The UCI has updated its rules concerning the participation of female transgender cyclists in international competition, by prohibiting women who transitioned after male puberty from competing in all women’s events on the UCI calendar.
The world governing body’s decision, which comes into force on 17 July, follows British Cycling’s announcement in May that it was introducing a new ‘Open’ category to run alongside the women’s category as part of an update to its Transgender and Non-Binary Participation policies.
> British Cycling updates transgender policy, introduces new “Open” category
According to the UCI’s new rules, the men’s category at International Masters events will also be renamed ‘Men/Open’, permitting the participation of any athlete who does not meet the conditions for participation in women’s events.
The updated policy, which was agreed upon at an extraordinary meeting of the UCI on 5 July, follows a seminar organised by the governing body on the “conditions for the participation of transgender athletes in women’s cycling events”, held on 21 June, which saw the “various stakeholders” in the debate present their respective positions.
According to a statement released by the UCI today, “From now on, female transgender athletes who have transitioned after (male) puberty will be prohibited from participating in women’s events on the UCI International Calendar – in all categories – in the various disciplines.”
The banning of female trans cyclists from women’s events comes just over a year after the UCI tightened its own rules on transgender participation by doubling the time that an athlete transitioning from male to female needed to wait before being able to compete.
Those rules, which came into effect on 1 July 2022, stipulated that athletes transitioning from male to female needed to have had testosterone levels below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months. Previously, the rules required testosterone levels below 5 nmol/L for 12 months.
> UCI tightens rules on transgender female cyclists by extending transition period to 24 months
However, the UCI has today stated that its management committee “has taken note of the state of scientific knowledge, which does not confirm that at least two years of gender-affirming hormone therapy with a target plasma testosterone concentration of 2.5 nmol/L is sufficient to completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men.”
The statement continued: “In addition, there is considerable inter-individual variability in response to gender-confirming hormone therapy, which makes it even more difficult to draw precise conclusions about the effects of such treatment.
“Given the current state of scientific knowledge, it is also impossible to rule out the possibility that biomechanical factors such as the shape and arrangement of the bones in their limbs may constitute a lasting advantage for female transgender athletes.”
Based on what it describes as these “remaining scientific uncertainties”, the UCI concluded that “it was necessary to take this measure to protect the female class and ensure equal opportunities”.
However, the governing body also emphasised that their stance on the matter “may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves”.
“With this in mind”, the statement continues, “the UCI will begin discussions with other members of the international sporting movement on the co-financing of a research programme aimed at studying changes in the physical performance of highly-trained athletes undergoing transitional hormone treatment.”
UCI President David Lappartient added: “First of all, the UCI would like to reaffirm that cycling – as a competitive sport, leisure activity or means of transport – is open to everyone, including transgender people, whom we encourage like everyone else to take part in our sport.
“I would also like to reaffirm that the UCI fully respects and supports the right of individuals to choose the sex that corresponds to their gender identity, whatever sex they were assigned at birth. However, it has a duty to guarantee, above all, equal opportunities for all competitors in cycling competitions.
“It is this imperative that led the UCI to conclude that, given the current state of scientific knowledge does not guarantee such equality of opportunity between transgender female athletes and cisgender female participants, it was not possible, as a precautionary measure, to authorise the former to race in the female categories.”
95 thoughts on “UCI bans transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from competing in international women’s races”
The correct decision.
The correct decision.
So: they’ve now got “Women”
So: they’ve now got “Women” and “Men/Open”?
Where “Men/Open” appears to be basically anyone who is not cis-female.
Now, I know this is like standing here with a match and a can of petrol but…: that’s pretty offensive to any trans-women, isn’t it?
Yeah, I’d say it probably is,
Yeah, I’d say it probably is, yes. And its probably unfair too.
However, you could also argue that trans women competing in the women’s category is equally offensive to many, if not the great majority, of women athletes. And again, potentially unfair.
I asked my generally very inclusive thinking, and sporty daughter her opinions on trans women competing in the women’s class and she was very dismissive. She said she would feel it very unfair and would put her off competing personally.
It’s a horrible stalemate… you can’t seemingly accommodate one group without compromising the other.
brooksby wrote:
How would you do this so as not to offend the fantastically easily offended? Anything but sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “trans women are identical to biological women” won’t go down well.
Theres womens and open. Thats fine.
And it’s not offensive to
And it’s not offensive to women, to include trans women in women’s racing?
Would you rather offend 0.25% or 50% of the population?
That’s effectively the choice here.
Not as offensive as allowing
Not as offensive as allowing trans women(Men) to compete against women.
brooksby wrote:
Is having an under-23 category offensive to 25 year olds? Is having a featherweight category in boxing offensive to heavier competitors?
We have categories in sport because certain attributes correspond very strongly with large differences in ability. I.e., these are performance based criteria and categories. We create the category so that a group of people can compete between themselves, so they can still enjoy competitive sport and (for youth) so they can fairly develop.
Strictly in terms of performance there is – for pretty much any sport based on strength, aerobic capacity – a huge performance difference that arises in puberty between those who go through male puberty and female puberty.
That’s simply a reality.
Hence we have sex based categories.
