Actually it is the end of this year
No matter. A HUGE win for all women triathletes in Britain
We will have female sports again

I think they got this correct

I know not everyone will agree but this seems the best available solution that maintains fairness in women’s sports while still allowing participation for everyone. The statement from British Triathlon with links to the consultation process and FAQs are here. https://www.britishtriathlon.org/...lon-federation_17073 I hope USA Triathlon follows suit soon.

I certainly hope USAT does *not* adopt this strategy whatsoever.

It reflects panic in the thought process, particularly for age group racing.

I go back to current medical procedure whereby the next generation of transgender women will likely have never gone through male puberty due to hormone blockers, etc given earlier. You've eliminated the primary argument against inclusion to date. So what then? Is it just because they are "other"? Which is offensive on its face.

Everybody gets up in arms about Lia Thomas and we derive shit policy because of it.

Yes, I'm cranky.

Also, a general reminder not to misgender people, please and thank you.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Yes sorry, I read off the GB Tri press release which has now been updated from 01/01/2023.

Still a very good and bold move. Waiting for the hate they will receive.

To be clear, I think the new FINA policy (not eligible if gone through male puberty) would have been acceptably fair as well but I can see that they may have foreseen complications in enforcement of that policy down the line and thus adopted this simpler one.

I strongly disagree that we “now derive shit policy” from the Lia Thomas situation. NCAA did a massive disservice to both Lia and all the women she competed against by ignoring biological realities and hoping it wouldn’t become a problem (something that USAT’s current policy is in danger of doing). Lia was certainly competing within the rules but I have to wonder whether it was worth it to her in the end given the extent of attention and criticism it drew. And the women she beat, which included several Olympic medalists, were clearly not competing in a fair situation. It’s all very well and good to say that restricting transwomen from the female category shouldn’t apply at the age group level because we’re all doing it for fun, etc. until you’re one of the women who trained at 5am for 6 months to make national/worlds/Kona/Boston/whatever and get beaten out by someone who has the immense physiological advantage of having gone through male puberty. Why is competing in an open category so unacceptable if you can compete in women’s attire the way you usually present yourself to the world? If the women’s field can be expected to welcome transgender women and not be concerned about unfair advantage, then why can’t the men’s field (who won’t have any competitive disadvantage) also be expected to be welcoming?

I think this is the best way forward; an open category that anyone can compete in and a category reserved for cis women.

There is no other fair way. Letting trans women compete in the women's category is unfair to the majority. Trans women will not be happy about this, but it cannot be fair - that is not equality. Having a third category would never work. The open category seems to be the only way.

You are right the key is fairness. How to maintain competitive sport at all levels for those born biologically female but be inclusive and representative.

I have always lived my life along the lines of be nice to me and I will be nice to you. I am of an age where homosexuality was a crime and you were outcast. Along the years we have changed laws and society to be more accepting and inclusive to the point it is no longer “a thing”. Hopefully the same will apply here.

USAT needs to change strategy though. Currently an athlete can change mid season and have all points count for chosen gender. I like British tri policy. It allows a cis woman to compete with males.. I like when underdogs win.

An interesting article with thoughts of scientists, with some mixed opinions (who know more than us I guess), if anyone is interested.

https://www.dw.com/...ite-sport/a-58583988

I'll believe that when I see it. Which won't come to fruition for at least a decade. What's your cunning plan for the next ten year then ?

It's relatively current and has been for longer than you probably realize.

As to existing ruleset: for age group athletes -- one year transition period. For elites - three. Err on the side of inclusion instead of exclusion.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Is there any chance that including the minority might be excluding (or discriminating against) the majority?

Well, I have to applaud this decision as it is the idea that I have suggested on this site and others. I would get away from gender terminology altogether though. I would have one "XX Division" and one "Open" for XY, XXY, XXYY, etc., and anyone else, including XX humans, who want to enter that division. They are keeping the term "Female" but it is for XX at-birth humans. Such policies, by the way, could also remedy the issue of DSD athletes competing in women's sports.

I do see some posts here suggesting that trans people (male to female) should be allowed to participate with females if they transition before puberty. I do have a trans person in my life (a high schooler) and I will tell you that it is very rare (and perhaps it should be) to be making significant, irreversible medical decisions regarding hormones and surgery prior to puberty. Doctors are reluctant to "go there" with kids as young as ten and twelve. Given how many kids are coming out as trans only to change their minds later (often "discovering" that they are gay/lesbian but not trans), I certainly wouldn't think it's ideal to make those decisions before puberty. Current medical guidelines do not support medical intervention as part of a transition before about 14 (hormones) with surgery coming later.

https://apnews.com/...a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb

Finally, to the posters who say that the policy is premature, or that this isn't that big of a problem "yet," I would ask why a governing body would wait for a disaster to address it? And who says how much of an issue is too much of an issue? Would one Olympic medalist be too many, or would there have to be ten? How many players on a basketball team can be trans before we admit there is a problem? Two? Three?

