You're on the wrong side of history. We've been through the woke insanity of everyone saying that trans women are women for fear of being labelled a bigot if we tell the truth and we are finally coming out the other side.

The fact that you believe pumping children, who can't be trusted to make any other serious decision in their life, to take life changing hormones at such a young age is the answer is truly concerning.

They may want to compete under their identified genders but the rules are in place for sex based equality. It has nothing to do with gender as a social construct.

I would love for transwomen to be able to compete in women’s sport, if it could genuinely be done fairly. But until the science says so, which would involve many more studies, it’s not an option.

The open category seems like the best option because;

1) I fear a third category would be seen as a “freak” category by some. Also there would not be enough competitors etc.

2) Just letting trans women into female sport because it’s the nice thing to do would destroy women’s sport. It would only take one trans athlete to dominate in women’s tennis or women’s triathlon for example, to ruin cis-woman's results and earning potential, and that can’t be undone at a later date. Discriminating against the majority to help the minority is not equality.


On a similar note, should leg amputees running on blades be allowed to compete against fully able bodied athletes, if the blades give a mechanical advantage, in order to be inclusive?

I'm just leaving this for whoever cares to read it. https://publications.aap.org/...ogincheck=redirected

According to your logic in re: leave it to biological sex. Following it to its end, it would mean that trans men must compete as women, testosterone treatment and all.

As much as we want this to be simple, it's not.

---

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

No they wouldn’t be allowed to compete. The is a rule with most sports that anyone taking testosterone will fail a drugs test. Only natural testosterone is permitted and it must be below a certain level. Athletics is doing a very good job in this area. Science based as well.

The WADA code has a specific carveout for transgender males, with a recommended 10-year TUE for testosterone.

Science based as well.

---

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

I think you are in denial that there are scientifically proven benefits.

Caitlyn Jenner agrees it is wrong and she is probably the most informed person on the subject.

Not quite. I feel you are cherry picking one thing I posted and missed my overall point about leaving it to biological sex being about fairness.

Having categories in sport is for the purpose of fairness. The fairness in question here is the numerous differences between male and female competitors that tend to advantage males. It really has nothing to do with gender as a social construct and how one chooses to identify.

Females should not be disadvantaged either through males competing in their category or through females taking hormones that would give them an unfair advantage competing in their category.

Now, the open category will create some level of unfairness for both trans men and trans women. But it will be a much fairer outcome than them participating in the female category. The alternative is an additional category for non-binary athletes which I am not opposed to but may not be practical for many events.

I think a third option for non-binary is a good one, as it solves for those who do not identify with either gender.

And we are aligned on categories being there for the purposes of fairness. I question whether or not the issue of fairness is as you describe or if it is simply due to the limiting of access to sport to only men as a form of discrimination, particularly pre-Title IX in the United States.

The example cried out again are the exceptional few, who are few and far between, and say that the *only* advantage that they could have is the fact that they are transgender women when we simply do not know that with any form of certainty. But this is also why I think, particularly in elite competition, the length of a transitory period should be longer than that of the average age grouper. Do I think Lia dominates NCAAs if she had transitioned as a freshman? No, I would gather her times would regress further given the complicated nature of hormone therapy for transgender women. As I said in the Lia dedicated thread, I think the NCAA screwed that one up, then further abdicated their responsibility by punting to the national governing bodies.

I also don't love putting transgender women in an open category as it essentially outs them.

I understand why people want to draw a line at biological sex. It "seems" simple. The truth is that it's somewhere in between (see Caster Semenya as one example of the dozen plus conditions that might be caught under that umbrella) -- and I err on the side of including all women and girls in their respective sports.

---

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

Replying to last...

Re: puberty blockers and hormone therapy, this might be of interest to some.

https://jessesingal.substack.com/...ted-seven-studies-to

I'm not sure why some consider it bad to have only a few competitors in a division. There is a Special Teams division for "disabled athletes". I've been to and have seen on TV/YT several events where there appears to be only one or two in this division, and yet we don't call for that division to be removed. And of course, the higher age groups often have only one or two, if any, in the group.