It’s not offensive, it’s simply the reality of how humans have evolved. If you subscribe to an ideology where some internal, highly-subjective, gender identity must be set above reality, and where anyone who points out that your ideology is at odds with reality and (according to you) akin to a murderer, then I put it to you that your ideology is unsound and needs refinement – and will ultimately be rejected by vast majority of people, at least in the current form you present it as.
And note, the vast vast majority of those who disagree with you on this have a lot of empathy for trans-people, and wish to support them as far as is reasonable.
But you’re losing the room when you start calling those people murderers and equivalent.
Reality still matters I’m afraid. Yes, we should respect people’s internal identities as much as possible. But to destroy women’s competitive sport for it is not reasonable.
Your ideology needs refinement to match what is reasonable.
Paul J wrote:
I consider those far more sensible categories than simply male and female as they are very easy to measure and aren’t disputed. Until we have a sex-o-meter that can give a numerical value to how male and female someone is, then there’s going to be people that feel excluded.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sex is trivial to reliably determine in 99.99% of people. And trans-people generally were in that 99.99% set (_not_ the 0.01% set) and so – assuming they are honest – it remains trivial to determine for them too. Just ask “Were you born with male or female genitalia”.
It’s not hard.
You are trying to conflate internal, subjective, (and often malleable or time-varying) “gender” identity – which is indeed difficult for anyone to determine and describe (often for the person themselves too) – with sex, which is easy to determine. You do so for ideological reasons, because your ideology _requires_ it. It’s not reality though.
For a similar reason, you try to conflate trans-identity with physiological DSD conditions.
Paul J wrote:
It’s clear that some men are more manly than others (c.f. Brian Blessed with John Inman) and similarly, there’s some women that are more feminine than others.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And yet it was still trivial to observe their sex at birth, in 99.99% of cases.
Paul J wrote:
It’s clear that some men are more manly than others (c.f. Brian Blessed with John Inman) and similarly, there’s some women that are more feminine than others.
— Paul J And yet it was still trivial to observe their sex at birth, in 99.99% of cases.— hawkinspeter
Where are you getting that 99.99% figure from?
According to Amnesty, that should be approx 98.3%: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are-5-myths-we-need-to-shatter/
I think you’re missing my point – there’s degrees of masculinity and femininity and that’s fairly obvious if you look around a group of people. Elite sports, though, are going to be selecting for unusual genetic traits (e.g. big lungs), so it would make sense to also have a competition for men who are up to 50% manly assuming that it’s an easy thing to measure and put a number on.
Paul J wrote:
Now, I know this is like standing here with a match and a can of petrol but…: that’s pretty offensive to any trans-women, isn’t it?
— Paul J Is having an under-23 category offensive to 25 year olds? Is having a featherweight category in boxing offensive to heavier competitors? We have categories in sport because certain attributes correspond very strongly with large differences in ability. I.e., these are performance based criteria and categories. We create the category so that a group of people can compete between themselves, so they can still enjoy competitive sport and (for youth) so they can fairly develop. Strictly in terms of performance there is – for pretty much any sport based on strength, aerobic capacity – a huge performance difference that arises in puberty between those who go through male puberty and female puberty. That’s simply a reality. Hence we have sex based categories. It’s not offensive, it’s simply the reality of how humans have evolved. If you subscribe to an ideology where some internal, highly-subjective, gender identity must be set above reality, and where anyone who points out that your ideology is at odds with reality and (according to you) akin to a murderer, then I put it to you that your ideology is unsound and needs refinement – and will ultimately be rejected by vast majority of people, at least in the current form you present it as. And note, the vast vast majority of those who disagree with you on this have a lot of empathy for trans-people, and wish to support them as far as is reasonable. But you’re losing the room when you start calling those people murderers and equivalent. Reality still matters I’m afraid. Yes, we should respect people’s internal identities as much as possible. But to destroy women’s competitive sport for it is not reasonable. Your ideology needs refinement to match what is reasonable.— brooksby
You know, I’m pretty sure I never said any of that…
brooksby wrote:
You didn’t say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins’ too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this “trans genocide!” language in their instagram post – as do many other TRAs.
Paul J wrote:
You know, I’m pretty sure I never said any of that…
— Paul J You didn’t say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins’ too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this “trans genocide!” language in their instagram post – as do many other TRAs.— brooksby
Just to be clear, I don’t think the term “trans genocide” makes much sense.
Paul J wrote:
You know, I’m pretty sure I never said any of that…
— Paul J You didn’t say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins’ too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this “trans genocide!” language in their instagram post – as do many other TRAs.— brooksby
Oh, Ok – I always wondered what it would feel like to be made out of straw 😉
Paul J wrote:
Absolutely
Fasten your seatbelts, keep
Fasten your seatbelts, keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle, the doors will close automatically. Here we go again…
The UCI has way overstepped
The UCI has way overstepped its remit here.
UCI President David Lappartient added: “First of all, the UCI would like to reaffirm that cycling – as a competitive sport, leisure activity or means of transport – is open to everyone, including transgender people, whom we encourage like everyone else to take part in our sport.
The UCI is the governing body for (the vast majority of) cycling as a competitive sport. It has nothing to say on cycling as a leisure activity or means of transport. No matter how much it might like to.
