Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

magicbastarder

lifted from stickybottle:

A biological male who identifies as female has won a major women’s race in the US in what is believed to be a first for cycling.

Jillian Bearden was born a male but identifies as a transgender woman and has not had sex reassignment surgery.

However, while still a biological man she was able to take part in the event under new rules ushered in by an International Olympic Council decision.

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/biological-male-dominates-womens-cycling-event-in-historic-first/

Lumen

More here:
https://303cycling.com/transgender-cyclist-story-jillian-bearden/

It's amazing that she is (presumably) taking performance-reducing drugs (PRDs?) to control hormone levels. That has to be a first in cycling :pac:

robyntmorton

Fair play to her. It takes a lot of physical and mental power and stamina to go through something like that and maintain her ability.

(That said, I don't like the headline - but that's not your fault MB)

fat bloke

It's very very hard to know what to to think about these sporting developments. Fair play to her, brilliant, well done, go equality etc. But I also can't imagine what it's like for the other female competitors. Especially that word "dominates" in the headline. Hyperbole or no, that's not what you want to be seeing or hearing.

loyatemu

Lumen wrote: »

More here:
https://303cycling.com/transgender-cyclist-story-jillian-bearden/

It's amazing that she is (presumably) taking performance-reducing drugs (PRDs?) to control hormone levels. That has to be a first in cycling :pac:

Interesting the IOC rules for transgender athletes appear to be similar to those recently thrown out by CAS for inter-gender athletes.

magicbastarder

robyntmorton wrote: »

(That said, I don't like the headline - but that's not your fault MB)

i deliberately did not interfere with it lest it be seen as a comment on it.
there's an interesting discussion here on related issues, obviously does not cover all points:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competition

Arrow in the Knee

Sticken my neck out here but he shouldn't be allowed to enter any female sporting event.

robyntmorton

magicbastarder wrote: »

i deliberately did not interfere with it lest it be seen as a comment on it.
there's an interesting discussion here on related issues, obviously does not cover all points:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competition

It's an interesting read, but possibly a little harsh on Semanya. Her natural high testosterone level is in no way her fault.

I also appreciate that you took the headline verbatim from Sticky Bottle. It can be an emotive subject, and changing it or not can be seen as favouritism one way or another.

robyntmorton

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

Sticken my neck out here but he shouldn't be allowed to enter any female sporting event.

2 hours, 23 minutes. I thought it would take less time for the first of these comments.

eeguy

robyntmorton wrote: »

2 hours, 23 minutes. I thought it would take less time for the first of these comments.

In fairness, men have much better times than women in nearly every physical sport.
We're biologically stronger and faster.

So it's no surprise that she won.
It's really not a level playing field, if a person who is biologically still a man is allowed to compete in female sports.

This is a great moment for transgender people in sport, but is it a great moment for women in sport?

robyntmorton

eeguy wrote: »

In fairness, men have much better times than women in nearly every physical sport.
We're biologically stronger and faster.

So it's no surprise that she won.
It's really not a level playing field, if a person who is biologically still a man is allowed to compete in female sports.

This is a great moment for transgender people in sport, but is it a great moment for women in sport?

In all fairness, she was 25 minutes behind the men's winner, and 1 second ahead of women's second place, Anna Sparks, with both 22 minutes ahead of third. If it's not a level playing field, what does that say about Anna?

Provided she played by the rules, I can only say fair play to her.

magicbastarder

robyntmorton wrote: »

In all fairness, she was 25 minutes behind the men's winner, and 1 second ahead of women's second place, Anna Sparks, with both 22 minutes ahead of third. If it's not a level playing field, what does that say about Anna??

another way of looking at it is that (assumption alert) the only person undergoing gender reassignment who entered the race managed to win it.
that's only a single datum point, but it's a telling one re the argument on a level playing field.