I have no problem if there's only one or two non-XX/XY competitor.

Just because someone wants to compete against a group with which they identify, doesn't mean the should be allowed to compete in that group. We say "how they identify" because how they identify is not what they are physically. Currently, no amount of drugs and surgery can change their DNA and their DNA is still XX or XY, or female or male, woman or man. Just trying to change the definition of words doesn't change the science.

One can still be inclusive and as fair as possible to those doing the "inclusion".

---

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

Just make three categories: Open (male), biological female, and transgender. Anyone can go in open, and men only can go in open. Women can be in biological female or Open, and transgendered in transgender or Open. As a man I'm happy with it and I'd get the least choice. Fair all around and people could get back into serious things such as training and forget about all this stuff. Problem solved :)

Of course not, at least at the elite level. Neither now nor a decade ago in Daegu and London.

A few disjointed thoughts after wading through all of this:

1. I am the 30th slowtwitch user to weigh in on this thread, and I *believe* I am the third female slowtwitch user to do so (I think I sussed out that Trizebbie and Island are female, apologies if I misgendered anybody in scanning the posts). So a thread purportedly about something that would impact women's sports is wholly dominated by...not women. Of course all humans can have input on this discussion and can have thoughts, but it is definitely illustrative that 90% of the discussion participants aren't female.

2. As I swam in college, *many* men approached me earlier this year to ask me what I thought about Lia Thomas. Most of these men were, shall I say, less accepting of the LGBTQIA+ community than I or most of my friends are. In several cases, there was a smug undertone of "I bet I caught you on something where you don't support trans women." My response was always "She followed the rules of the appropriate governing bodies and is fully free to compete and I support her right to do so. Those rules were more or less based on the Stockholm consensus from 2003 which was developed by some of the brightest minds in sports physiology and other relevant fields. It is possible that their findings should be reexamined with new data and research, but that reexamination should be done by other world renowned experts, and in the meantime, the current rules stand." Every single man who came to me with this question was surprised that this was my response and most of them tried to convince me that my viewpoint was wrong. Again, interesting and illustrative.

3. Personally, as a relatively competitive age group triathlete (regularly qualifying for world championship races and making the podium at local/regional races), I welcome all women, including trans women competing under the rules that govern their participation. Out of the literal thousands of women who have beaten me in sport over the years, probabilistically, a few of them were likely trans. Cool. Welcome to the very large club of women who are better than me in sport.

4. It is also extremely interesting to me that nobody ever mentions trans men in sport. As Ryan noted earlier, "I don't think anybody batted an eye when Chris Mosier transitioned." I happen to be involved with the sport of artistic (synchronized) swimming as a coach/official, and this is a sport where the women's field is MUCH more competitive, and a sport where those born as women have distinct physiological advantages in several aspects of competition, most notably, greater flexibility. I have literally not once heard anybody suggest that trans men will take over the events with male competitors.

It's ALMOST like this isn't about sport for most people, but is instead about policing women's bodies.

Only for individual sports. It doesn't solve the problem for team sports.

Similarly, it doesn't solve the team sport conundrum for those advocating a separate trans category and claiming low competitor numbers are of no consequence.

Personally, I don't care in which category trans women choose to compete in non-elite sporting competitions. If sport gets them out there leading fulfilling, active, healthy lives in a supportive environment, that's wonderful. For both them and more broadly for society.

However, elite (women's) sport is different. And I have no answer for where the demarcation between elite and non-elite exists.

OK, I changed my mind about posting in this thread to say I support this attitude from women who are directly affected


Forgot a word

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

If you have a Male, Female, and Open category you effectively have a Male, Female, and Male category.