I’m thoroughly and
I’m thoroughly and unashamedly TERFy, but even I don’t have a problem with an influential cycling organization informing trans people that nobody is trying to discourage them from cycling in general. Indeed, seeing as the noisier elements claim that anyone telling them they can’t do exactly what they want is a threat to their very existence, it seems prudent for the UCI to clarify that they’re saying nothing beyond “men can’t compete in our women’s races”.
Also Team TERF here,
Also Team TERF here, currently enjoying (if that’s the right word) Veronica Ivy’s meltdown over the decision. I was glad to see the UCI add that bit too.
As to your earlier comment about linguistic hills to die on, while it’s too late to recall ‘transwoman’ (with or without space), it was clearly a mistake to cede the word ‘woman’ to those who aren’t. Oh well.
Veronica Ivy’s meltdowns are
Veronica Ivy’s meltdowns are always entertaining. It’s like she’s trying to demonstrate the Platonic form of “angry entitled man who’s livid that women won’t just let him do what he wants”.
It’s a conundrum, there’s no
It’s a conundrum, there’s no “fair” way to include trans women in competitive women’s cycling, deal with it? It’s a fact of life. Boohoo, life’s a b***h sometimes.
What do you do, be unfair to 50% of the population, just to be “nice” to 0.25? You can bet that if you allowed trans women to do so, they’d be winning more than 1:200 races, do the maths.
If you’re a trans woman, you are just that, a trans woman. Not a woman.
Ideally there’d be a trans women category to race in, but the sheer lack of numbers would preclude that possibility for anything less than a national championships, but even then, are you gonna get a field of say, 60 riders?
Nice transphobia, asshole.
Nice transphobia, asshole.
“but the sheer lack of numbers would preclude that possibility for anything less than a national championships, but even then, are you gonna get a field of say, 60 riders?” Then that makes it obvious that trans women will never dominate any sport ever, and any trans women who do compete are not at all likely to win anything just because they are trans. Same pattern with every sport.
.
.
Way to go! You got it! THAT’S how you change people’s minds on a subject.
.
Ah do you show civility to
Ah do you show civility towards racists, sexists, homophobes etc? They didn’t show any to trans people.
In case you’re new here…
In case you’re new here… Flintshire normally pops up to cheer on “controversial” commentors* , to mock those who decry the “right wing” or gleefully point out when non-conservative politicians and councillors do anti-cycling things. * “Controversial” in the “why don’t cyclists just dismount when a car appears / stop whining when someone almost hits them while breaking the law” category. On this site these are often serial returnees who at some point after that start getting personal and then posting racist / anti-semitic / homophobic or bizarre conspiracy stuff.
Flintshire also favours “safe spaces” within their posts, which they protect with punctuation bollards. I’m not informed whether they exclude anyone (except possibly “trendy lefties”)…
He’s like a modern day Oscar
He’s like a modern day Oscar Wilde.
Transphobia, terf, cis…
Transphobia, terf, cis…
You’ve got all these great invented words for basically sane people.
Keep looking for more ways to be outraged.
I know you are just trying to
I know you are just trying to wind people up but I don’t think anyone cares what you think really.
It’s a fantastic decision.
It’s a fantastic decision. Women have their sport back and not invaded by men wanting to be female.
Those men wanting to compete as trans are welcome in the open category.
I bet we don’t see any turn up
“I bet we don’t see any turn
“I bet we don’t see any turn up”
Right because you agree trans women after years of hormone therapy would on average perform worse than cis men.
A very sensible decision.
A very sensible decision.
It is unfair to allow trans women (men) to compete against women. It is always trans women, we never hear arguments about trans men competing against men. I wonder why that is?
No by your logic trans men
No by your logic trans men should compete with women.
So why don’t Trans women
So why don’t Trans women (that is the ones pretending to be men) compete against men then?
I said “by your logic” not by
I said “by your logic” not by mine.
Have the gender Nazis said
Have the gender Nazis said what they’ll do about intersex people?
Car Delenda Est wrote:
‘Intersex’ people are still male or female. (Same with Nazis, I guess.) Don’t believe me though – look up an actual developmental biologist like Emma Hilton. I bet she’d be happy to give you a proper explanation.
People with DSDs are still
People with DSDs are still otherwise usually physiologically consistent with the phenotypes of the sex they present as.
An interesting exception there would be Caster Semenya, who is physiologically male, but with a DSD, and whose birth cert is female and who identifies as a woman. Though, according to her headmaster, she presented as a boy in school – wore the boys uniform, played sports with boys, and was on the local boys football team (“as the only girl”).
You’d argue that Caster is
You’d argue that Caster is still presenting as a male outside of competition.
To me Caster looks very much
To me Caster looks very much like I’d expect for someone with XY chromosones, yes.
Also, to this day, my understanding is – outside of sport – Caster generally wears more (traditionally) masculine clothes. https://cdn.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019/05/01/818891-caster-semenya-afp.jpg
And another thing. What about
And another thing. What about men with an extra Y chromosome? Are they predisposed to criminal activity? That would explain all these lawless cyclists riding around, if they had an extra Y chromosome, which I bet they do
I remember having a
I remember having a conversation with Sara Trevelyan about this (look her up if you don’t recognise the name). She told me the theory about men with that extra Y chromosome was just that, a theory, and one that psychiatrists don’t agree on and that many have discounted. I’ll go with her expertise on the topic.
