So question for you. Who should have the authority to “judge” who can and can’t compete how they want? Should it be the individual or should there be some type of definition that defines sport? We have basic rules that govern sport in all aspects of sport and life. Is it not sometimes ok to draw a line of what is and isn’t allowed without it being deemed “non inclusive”.
I guess your in favor more of “no divisions”? Which we basically already know how that goes *most times; that’s the whole reason why women got their own division in the 1st place.
If this is the true intent is some real 4d chess. Yes, we are open and inclusive to all for the press release, but no actual pathway. Maybe I was wrong about the rule writers
I believe federations can have their own AG rules and this WT policy only would matter for WT specific events (so potentially any type of qualification). So theoretically USAT’s current policy is YOU get to decide your division. So in that case, I was wrong. BUT here’s the layout of your career:
(please correct me if i’m wrong on this but federations don’t have to follow all WT rules/regs for AG rules, entirely)
-Transgender female races in “female” category wins their elite “female” license by USAT
By doing so they then fall under WT elite license rules which then means:
-said transgender female “elite” now has to race in the open AG category for 3 years + 1 “probation” year + academic lab rat for 3 of those years.
-After 4 years probation period they finally get “full status” female elite.
*So my question now is every female going to have to “prove” that they are female and not an transgender female to obtain “full status” elite female status?
So technically they have a pathway if the federation doesn’t also follow the WT AG standards. If they do, then they basically don’t have a pathway cus said transgender female would be in the “open” category and so then a “female” would be trying to get essentially an “male” elite card within the open category. So if they then achieved that we’d have a “female” racing in the what is basically going to be 99.999999% male appearance “open” category.
Let me know if you got lost in all the confusion.
@RandMart it’s an important question to answer because that basicallly will define how much people can complain about fairness within today’s sports paraemeters. If you think “YOU” should always be the judge on what category you want to race in, “fairness” basically goes out the window (but that part gets sorta pushed aside for “inclusion” movement I think within sport parameters; it seems some would rather push inclusion, fair play be damned). Yet if you rule in a way that is within “fair play” parameters, it seems like your now “not inclusive” for some people. That’s the part I’ll debate when you talk about this being inclusive or not. If you want inclusion, then just go with zero categories, 1 free for all.
If you allow a sport to come up with a basic rule of what is and isn’t “fair” that’s more or less what sport is now that we’ve added divisions. So I guess we could go to a rule where there is no divisions which allows for all inclusion. Of course we know what would happen *most of the time; which is the very reason we have women’s division in the 1st place.
I think that concern for males being erased from triathlon will equate to as the kids call it these days “fake outrage”. But atleast they continue the case for us to be upset over something. Solved “fairness” and replace it with is this “sexism” (or is it reverse sexism?)?
You are not being called open. The division in which you race is.
Males are eligible for the Open Division. Which are Open to all.
The World Triathlon Female age group category is exclusively open to those assigned female at birth.
IRONMAN handles this differently. They have the men’s / women’s age group categories (and their own four year transitory guideline for trans women wishing to race in the women’s category). Then there’s the “open division,” which does not award worlds slots / considered “non competitive” and is open to all racers. It in part exists so trans women can race in the open division while in the transitory period and not be forced to race in men’s.
To @BDoughtie’s point, although I have not fully confirmed that pathway you described with regard to USAT, I am pretty confident you have it nailed down.
I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks how WTCS is going to handle these changes. I wonder if the broaadcasters will expaand on who qualifies in the “open” division, or just pass that hand grenade down the line until we actually have a transgender “female” being forced to race “with the boys” on the blue carpet.
Over/under on WT broadcasts incorrectly calling the open division “men”? 10 times through the season?
I have many many serious thoughts about this topic, but I voice them in other locations. I just want to reassure everyone I am taking this conversation seriously and, although we are only debating policy in a niche sport, I appreciate your attention to it. That said, this –
…Did no one else raise an eyebrow to watches being banned in the swim?
– I 100% read this as a return to Salem in the 17th century on first reading and thought, “banning witches?! this shit really has spiraled.”
Ok, so, back to many more serious matters. My hope is that a drop of levity is welcome and not seen as glib.
I was always told by swimmers that the reason watches aren’t allowed in pools is the chance of two wrists colliding is high and a watch makes the probability of injury even greater. I suspect this is part of the reason.
No big deal to put a watch on in T1 or T2 for that matter.
The long term effects of eliminating a male category is unknown, but possibly concerning.
I’m not overly pessimistic about the long term effects, however, because it’s clear most of the world is backing away from this precipice.
But should still be called out on it’s own terms. The cultural theorists that brought us many of the new terminologies to describe the diversity of experiences in the human condition understand that language shapes the past, present and future by modifying how we speak and think about things.
Maybe it’s the first step to Open gender the male gender division. Maybe no one knows what the next step or has any further plans, but there will surely be another step just as there always must be. Elimination of gender is a stated goal by some and should be recognized as such.
If we want to be inclusive, let people compete where they desire but if they don’t fit the biological requirements for placing/slots/awards etc, they get an NB (non binary if that’s the term we’re going with) next to their name. Or give them their own NB group.
No one is entitled to a 1st, 3rd or 26th place by nature of wanting to compete with the group they feel they fit into, but they should have a place to compete and enjoy the many positive benefits from sport.
Not everyone is at the same place in what is fair, what is modern, what is 14th century thinking. But people can slowly evolve.
But sometimes people pushing so hard to get somewhere fast, they “flip” the people that would eventually come around to their way of thinking and set them back 20 years and hurt their cause much more than they help.
Off the top of my head I can’t think of a country that just set itself back 20 years by trying to change things at a rate it couldn’t absorb but I’m sure there is one. If I think of one I’ll go to the LR.
Open and Women is a standard way to split results, at least in Europe. Unnecessary to have a Men’s category in addition to ‘open’ or even overall unfiltered results. In a fringe case where a woman makes the overall podium or top ten, I’d say fair play and take both prizes. No man is offended by being compared to the women and definitely not by the word Open.
Gender segregation is there for reasons that only go in one direction. It’s like you wouldn’t carve out ‘males only’ workout spaces or a white history month. Women should even be able to choose which category to race in, where practical for race organisers.
Are we only inclusive if we have it where the end user gets to decide what is or isn’t inclusive, which is what you’re defining as inclusion (you would always be chasing inclusion as society continues to evolve and change). In sport that’s very close to “cancel culture” vibe ish. Although I guess this is getting into LR territory. But it atleast seems they’ve tried to create guidelines to allow inclusion + fair play to mesh fairly well. Which within sport there has to be a balance. I would probably tip the scales within sport to what is fair play if your defining it specifically inclusion v fair play stance in as narrow as what we currently. IE it would be fair play and inclusive if we simply had a category for every possible intity but that sorta doesn’t work within real world sport realms. So at some point there is sorta a line in the sand these are the categories simply on practicality, could they do more, but what would be enough to then solve the “inclusion” issue. M/F/NB/M-F/F-M would a 5 category system cover their basis from cancel culture?