Let's go back to dispassionate fundamentals. Men, on average, are stronger/faster, therefore have an advantage in sport. Looking at bell curves, the average man could lose to the average woman 49% of the time, if there's a 1% difference. At the pointy end of the bell curve, though, that 1% difference manifests as several orders of magnitude greater numbers of men than women. To put it another way, at the 51st percentile, you would expect to find 5000 men and 4900 women. At the 99th percentile, you would expect to find 99 men and 1 woman.

Secondly, research has shown unambiguously that lowering testosterone levels for 12 months retains male-puberty advantage. Further research shows that after 3 years testosterone suppression the advantage is further lowered, but still retained. Admittedly, this is difficult to study due to small sample sizes. (Tangent, one thing we can all agree on, hopefully, the IOC testosterone limit of 5.0nmol/l for biological females and 10.0nmol/l for transgender females is inexplicably ridiculous).

All of this to say, it should be viewed as a proven fact that male-to-female transgender athletes retain a significant advantage over their biologically female counterparts. Without acceptance of this point it is impossible to have a rational conversation.

I propose as a solution a mixed model. At the highest level of sports, let's say (as a starting point) anything with anti-doping controls, monetary prizes, or qualifying slots for higher competitions shall be competed only as biological sex, male or female. At any level lower than this, the gender stated by the athlete shall be assumed to be their gender. For example, a marathon where athletes are seeking OTQ times (2:18 for men, 2:36 for women), anyone can compete as any gender they wish. If an athlete registered as female, only after she runs under the standard is her biological sex able to be verified, just the same as anti-doping procedures.

you're right. it's almost like that. but it isn't. i think you should be free to do what you want and need to do with your own body. for example if an abortion is what you want or need, it's your choice. it's your choice who you vote for, where you work, and after shitting on women for millenia men ought to bend over backwards to make sure women have every opportunity to reach parity. a lot of people who think like i do are conflicted on this topic and the very last thing we want to do is police your body.

but your important point should be heeded. it doesn't matter what men think. the only affected parties are those who'll toe the starting line in that category: cis and transgendered women. you are a part of that affected cohort and so yours is an important voice.

probably somebody oughta take a survey of various affected women: cis and transgendered women who compete at a modest level; and separately those competing at a high level. i'd be interested in seeing what those 4 cohorts say on this.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Clearly your experiences, responses and opinions have significant merit. They are not universally shared. In these sensitive (aka "woke") times we live in there is a population who will respond as you have but believe and feel robbed of the outcome(s) they deserved. And as a male, I'm also a brother, husband and father who doesn't want to see opportunities such as scholarships, etc. taken from those we've supported and those who's rights have taken decades to secure (via title IX, etc.). Some of us males know how unfair it could be (and comparison data is solid) to compete against females. Sure, in certain areas of sport it doesn't matter, for example my local "fun" triathlon. Really good sportspersonship aside, going up the food chain to college, Olympic or pro levels it's plainly not fair; and, plenty of people "know" it.

We could have one and only one category for all sports, but then we'd have a complicated issue with regards to "T" limits. This whole thing is about solve one problem and create another (i.e. unintended consequences). To me it seems like things were working fairly well for the largest population for a while at least.

I now accept my sentence in jail for being politically incorrect.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

The fact that we don't hear many cis women talking about this probably tells us that a large portion of affected cis women are ambivalent to this. I know this to be the case for almost all of my female athlete friends - there is, of course, selection bias there, since I live in a large, liberal city on the east coast.

I view the rules for trans women entering the women's field the same way I view the construction of anti doping rules - I don't personally form an opinion on which various medications should be allowed in or out of competition. WADA has a lot of very smart experts who work on that, and I (generally) trust their judgement and scientific knowledge and therefore expect my fellow competitors to follow those rules as they exist at any given time. Similarly, consensus committees with detailed scientific knowledge should be charged with detailing the parameters for trans women competing in the women's field.