And another thing. Why do
And another thing. Why do people always defer to acknowledged experts in their field rather than people like me who just look things up on t’internet. Actually I was referring to the XYY man, a TV series from way back starring Stephen Yardley as a cat burglar trying to go straight but is unable to because of this extra chromosome. Quite far fetched really but quite entertaining at the time. So that’s that then
I remember that series
I remember that series vaguely.
Common sense prevails. About
Common sense prevails. About bloody time.
K
What is intersex?
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
¿Qué What is “K”? 😉
Don’t the Spanish use “k” as
Don’t the Spanish use “k” as an abbreviation of “que” or “qué” in their wasaps and texts?
YEEES.
YEEES! Erm… Sí
Ahem. I know nOOOthing.
brooksby wrote:
¿Qué What is “K”? 😉— Fignon's ghost
The letter K usually represents the voiceless velar plosive, or so says Wikipedia. It could’ve been a slip of the finger, K being “the finger” if you’re a touch typist…
I’ve started a forum thread, if anyone’s interested.
Oops, it’s gone (but not forgotten).
Crazy the amount of comments
Crazy the amount of comments by people who openly claim to be terfs. I guess complete trash humans can be found everywhere, and with any group of people you’ll find some ok with discrimination against some other group.
First of all, do people here think that any sport isn’t inherently “unfair”? There will be people more athletically inclined for some sports, and no matter how hard you might work you’ll never beat them. That’s not unfair?
And if trans people pose such a huge threat to the sport, you’d expect the few that are trans and competing to steamroll the rest of the competitors but that doesn’t happen.
I guess trans men should compete with women? Because that sure wouldn’t give them an advantage…
Sport is unfair, in that we
Sport is unfair, in that we completely agree, most of us are never going to be elite athletes and no amount of training will change that.
If most men were to enter an elite women’s sport event they wouldn’t “steamroll” the competition.
Does that mean we should scrap the two categories?
If not, why not?
If men are allowed in women’s
If men are allowed in women’s competitions, it wouldn’t be “most men” competing but the best at the sport so they would steamroll women’s sports. Presumably the trans women competing are also some of the best in the sport but they aren’t steamrolling.
The point is that a far
The point is that a far higher percentage of men than women are capable of competing at the level of elite women.
Compare 100m sprint times as an easy example.
Male amatuer athletes regularly post times far faster than the women’s world record. The fastest women’s 100m sprint in history (itself the subject of doping speculation) would have been good enough for 21st place (out of 23) in a recent NCAA college men’s sprint heat as an example.
Because preserved male physiology gives such a huge advantage a significantly higher percentage of transwomen will be capable of elite performance than cis women. Trans athletes might not win every single event but they will be significantly overrepresented and that in itself is unfair.
“They will be.” Transwomen
“They will be.” Transwomen competing is not new though. This is just fear mongering based on a scenario that hasn’t happened. What makes you think it will happen? Only 12 transwomen have olympic medals, out of thousands they could have won. That’s under representation, not over.
“Because preserved male physiology gives such a huge advantage a significantly higher percentage of transwomen will be capable of elite performance than cis women.” But again, UCI said it could not state for definite with the available evidence that post hormone therapy that trans women have an advantage, so it’s not a huge advantage even if they have one.
So your example of 100m dash, any trans women would show a reduction in time after the therapy, and out of that 23 the chances that there is at least one transgender person (assuming 1/100 are trans) is about 21%, 11% if only 0.5/100 are trans. Not massive percentages. And any transgender person isn’t guaranteed to win either. I don’t know why that’s the assumption as it hasn’t been borne out at all.
But keep in mind that any win isn’t evidence of anything as you’d expect some to win.
The point is that the women’s
The point is that the women’s (dubious) world record 100m time is so unremarkable in male sprinting that it doesn’t even get into the top twenty of an amateur college heat.
Any averagely successful amateur male sprinter would likely be world champion even with a reasonable deterioration in performance post transition.
That’s the point, the proportion of women who are physiologically capable of being a professional sprinter is much lower than the proportion of trans men who could do so.
12 transwomen have Olympic medals out of a global population of ? How many cis women have Olympic medals out of a population of roughly 4 bn? I seriously doubt that trans women are underrepresented.
No, it won’t. Because if it
No, it won’t. Because if it takes some average transwomen sprinter to beat the record they would have done it, but they haven’t. So you are again fearmongering based on nothing. How about, if they did start getting world records for a large proportion of sports then we say it is clearly a too big of an advantage? Until then there was no problem. They’ve been allowed to compete since 2004. It’s only because of the anti trans culture war bullshit than this has even become a problem. Again, you’d expect some transwomen to win. It’s ridiculous to think they would win nothing.
12 medals out of, something like 1500 to 1700 medals. So ~1%, which is the estimated percentage of transpeople. At at such low numbers you’d expect fluctuations.
You’re missing the point.
You’re missing the point.
In the entire history of women’s athletics there has been 1 woman capable of running that time. At one single amateur athletics meet there are about 50 men capable of it.
The proportion of men capable of that time is many orders of magnitude greater than the proportion of women who are.
