Elite British sportswomen would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport - Survey

[IwantToRetire]

More than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport.

But many have expressed fears over sharing their opinion publicly because of concerns they would be seen as discriminatory.

One told the BBC "your career is over" if you speak on the subject, while another said: "You can receive abuse if you support it or don't support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

There were also feelings that there "should be a place in sport for transgender people" and calls for more research and open categories in sports.

Over the past couple of years, a raft of sports have banned transgender women from competing in elite women's sport because of concerns.

Among the concerns from athletes was that having transgender women in female categories was like "going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again", and that it created an "unfair playing field" and could be "harmful".

Full story here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/68564019

Worth noting that quite a small number of response, out of 615 sent the survey only 143 reponsed! Evidence of their fear of commenting, or lack of trust in the BBC to keep their participation confidential?

SqueakyDinosaur · Today 12:03

I see that "Dr Joanna Harper" is quoted doing his usual disingenuous nonsense, with a link to an interview.

Them knows very well that they is talking out of the wrong end of them's alimentary canal. There's plenty of evidence to show that strength and stamina remain significantly higher than in even elite women.

And when you bear in mind that the subjects in the studies analysed by Hilton, Lundberg, Tucker et al were mostly non-athletes, not training, or not training hard, it's a question whether males actually lose any advantage at all. Only VO2 max has been shown to come down significantly as a result of taking androgen blockers and oestrogen. When athletes train as normal, there is no deterioration.

@IcakethereforeIam where are you getting that impression? AFAIK the governing bodies that have enacted bans on males competing in the female category have done so at all levels, of competition, not just elite. In cycling it doesn’t matter whether you are in the Giro Rosa or your local cat 4 circuit race, same rules. Same in swimming, athletics, triathlon, rugby etc.

From the Telegraph article I posted just upthread. If I've misread, misunderstood or misremembered I would be delighted to be wrong.

@IcakethereforeIam i skimmed it and I don’t think it mentions specific governing body policies. If you look up the policies of the individual governing bodies you’ll see that generally when they have a policy (there are som big outliers like football) it applies at all levels of competitive sport. I’m sure there are some sports where that isn’t the case but certainly for cycling, athletics, swimming, rugby and triathlon it is.

I can't understand why the focus is on the Elite competitions - if girls give up their local sporting competitions there will be no 'elite' sportswomen in the future.

@Toseland see my post above. I think this is a misunderstanding that is being perpetuated by journalists. I’ve been confidently told by people that in my sport (cycling) the rules only apply at elite level and this simply isn’t true. It applies at all levels of competition. Same for the other sports (I think) that have banned males from the female category.

Couldn't agree more. If girls are pushed out from local and grass -roots sport, they won't be there for the higher level competitions. It should be single-sex at all levels.

Perhaps there confusion because of events like Parkrun and Breeze(?) rides. Which I don't think are strictly speaking competitive but which are often twaw.

Seb Coe tried to avoid TRA hate heading in his direction by talking of banning TW 'at elite level'.
When Seb was competing at elite level the women competing alongside him had a far from even athletics program compared to the men. Where were the men screaming to be allowed into the women's triple jump in 1980, or the women's pole vault or marathon? Ahhh no where because those events didn't exist. It was Coe's female team mates that fought for equal representation and now Coe is happy for that to be compromised, just not at 'the highest level'.

The confusion around whether the exclusions apply to elite or all competitions arises in part from the lack of clarity in communication. In his interview with 'The rest is Politics' Seb Coe said "it's for only the Elite Sports so I will die in a ditch over the ability of transgender competitors to be involved in participatory sport we're talking about a very very few at the elite level and I have to protect the female category." He also used the words ..'transitioning from male physiology and biology to female physiology and biology"

from 53.54

Women and girls have been repeatedly told in policies in many sports that transphobia will not be tolerated and if women or girls feel uncomfortable sharing space with trans identified males, they should find other places to change and be educated on inclusion.

Athletes who have spoken out were reported to their sponsors and were in genuine fear for their own inclusion in teams / selection. Unrelated but similar things have been seen in the British Cycling bullying of female athletes and also in the US abuse in gynmastics. Women have no reason to believe they will be heard or protected if they speak.

ChateauMargaux
You're so right to highlight that women and girl athletes in sport are being browbeaten and bullied into an appearance of acquiescence. It's disgusting.

In recent years we have seen the efforts to increase female participation in sport at all levels, overshadowed by inclusion of transwomen in the sporting narrative and organisations shying away from mentioning women and girls for fear of being challenged on the basis of not being trans inclusive. The tiny percentage of people wanting to be included in the female category have had an enormous impact on women's sport. Instead of being able to confidently talk about positive actions to encourage women and girls into sport, organisations have had to spend time reducing the risk that they would be given unwanted publicity if they fall foul of perceived inclusion expectations. The media has given a disproportionate amount of space and share of voice to trans athletes, to the deteiment of the women who stand alongside them. Women's voices have been silenced. I am glad to see more women's voices are being shared, even if there are elements of hesitancy.

@IcakethereforeIam well Parkrun doesn’t have a governing body and while they claim to be recreational rather than competitive, anyone who has been at the sharp end, or even mid-field of a parkrun will beg to differ. They seem to have addressed the issue by ditching position rankings altogether which seems a cop-out.

Breeze is strictly recreational with no competitive element at all. I don’t know exactly why the decision was made to permit transwomen to take part but I suspect it will have been a combination of protecting Breeze volunteers from being targeted by TRAs, and concern that there may be legal challenges under the EA as proportionality may be more difficult to prove for non-competitive recreational activities.