Lia Thomas alone could serve as an indication of where they don't want sports to go and how urgent it is that they act now to protect the integrity of sport for XX humans. There is no sense in waiting for something more outrageous to happen.

We're going to be including or excluding people no matter how the rules are set up, and podiums being zero sum, inclusion of one must be done by exclusion of another.

I agree with the idea of two categories - XX and X*, but don't really like the name "open" as it implies anything goes like allowing performance enhancing drugs. If participating in sport is the only thing that matters, then using only a single category of "everybody" is a good solution. Of course the downside to that is the top 3 will always be XY's.

Why not an XX, an XY and a non-XX/XY?

---

Not a coach. Not a FOP Tri/swimmer/biker/runner. Barely a MOP AGer.
But I'm learning and making progress.

I don’t know that I would oppose that idea, but the third group would have almost no competitors because they are so rare in the world. And if you divide them into a third group would you then further divide them into their specific chromosome group? (XXY is a group, XXXX is a group, and so on?)

Aside from there not being enough competitors, it is not what trans athletes want, they want to compete under their genders.

There is no answer that will please everyone. The only way is to follow the science.

USAT should in fact do Male, Female, Open. Advocating for putting children on puberty blockers is a disgusting thought. (Um, definitely Child abuse)

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I'm not advocating for anything in terms of the medical care for transgender individuals. I'm stating a fact with regard to when pubertal blockers are being used (as opposed to hormone therapy), per the Mayo Clinic. And that it's happening more frequently.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Perhaps an ST poll to determine majority opinion? It seems as if most are of the opinion to protect women's sports and agree with these new rules. At least that is the opinion of the women in my swim and cycle groups.

My opinion and that of my competitive wife, there should be Women and Open. If the birth certificate doesn't have an F, then you get included in Open. Sympathetic to those born with unique chromosomes but still have to compete Open.

As for the pre-puberty transition stuff, I hope the parents are investigated for munchausen syndrome and child abuse.

TY,
FP

I just got home from my 3.5 y/o daughter’s swim lesson. Two girls, two boys. All the same age. If you don’t believe that boys are physically different than girls, I invite you to come watch the next lesson with me. Just the difference in kicking ferocity will show even the most ardent biology denier.

I think you're replying to the wrong person. SheridanTris is very much in favor of the ruling.
Neither Trump nor Biden have been good for this country. Not sure how voting for either was meant to fix anything other than possibly deter the evil the other was supposed to bring. Seemed to have brought the same things.

But back to the point. I also don't believe you have empathy for the people this protects. Thomas was effectively a doper, the person's advantage against their peers was beyond significant, never should have been allowed to compete with women. You in your position on the board have told people they must "appropriately gender" someone, and often times forcefully. This board treats dopers one way. And that is not well.

Back to empathy. When my mother was in high school, before Title IX there was GAA. GAA governed girls sports if the high school's administrators even cared to fund girls sports. Often they did not. At the collegiate level was the AIAW, which governed women's sports. IFF the college even wanted to support women's sports.

But you're saying that we should just accept these people as they are, well, then we accept them as physiologically enhanced and treat them like we would dopers. They can still do the sport they just cannot compete in the sport. I guess that makes it exercise and not sport. But that is what the fairness argument is about. Protecting the sport for Women.

Proponents of Transgenders in Women's sport say Men should not or can't have opinion because it doesn't effect us. But it does. For many of us have sisters or daughters that if we just opened this up it would effect harshly. On the flip side, keeping Transgenders in gender/sex appropriate categories limits societal harm.

It is not that I don't have empathy with what they're going through, finding oneself is a hard endeavor. We all go through it. But what you're advocating in several posts is about putting g children on puberty blockers, even if only passively. That's definitely child abuse and it should be looked on as such. Children lie every day to their parents about every little thing, they can't figure out what they want or who they are. It is the responsibility of parents to provide structure and to educate them on what they actually are and not even remotely impart their ideology on them. It is legit impossible for a 7 yr old to be a transgender, and yet I hear people say that when I'm at the coffee shop.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.