A trans woman is therefore massively more likely to be capable of elite level performance than a cis woman just based on simple probability.
If we allow trans women to compete in women’s sports then, over time, every single world record will be held by a trans woman.
It’s not fear mongering if it’s already happened. We’ve already seen trans women start to win significant events despite the relatively tiny number of competitors, there’s no need to wait until trans women hold a “large proportion” of world records. The direction of travel is clear.
If you’re right and trans women somehow don’t have an advantage then we will see that clearly after the open category is in use for a few years. At that point we can revisit the debate. I am certain we won’t need to do that as the advantages are obvious.
No, I’m not missing the point
No, I’m not missing the point at all. Why are you looking at cis men vs cis women times and not transwomen vs cis women times? That’s the actual point of comparison. They were free to beat this record up till now. After they take 2 years of hormone therapy they won’t have that time they had before but it will down. Down enough that they won’t be able to win everything.
“The proportion of men capable of that time is many orders of magnitude greater than the proportion of women who are.” And the proportion of transwomen is two orders of magnitude smaller than cis men, and they won’t maintain their abilities.
“If we allow trans women to compete in women’s sports then, over time, every single world record will be held by a trans woman.” No that’s not clear to happen at all. Lia Thomas did not win every race in the NCAA division 1 championships, just 1. So cis women beat her in everything else. And it’s not like this is world championships or something.
“We’ve already seen trans women start to win significant events despite the relatively tiny number of competitors, ” No, we haven’t. There must be thousands of events every year. You’ve seen a few that have exploded. You see the same names repeated here again and again.
Since this only came about because of anti trans hysteria not and not really looking at any evidence, the only way it will go away is when the hysteria ends. And who knows when that will be considering how transphobic so many people are, including in these comments. But they are also pro forced birth so yeah…
Not all advantages disappear
Not all advantages disappear with hormone suppression.
Your lung capacity won’t diminish, your cardiac stroke volume won’t change, your height won’t change.
Taking height as the most obvious example, a man who is on the 50% centile, would be on the 99th centile for women.
Height conveys an obvious advantage in multiple sports, an advantage that would not.diminish at all with transition.
You cannot deny that.
Those retained advantages would make trans women statistically far more likely to be capable of elite performance .
Lia Thomas actually proves my point. Pre transition she was a talented amateur swimmer but nowhere near elite. Post transition she was an elite amatuer athlete. How is that possible if hormone suppression removes retained advantages?
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding a world of nuance (and a range of perspectives), but I thought the point was such things are ultimately irrelevant to the core point of trans-inclusion? That is there should be a completely new way of defining women and men – assuming “self-identification” – which presumably is the point? (There seem to be some who say the whole binary classification is basically harmful and assorting based on your genitals etc. is bizarre – I’m leaving that one aside just now).
But given that, nothing’s changed! You get to keep your men’s and women’s sport! It’s all women in the women’s race. There is just a slightly different selection of men and women in those categories than before.
Further – I guess this resolves “intersex” stuff as well as you can simply designate which group you’re in.
To the concern that “then people can just pick or choose!” the argument seems to be “but people largely don’t – they just are how they are. It’s your physical embodiment and/or the reaction of everyone else which causes the issue. It is not something you ‘choose’ like a set of trainers”.
Again I hope I’m not misrepresenting this? I’m still trying to get my head round these ideas. The full-strength version would appear to be invoking some pretty radical shifts compared to existing culture / social norms. It’s way beyond just some new ways of addressing people and “making it fairer” / “stopping hate”.
I can certainly agree there is a lot of prejudice, unfairness and indeed acceptance of violence inherent in our society as is. (More coming to light the more we look…) And that is predominantly bourne by decreasing sections of the population. Leaving aside other kinds of prejudice it’s first women, then people with different sexualities, people who don’t fit with gender categories etc.
While some disadvantages
While some disadvantages might appear, like having a larger skeletal frame with less muscle mass to support
You are comparing someone in 2019 to 2022. How do you know Thomas wouldn’t have improved also as a cis male? Phelps was breaking records until 2009.
Also, Lia Thomas’ times are not outrageous for a cis woman. If she were cis with those numbers no one would bat an eye. Most of the races cis women beat her. And her numbers are worse across the board compared to pre transition, with some very significant.
The argument here is that “it will destroy women’s sports” is completely not borne in reality and won’t be, despite your fear mongering. That’s the only argument people have. The other is this ridiculous idea of “fairness” which never existed in sports to begin with. Sports was never fair (and not just because of biology either), so why should trans women be barred from it now for that reason? It’s completely arbitrary and completely discriminatory and is an example of people wanting to cut of trans people from society.
Ultimately sports are not that important, certainly not more important than people feeling like they can live their life without fear, harrassment, and discrimination. Doing sports is something people do. When you start here, it won’t stop but more discrimination will happen, including at lower levels (which are even less “important”).
Lia Thomas was an also ran
Lia Thomas was an also ran pre transition.
She’s a champion post transition despite her times now being worse than when she was a man.
That’s been my entire point all along.
Elite times in female competition are entirely average in male competition, when entirely average male athletes transition they become champions. Lia Thomas is a case in point.
