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks for posting this link - I've submitted my feedback.

If it was just about testosterone then surely trans-men would be competing at a meaningful level in men's sport....?
Even if matched in height and weight, biological men would still have an advantage (shoulder width, muscle mass, lung capacity etc)

I quite literally have no idea what you're talking about.

I know. It's hard. Ever heard of the gender pay gap? It's quite a thing in corporate life. Women are paid less than men, apparently. But they also produce less than men. They work fewer years during their lifetimes (maternity leave), fewer days per year, on average (sickness absence), and fewer hours per day (higher ratio of part time work). They also tend to work in indirect labour roles such as HR or admin. Direct labour (hod-carrying, ditch digging, climbing telegraph poles, felling trees) tends to be done by men. And this is where the value is actually created - certainly in manufacturing, energy, mining, agriculture. [Side note - I accept that there are many roles where women outperform men and many industries where women outnumber men too - I'm not arguing that this is absolute and universal]. But we have laws, and customs, that tell girls they can grow up to do anything just as well as men. We have laws, and customs, that require employers to ignore the differences in performance that can be attributed to sex, and to pretend this distinction doesn't exist. We do that because it makes society a fairer and better place. Men benefit from this too.

So when it's access to employment, why is it that we agree that the obvious sex differences can simply be overlooked, but when it's sports, sex differences are the most important thing to focus on? We already know that in many sports factors such as age, height and weight matter, and actually matter far more than sex - and these are already split into divisions and classes that reflect this. So why the obsession with making sex differences the primary discriminator under all circumstances at all times?

Height and weight don't matter more than sex. They matter as well as sex.

The reason that dividing sport by sex matters is that otherwise from the moment babies are born, half of them would have zero chance of having a professional sporting career, or winning sporting medals as an adult. Whereas there are both short and tall professional sports men and women.

are you tripping?

I know. It's hard. Ever heard of the gender pay gap? It's quite a thing in corporate life. Women are paid less than men, apparently. But they also produce less than men. They work fewer years during their lifetimes (maternity leave), fewer days per year, on average (sickness absence), and fewer hours per day (higher ratio of part time work). They also tend to work in indirect labour roles such as HR or admin. Direct labour (hod-carrying, ditch digging, climbing telegraph poles, felling trees) tends to be done by men. And this is where the value is actually created - certainly in manufacturing, energy, mining, agriculture. [Side note - I accept that there are many roles where women outperform men and many industries where women outnumber men too - I'm not arguing that this is absolute and universal]. But we have laws, and customs, that tell girls they can grow up to do anything just as well as men. We have laws, and customs, that require employers to ignore the differences in performance that can be attributed to sex, and to pretend this distinction doesn't exist. We do that because it makes society a fairer and better place. Men benefit from this too.

As far as I can make out, the TL:DR of that is 'women do less work than men. Except not always. And the law (which one?) tells girls they can do as well as men and makes employers ignore it when they don't (again don't know which law does that)'? Even if, and that's a very big if, all or any of that was true, what's it got to do with rowing?

So when it's access to employment, why is it that we agree that the obvious sex differences can simply be overlooked,

Did we? Did I miss a memo? ( Probably off sick or on mat leave that day)

but when it's sports, sex differences are the most important thing to focus on? We already know that in many sports factors such as age, height and weight matter, and actually matter far more than sex - and these are already split into divisions and classes that reflect this.

Please name sports where the divisions are based on age, height and weight, but not sex. And I don't mean mixed sex team sports, actual sports which ignore sex in categorisation. Please provide receipts that 'we already know these factors matter more than sex', I'm not aware of that research.

So why the obsession with making sex differences the primary discriminator under all circumstances at all times?

Are we still talking about sports, or are we back to hod carrying?

are you tripping?

😂😂

Here's why - the graph below is for weightlifting, but the same principle applies to almost all other sports. It shows the total lifts achieved by elite athletes in women's and men's world championships competitions.

Notice how the set of male lifts is entirely distinct from the female lifts.

Can you spot the male competing in the women's category?

Thanks for link . I have submitted my feedback.