It is quite possible that the determination made almost 20 years ago merits some updating because we have much more data from more trans women athletes, and because the world has evolved in many ways. Purportedly, it was hypothesized that the advantage of male puberty was canceled out by the stress of being transgender in society and dealing with the extreme emotional and physical difficulties of transitioning. Is it possible that society has evolved such that these stresses are lower? That would be excellent new for transgender people - and it may also mean that the previous consensus should be reviewed *by experts through the lens of new data and research* - but not by a layperson. Again, all are allowed to have thoughts and opinions, but the consensus from the experts is what matters in practice.

A more cynical view is that anything that can be viewed as anti-LGTBQ is no longer morally acceptable to say. I know that in real-life I self-censor my thoughts on the issue. Look at the abuse that was thrown at Ross Tucker for arguing his research-backed and level-headed solutions (in a nutshell, allowing male-to-female athletes to compete in rugby puts biologically female rugby players at significantly increased risk of injury).

It's not a giant leap to think women in sport may feel unable to speak about the subject, except in terms known to be good for sponsorship/image.

Or...and this may be too radical for some...you could just believe what women say.

It's not about believing a single person, which of course is what you should do. It's about believing that the elevated voices are representative of the group as a whole. E.g. Amy Coney Barret says abortion is bad, and you should just believe what women say.

Unfortunately I couldn't track find a survey with a by-gender input breakdown, but the most recent major survey only shows about 30% in favor of trans athletes in sports. This does not align at all with the elevated viewpoints I hear from women, who overwhelmingly say that they support trans athletes no matter what. Even if 100% of men oppose that still leaves 40% of women opposing as well. Something is not lining up between anonymous surveys and public statements with your name behind them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...letes-female-sports/

From my perspective (female, mid-level athlete), the reason we don’t hear many women’s voices on this issue is because the backlash is frequently so ferocious when we speak against transwomen competing in women’s sports. Any statement less than ardent support in favor pretty much results in being called transphobic, hateful, and a TERF. Among my female athlete friends (also in a fairly liberal East Coast city), virtually everyone I know (predominantly but not exclusively liberal) doesn’t think transwomen should compete in women’s sports for all the obvious reasons to do with physiology that have been stated previously in this thread. Some variance on what level this should be at at, e.g. elite v amateur. Definitely not ambivalent though. In my circle, we’re all for everyone living their lives however they want, using whatever bathroom, pronouns, etc. but feel very hesitant to express our views on the issue of transwomen in sports publicly. TBH if I were posting here under my own name I probably wouldn’t have said anything for fear. I do appreciate that this thread has got five pages deep with the exchange of strongly held views but hasn’t descended (yet) into name calling and attacking.

I'm writing just to encourage people to remember one thing. We all agree that access to sports is very important for many reasons. If we are going to exclude trans and some intersex women (from hereon, I'll abbreviate to trans women, but remember that this is what I mean) from the cis women's sporting category, we need to offer an alternative. And it needs to be more than an afterthought.

If all we are doing is converting the cis men's category to open and we do nothing else, that's an afterthought and that's not acceptable. We need to be willing to think about how to evolve the sporting category system. Maybe the eventual solution is cis men, cis women, trans women (plus trans men in the same category depending on the science??). Maybe the interim solution is let trans women (probably <1% of the total population) compete with cis women but monitor the situation as it evolves. Yes, if the cis women's category gets disproportionately dominated by trans women, that is a potential problem, and we would then want to start evolving towards a separate sporting category.

Basically, I want to see people be kind and be creative.

Side note: one of the ST editors mentioned a future where all/most trans women may not have gone through puberty as male. I don't know what the science says, but I do expect that a) even in an accepting environment, we don't know that all persons will decide to transition at the same time ... I personally would like to lean towards inclusivity, but we would have to consider this, and b) the sociopolitical environment is more accepting now, but it isn't homogeneously so and a bunch of people are trying to make it less accepting, and c) if you are one of the people trying to make it less accepting I will fight you.

FWIW, cis/het male, so no personal stake. Related to that, politically, any decision on sporting categories should (normative statement) be primarily made by cis and trans women.