Men are statistically far more likely to be capable of elite level female performance than women are. The gap is so vast that even after taking in to account performance deterioration post transition trans women are still statistically far more likely to be capable of elite performance.
Work out what percentage Lia Thomas’ times increased by. Add a similar deterioration to male sprinting times and you will see that there are hundreds of amatuer male 100m sprinters easily capable of beating the women’s world record.
That is why people are concerned.
If we’re not concerned about fairness then why have separate male and female categories in the first place?
Those categories only exist because the gulf between male and female physiology is so vast.
Transwomen may close that physiological gap slightly post transition but the physiological gap between the average trans woman and the average cis woman is stil vast.
If we separate men and women based on average physiology why should we not separate trans and cis women on the same basis?
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes
That would certainly be the
That would certainly be the purest solution but the effect on female participation in sport would probably be quite disastrous.
Step 1 in arguing, from the
Step 1 in arguing, from the Left is to accuse anyone who has a different opinion as “trash human” etc.
Step 2 is to claim they are a racist, bully, etc.
Women were finally getting some decent advances in cycling, with better coverage, prize money, and I’d argue, overall respect.
How do you think they feel now with men dressed as women who come and take all that?
There are countless examples of trans men crushing women in cycling already. Look up Na Hwa-rin, Austin Killips, Tiffany Thomas, Rachel McKinnon. Surely you know of William Thomas in US college sport, was ranked 462 nd in the world, now calls himself Lia and is now ranked 1 st.
Hannah Arensman (ironically a real woman) recently quit as s result of a 47 year old Trans man
cheatingracing in cyclocross against her.It’s beyond me why anyone would hate women so much, just to signal their own virtue.
Step 1 in arguing, from the
Step 1 in arguing, from the Right is to accuse anyone who has a different opinion as “hating women” etc.
Step 2 is to claim they are a racist, bully, etc.
It’s beyond me why anyone would hate trans people so much, just to signal their own virtue.
I call transphobes what they
I call transphobes what they are, trash human. That’s not really arguing any point. Look at the people Rowling associates with. If you want garbage like Tim Pool and his acolytes speaking for you, I consider you trash.
“William Thomas in US college sport, was ranked 462 nd in the world, now calls himself Lia and is now ranked 1 st. ” If you are going to be giving examples then check your facts. Thomas is ranked 46th nationally. Yeah really dominating the sport. Considering that 1% of people are transgender (could be higher, if the world wasn’t as transphobic and people didn’t come out, the same as homosexuality/bisexuality is “growing”), you’d expect around 1 transgender athlete in the top 100.
“I guess complete trash
“I guess complete trash humans can be found everywhere”
That’s one way of describing men who so hate the idea of women having something of their own that they will literally go to court to try and ruin it, yes.
Generally, where transwomen competing in actual women’s events aren’t “steamrollering” the opposition it’s because they’re not very good or dedicated male athletes. Austen Killop, only took up cycling 3-4 years ago. Laurel Hubbard, 40-odd. Veronica Ivy, a great big lump. They beat women simply by virtue of their male physiology.
Where you get actual trained athletes, such as the US high school training programmes, male sprinters have declared themselves trans and do steamroller the opposition.
You talk of discrimination, but transwomen are biologically indistinguishable from all the other men. If they’re allowed in women’s events, it is discriminatory not to let other men compete too. And then women would never win: female world records in most sports are beatable by good amateur men.
But I can’t help but feel that, deep down, that’s really exactly what you want to see. It’s just old-fashioned misogyny, gussied up in an ill-fitting new frock. Trash, you might say.
“Where you get actual trained
“Where you get actual trained athletes, such as the US high school training programmes, male sprinters have declared themselves trans and do steamroller the opposition. ” Everyone who defends trans athletes is fine with hormone therapy being required that to diminish the advantage men have. Even the research UCI showed that after 2 years trans women approach cis women in their abilities and they said it is inconclusive whether there is an advantage at all.
“Generally, where transwomen competing in actual women’s events aren’t “steamrollering” the opposition it’s because they’re not very good or dedicated male athletes. Austen Killop, only took up cycling 3-4 years ago. Laurel Hubbard, 40-odd. Veronica Ivy, a great big lump. They beat women simply by virtue of their male physiology.” I can guarantee that I couldn’t beat any of these women even without hormone therapy that would reduce my abilities, so clearly it isn’t by sole virtue of that at all.
It’s preposterous to believe that people would undergo expensive, time consuming, body altering therapy for years just to go up a notch in women’s sports when they would probably end up being paid less anyway. Anyone who believes that is ridiculous.
Lycra Lout wrote:
They lose some of their performance, but not all. Trans-ID MAB end up in an “in-between” place. Lower performing than they’d be without the medication, but still with strength and aerobic advantages.
I have seen no credible research indicating all performance gains from male puberty are lost, and frankly it is physiologically impossible. E.g., they still have higher lean-muscle mass.
And note the one paper that claimed there was little performance difference any more, did so by /normalising/ certain metrics to lean-muscle mass. I.e. by *factoring out* and excluding the benefit there is to trans-MAB of having more muscle, per unit of body mass! (Also, it analysed only some attributes – ignoring others).