Breeze can discriminate against men lawfully - there's a special exception in the Equality Act 2010 called positive action, which means you can set up initiatives for participants who share a protected characteristic if they are underrepresented or disadvantaged in the sport/activity. So women-only Breeze rides would be fine.

Women and MCW do not share a PC and it's not clear that TW are underrepresented/disadvantaged in cycling so the current situation is what's unlawful, ironically.

Interesting that he who should not be engaged with, due to ensuing frustration is suggesting that women have not been complaining loudly enough... so therefore have clearly not been bothered by the risks to women's sport.

So not only is it women's fault that no one listened to the concerns about children and puberty blockers because women were the wrong kind of voices, now it is women's fault that the rules in sport permitted males in the female category because they didn't speak loudly enough and risk loosing funding, sponsorships and receiving death threats.

@BellaAmorosa I was just speculating really, that possibly BC might be worried whether single sex Breeze would be considered proportionate to achieving a stated aim (as the wording in the act states). I don’t think there is much case law around this and possibly their lawyers were nervous of testing it.

Why do you think the current situation is unlawful though? The law permits organisations to provide single-sex services and events, but doesn’t mandate them to do so.

The proportionate means to a legitimate aim test doesn't apply - s195 of the EA2010 is a blanket provision to permit the exclusion of all males (GRC notwithstanding) from "gender-affected" sports for women, which cycling obviously is.
The positive action exception is additional and separate. You could also lawfully do LGB-only chess, disabled-only quad biking, etc.

I say that the current situation is unlawful discrimination because men who don't claim to be women are excluded - so it is unlawful sex discrimination against them because the special men are allowed. Also it might be unlawful discrimination against women of faith/belief, but I'm not sure about that. Basically because restricting it to women + MCW does not fit into any of the permitted exceptions, anyone who is excluded by the rules of participation is unlawfully excluded.

@BellaAmorosa I would imagine that “not claiming to be a woman” would not be considered a protected characteristic so the exclusion would be lawful. It is permitted to discriminate between one class of men and another, providing the characteristic you are discriminating on is not itself protected.

The indirect religious one is interesting but would have a very high bar. I don’t see it succeeding in much the same way as I don’t see a case against an employer serving pork in the canteen indirectly discriminating against observant employees succeeding. I think the courts are extremely wary of entertaining indirect religious discrimination cases as it could open a floodgate.

Sex is the protected characteristic.
The basic assumption of the EA is that you cannot exclude anyone based on disability, age, sex, sexual orientation etc etc. You know what the nine PCs are. The exceptions to this basic rule are given in the Act. They set out the circumstances in which you can discriminate based on the PCs and nobody can make a claim against you. So if your event doesn't meet the criteria of any of the exceptions, you could be liable for a discrimination claim.

Men who don't claim to be women are unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of Sex if they are not allowed to join Breeze rides. Because the other men - who do claim to be women - are allowed in, it's no longer a women-only ride which is lawful under s195 of the EA. By allowing some men to join in, the organisers lose the protection of s195.

Breeze rides which allow women and some men do not meet the criteria for the Positive Action exception which allows exclusive provision for people who share ONE protected characteristic (eg being of the female sex) and are disadvantaged or underrepresented in the activity/sport. (Which doesn't have to be a "gender-affected" activity or sport to fall within the Positive Action exception.)

So men who don't claim to be women - basically men in general - can't be excluded.

The men's claim for sex discrimination would be direct discrimination on the basis of sex. The rules say that.

There are three or four other non-direct forms of discrimination. One form is "indirect" but I can't remember the names of the others.
As I said before, I'm not sure that the following examples would be valid claims, but...

1. Women generally might be able to claim indirect discrimination on the basis of sex because women are more likely than men to be put off the ride if men (however they identify) are included.
2. Women of certain faiths who wanted to join in the Breeze rides might be able to claim one of the other types of discrimination on the basis of religion because having men in the women's group meant they could not be part of it.

The example you give about serving pork in a canteen would fail because nobody has to eat or touch the pork. Unless pork is the only option every meal, nobody is being discriminated against unfairly.

@IcakethereforeIam
This is a link to the WRN's overview of sport governing bodies' policies on "inclusion".
Last updated last Feb. Depressing reading if you ask me!

Recently good news from World Netball, no male athletes allowed at international level, but it's unclear whether England Netball will fall into line. Scotland Netball won't, Australia Netball won't, either.
To the end of my days, I will never understand why female administrators of a sport which was adapted from basketball especially for women are so keen to have women pushed out of it.

https://www.womensrights.network/sporting-body-policies

@BellaAmorosa thanks for that - it would certainly make for an interesting case.

My club, which is BC-affiliated, does run women-only rides and although it has never come up we would politely redirect to a mixed ride any male who tried to sign up to a women's ride. The barrier to entry in terms of fitness though is much higher than a Breeze ride so unfortunately club rides don't really cater for the women that Breeze is aimed at.

Ah, yes. That sounds eminently sensible!

Another reason why it's such a shame about Breeze not sticking to genuinely women-only. It puts off the less confident, less athletic women who are the ones it's supposed to be reaching!

@BellaAmorosa just having a thought about your indirect discrimination musings. Our club provides women-only rides, and mixed rides. Just as swimming pools often provide women-only sessions, and mixed sessions. I wonder if this could be considered indirect discrimination against men who's religious beliefs preclude them from mixing with unrelated women? I think that would be a better example than my slightly idiotic charcuterie-based work canteen one. The wording in sections 19 and 19A seem extraordinarily broad. I'm deep into IANAL territory here of course.