ETHICS IN SPORT : THE CANADIAN 'REVIEW' AND REBUTTAL
The rebuttal of Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport ‘Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review’ has been released.
Here is the original:
www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf
here is the rebuttal:
idrottsforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/devineetal221129.pdf
”When Ideology Trumps Science: A response to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s Review on Transwomen Athletes in the Female Category”
Cathy Devine, Emma Hilton, Leslie Howe, Miroslav Imbrišević, Tommy Lundberg, Jon Pike
Independent Scholar; University of Manchester; University of Saskatchewan; Open University (UK); Karolinska Institutet
29 November 2022
This is good reading for anyone who wants some background. Although it is a long read.
Some highlights:
"Descriptive accounts tell us how things are. Normative accounts tell us how things ought to be. To answer the question: ‘is it fair for TW to compete in female sport?’ we need both."
and
"For example, the anonymous authors claim evidence showing that male advantage is lost after one year of testosterone suppression, while the two papers cited in support of this statement explicitly argue that male advantage is retained well beyond one year of suppression. In fact, a recent cross-sectional study (Mobilia Alvares et al, 2022) measuring the perfor- mance of transwomen suggests that the advantage may be maintained after 14 years of testosterone suppression." (p. 4-5)
And
"The Range Argument rests on a misunderstanding of fairness in sport. The same misunderstanding lies behind the repeated claim that it is wrong to compare TW with male athletes (‘cis’ men), and that they should be com- pared with female athletes (‘cis’ women). The difference is between the two conceptions of fairness in play: the ‘Advantage’ conception and the ‘Range’ conception. The Advantage view justifies our current categorisation into male and female sport, and so justifies the existence of women’s sport. The Range view does not justify the existence of women’s sport: rather, it would prescribe a sports category defined on the basis of some metric or set of metrics as a substitute for women’s sport – for example, tall sport and short sport. On the Advantage account of fairness, what matters is male advan- tage, so the appropriate comparison is between Transwomen and males to see whether there is retained male advantage. On the Range view, what mat- ters is whether TW are in the range of female athletes, so this prescribes that the appropriate comparison is with female athletes. This leads to the result that some TW metrics are within the female range. But the same objection applies: what matters is the removal of male advantage, not whether some males are (for example) shorter than some females." p 5-6
and
"Sports categories do not exist to account for undertraining and poor fitness; there are plenty of opportunities at the recreational level for TW to join other equally under- trained and unfit males." p 7
Also on p 7
"The CCES write in the conclusion of their Executive Summary (9): ‘There is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression.’ If that really were the case, then the inclusion of TW would not be prudent. Suppose it turns out that they do have a sig- nificant advantage over women (which is actually the case), then, having included TW would have been unfair (and unsafe) for women. The prudential principle is this: if we lack conclusive evidence, but a change of policy could lead to bad outcomes, then we should not implement such a policy – until we have such evidence. The paper equivocates between three claims: that there is no evidence of advantage, that there is no advantage, and that there is advantage (but fairness must be traded off against inclusion). This is deeply confused, but we note here that absence of evidence does not support a policy of including possible male advantages in female sport."
then
"Furthermore, what is supposed to happen once we have achieved ‘rep- resentative levels’ of participation? Should we then resurrect the fairness criterion and exclude all TW? With zero participation, we would have to open the female category again for TW, and this ‘game’ (close, open, close, open) could go on forever." p 8
and
"The other view is to say that, because the sociocultural disadvantages faced by TW are ‘special’ and differ fundamentally from the disadvantages of other athletes, sports authorities should accede to the demand that they be included in female sport. On this line of argument, inclusion of TW in female sport is not fair, but is an act of solidarity with them. This justification, though, must attend to the opposite claim: that because inclusion is not fair, it amounts to an act of animosity towards female athletes." p 10
Page 12 & 13 bring in sex testing and how olympic women athletes were all in support of it but that it was ignored.
And how sexism is rife.
"Similarly, the voices of black elite female athletes from the Global South without these XY DSDs/VSDs, are ignored in the name of anti-racism, in fa- vour of advocacy for athletes who do have them. This completely disregards the black elite female athletes without these congenital conditions from the Global South, who are well represented in, for example, elite athletics, and depend on female categories and the World Athletics DSD regulations for their success"