We don’t need to try divine their motivations. It matters not. What matters is the result. “But someone would never be /motivated/ to change gender to get an advantage!” is yet another diversionary argument – irrelevant. Regardless of motivation, they have an advantage.
But why is this advantage the
But why is this advantage the be-all and end-all? Some women will have higher lean-muscle mass normally. It just makes no sense to specifically single out transwomen when just looking at results from competitions shows their advantage is really not that great. You make it sound like the difference is as wide as an ocean when it really isn’t. If it were wide, the UCI could say it exists for definite. This is just some kind of mental block against trans women really, nothing more. The situation does not bear out the reaction.
And their motivations matter when a large number of people use the ridiculous argument that a bunch of men will suddenly claim to be transgender, undergo years of hormone therapy, just because they want to win in a women’s event. Stupid scenarios like this rely on the idiotic motivation argument.
Lycra Lout wrote:
I’ve explained why before, because male puberty is very very strongly correlated with a huge increase in strength and aerobic capacity (note that males already have an advantage pre-puberty over females). Because of that correlation AND because sex is very easy to reliably determine for 99.98% of people (inc. trans), we create a category for it.
Same thing for age and, in some sports, weight as categories.
Testosterone suppression and HRT does indeed reduce their performance. But they still retain an advantage, as you acknowledge: “their advantage is really not that great”, i.e. they still have an advantage.
And this is what the better data we have shows: Trans-MAB with treatment have reduced performance to other men, but retain an advantage over women. They are in their own group as a category really.
Because of that advantage, trans-MAB are heavily over-represented on podiums. They are a tiny fraction of the population, yet an unusual number of women’s sports podiums have trans-MAB standing on them. (to my anecdotal observations anyway). 1 trans-MAB on a podium is pushing down hundreds or (if at top elite sports level) many thousands of women, and it’s just not fair.
I have every sympathy for people living their lives trying to cope with GD. I support them in living their best life in day-to-day things.
But there is simply no human right for someone who was conferred with the performance benefits of male puberty, to use that to push women off podiums in sports categories intended for those without that benefit. It is _unfair_. And frankly it is highly _selfish_ for trans-MABs to do this. It is further ridiculous for people in the trans community to then turn around and call the general population who generally support trans-rights but disagree with that unfairness “terrorists” or “murderers” – and you are losing the room by doing that.
I said looking at the data
I said looking at the data the benefit can’t be that great, but this is at most. It may be nothing. The UCI don’t know. A slight potential benefit is not a reason to exclude them from competiting when people unfairly have slight potential benefits (or massive benefits) all the time. It does not justify the increased marginalisation and discrimination that trans people experience, which this is just another example of. And it won’t stop at the most elite sports either, let’s be real.
No. Right wing online
No. Right wing online transphobes like Tim Pool, Matt Walsh, Steve Crowder, Fox News, and so on, are mouth pieces for right wing politics and the Republican party especially. The same party that just overturned Roe vs Wade (via their partisan judges). Who is the real misogynist? Someone who doesn’t want distraction politics by scapegoating all of society’s problems on a discriminated minority or someone who is championing the removal of women’s rights?
“Right wing online
“Right wing online transphobes like Tim Pool, Matt Walsh, Steve Crowder, Fox News, and so on, are mouth pieces for right wing politics and the Republican party especially. The same party that just overturned Roe vs Wade (via their partisan judges). Who is the real misogynist?”
Both. People trying to deny women basic rights over their own bodies, and refusing to allow them meaningful and fair sporting competition just so some men can join in, are both behaving misogynistically. The repeal of Roe is a bigger deal, and I argue against that elsewhere. But, this is a UK-based cycling website and otherwise-sensible people I know seem keen to insist that some men should be allowed to compete in women-only cycling events, so I’m arguing against that here.
That I have some common ground here with some genuinely awful people (I don’t especially know the ones you cite) naturally makes me pause: I don’t like it. But, being awful doesn’t make everything you believe wrong. At the risk of going full-Godwin, I imagine that most Nazis believed the earth to be round. It remains round nonetheless, and likewise a man is not a woman however much he might wish he was. In most fields, your sex is (or should be) completely irrelevant. In sport, it is directly relevant and important.
And yet curiously transphobia
And yet curiously transphobia is much more prevelant on the right. Curious. It’s almost as if you are in the wrong here. An “are we the baddies?” moment is required.
The challenge here is that
The challenge here is that certain people don’t seem to be pushing for inclusion and equality, but simply to demonstrate that everyone hates trans people really…
Anyone not wholly / blindly trans supportive is branded as a TERF (or worse), actively participating in a ‘genocide against trans people’.
And the thing is, no matter how supportive people are, there are elements (vocal minority) who just keep moving the goalposts. The moment anyone raises a question, they are then instantly ‘terfed’.
So what’s happening now is that normal, generally reasonable people are waking up to the idea that they can’t ‘win’ this one, and rather than keep challenging their own thinking, opening their minds to more inclusive ideas, they are accepting their ‘anti-trans’ label and accordingly, any further discussion abruptly stops.
Throwing insults doesn’t work basically… if everyone is a terf, where’s the problem in being a terf?
Once again we see they true
Once again we see they true side of many on here. SMDH.
Misinformation ! Ban them !
Misinformation ! Ban them !
Thank god, or whomever, for
Thank god, or whomever, for truly informed people in the comments section; it’s been a long time coming.
The stories themselves are still invariably biased, e.g., the ludicrous headline here: ‘transgender female’ being mission creep from ‘trans woman’. And I still remember when one of their reporters said Austin Killips was “perfectly entitled” to compete with the women, which while indeed the case as per the rules at the time, was a telling turn of phrase. This movement has “perfectly entitled” written all over it.
I’ve no idea how many readers
I’ve no idea how many readers and commentors are top women athletes (trans or not). Or trans. Or even women. Nor would I expect people to declare themselves, for a bunch of perfectly good reasons.
I can’t say why but I suspect the vast majority posting on this issue are non-elite-athlete men (not trans). Perhaps a few might not have close trans friends?
I understand that something about this issue may affect all of us – or at least under the full extent of some of the social changes espoused by some people (which are pretty radical).
However – what about men doing their bit – our bit – to make sport, facilities and indeed spaces of all kinds (say… a forum?) a bit more friendly for women of any designation? Perhaps we could “share a bit more of the road” – regardless of whether you think that trans women should or shouldn’t immediately / at some point have access to them?
Actually, sod it. Just let
Actually, sod it. Just let the squirrels decide who gets to do what, where and when…
Better yet my rabbit, who
Better yet my rabbit, who while missing two formerly cherished parts of himself, remains male.
I’m also of the sex which generally produces small motile gametes, non-elite-athlete division, though I’d be happy to challenge any of you up a hill on my singlespeed. Have no problem sharing my bit of the road.
Sam Walker wrote:
Oh no! Those aren’t the squirrels we’re looking for! And we’ll have that Germain Greer round here if you start bringing the eunachs into it, and she always upsets someone.
Anyway we had enough “I like to call a spayed a spayed” comments last one of these
shouting matchesdebatesthreads.chrisonatrike wrote:
Greer got it right – “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.” Lately I think a lot more are realising it.
Thanks for the Father Ted (appropriately enough) video, I’d forgotten about that one. Gives me an excuse to show off Chompsky again. He’s one smart bunny.
Doing better than Chimpsky.
Doing better than Chimpsky there. Someone really should have read Mark Twain on the subject of teaching pigs to sing. OTOH it probably kept everyone busier than even this thread and some people got grants…
Sam Walker wrote:
Well I had to look that up. I just went there for the rabbits and the surreal yet downbeat comedy.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Did you fall into one of those rabbit hole thingies? (Bugs & Co. were my long ago introduction to the surreal.)
Nice chatting with you btw, though I suspect we wouldn’t agree on some stuff…
My usual haunt is over here, as you may have guessed. Stop by if you ever want to chat about Chimpsky, Twain (Mark or Shania), or anything surreal. It’s kind of my speciality.
Sam Walker wrote:
Thanks, likewise. This site’s frequented by cyclists, it’s like hearding
catsrabbits. Except when it’s the hive-mind of the cycling lobby obvs.As they said, they can’t
As they said, they can’t confirm either way that there is an advantage after 2 years, but, even if there were one, and it would be slight, I still don’t think this should warrant barring a group of people from being in a sport just for “equality.” No one is going to go through the effort of transitioning just to be better in a sport they will earn less in. No one. And there are already advantages that are given “unfairly” as I said below. Trans women weren’t trying to get an advantage by transitioning, so here we just have advantages obtained ultimately by chance. I’m sure they would have much rather be born cis woman.
Considering the low numbers of trans athletes there will ever be at one time and how small the advantage must be (at most) so that they won’t ever upend the sport, it really seems like the cost is much bigger than the gain.
Lycra Lout wrote:
They’re not barred from sport, that’s a lie. They are eligible to compete in an appropriate category.
Clarification: Lie is a strong word, but I know you’ve been involved in discussions here on the same BC policy before, and I am sure you know these policies do not stop anyone from competition.
I really don’t understand you
I really don’t understand you people. According to you, being in a competition where cis men can compete is not de facto banning them, but allowing trans women to compete in the women’s category completely destroys women’s sports, despite this not happening thus far. Some wins here and there is not dominating the sport.
Apparently the only way trans women can ever compete is if they won nothing, which is improbable at best.
Lycra Lout wrote:
So it’s about the winning. Trans-MAB won’t win competing against men, but they do win against women – ergo you say they should compete against women.
Never mind that they’re winning against women at rates *way out of proportion* to the number of trans-MAB in society. Never mind we know they have an advantage over women, due to male puberty – a performance advantage you have acknowledged exists in your very comments here.
Sorry, it is patently and obviously unfair to women. And the majority of society agrees.
Women did not choose their situation. Trans-MAB may not have chosen GD, but they _did_ have a choice in medical treatments. They _could_ /not/ take hormones and suffer _no performance loss_ and keep competing against other men without any questions hanging over anyone about the performance implications of medical interventions (which we generally do not allow in sports, where they confer a benefit).
Fortunately, we don’t have to
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about all this dispute below- UCI has banned ‘men-living-as-women’ from competing against real women in cycling events under its control. Presumably men-living-as-women will win the Open category even if there’s only one entrant, until the men-living-as-men start entering the Open events for some reason that I can only guess at.