NoviGlitzko

This is so ridiculous. How is this transgender woman allowed to race? The other female competitors are at a huge disadvantage before they even begin. And Robyn, if you were one of those women racing after dedicating so much of your time, pain, money, & effort, only to be beaten by someone who has testosterone levels as a man? You might as well go head to head against a woman doped to the nines for instance, why should this be any different. Sucks on the person but it's better than dragging the whole sport down with it.

Inquitus

I am not an expert on the effects of hormone therapy etc. on people who identify as transgender, but given Males are biologically stronger and faster than women it does seem somewhat unfair this lady to be allowed to compete on a level playing field with women.

robyntmorton

magicbastarder wrote: »

another way of looking at it is that (assumption alert) the only person undergoing gender reassignment who entered the race managed to win it.
that's only a single datum point, but it's a telling one re the argument on a level playing field.

Unfortunately this argument was always going to come up the moment a transgender individual won something in the category of their gender. Someone was always going to have to test the waters, and it so happens to be Jillian.

As I said earlier, as long as she was in compliance with the required rules, I can't see a problem with it. These rules may later be changed as more data becomes available, but until then, she can only work with the ruleset as it is at the time.

Enduro

robyntmorton wrote: »

Unfortunately this argument was always going to come up the moment a transgender individual won something in the category of their gender. Someone was always going to have to test the waters, and it so happens to be Jillian.

As I said earlier, as long as she was in compliance with the required rules, I can't see a problem with it. These rules may later be changed as more data becomes available, but until then, she can only work with the ruleset as it is at the time.

I agree with your point on this specific instance... she broke no rules.

However, I think this is the single biggest threat to women's sport, particularly proffessional sports (Even more than PEDs, IMO). The rules need to be tightened up considerably on who is allowed compete in the "Female" category (possibly combine this with renaming the "Male" category to "Open" and allowing everyone to compete in that category).

Lumen

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

if you were one of those women racing after dedicating so much of your time, pain, money, & effort, only to be beaten by someone who has testosterone levels as a man?

Read the link I posted.

Male to female: Those making this transition will take testosterone blockers (anti-androgens) to lower their testosterone levels. They also take estrogen and progesterone, which decreases muscle mass and changes fat distribution (1).

Normal Testosterone levels (2):
Men: 9–38 nmol/L
Women: 0.52–2.4 nmol/L

magicbastarder

robyntmorton wrote: »

It's an interesting read, but possibly a little harsh on Semanya. Her natural high testosterone level is in no way her fault.

i don't think the author or gladwell were trying to attribute 'fault' to semenya, to be fair.

velo.2010

Providing her testosterone levels are within the normal female range then there is no real issue given her gender identification. However, if they are in any way elevated then she has an unfair advantage over the other athletes. How can that be continuously measured? I don't know.

In athletics, the IAAF have dropped the rule that hyperandrongenism must be treated with suppressive drugs. This ruling resulted in three athletes with HA dominating the 800m at the Rio Olympics and the 800m races this season.

If those rules banning suppression drugs apply to intersex/hyperandrongenism athletes, then what is to stop a non-op transgender person looking for the same standards applying to them? In theory, ordering someone to take suppressive medication to conform might be seen as a human rights violation just as the old rule of having to have the realignment surgery. That opens up a huge problematic area. Essentially, you could have those who identify as female, running/competing with all the male androgenic advantages against women with no legal obstacle.

Trojan

Had to happen eventually. I'm not sure where I am on this yet. Strikes me as similar to the blade prosthetics situation.

stecleary

My issue with this is it wont be long before the ringers come into play, Remember this is sport and some people will do what ever it takes to be world famous.
I nearly think there should be a trans cat rather than mixing.

magicbastarder

velo.2010 wrote: »

Providing her testosterone levels are within the normal female range then there is no real issue given her gender identification. However, if they are in any way elevated then she has an unfair advantage over the other athletes. How can that be continuously measured? I don't know.

the question is possibly also whether testosterone levels (and some of the other markers currently measured) are the be-all and end-all of the parameters which should be measured. i suspect as regards impact on sporting prowess, we're not looking at a mature field of research, are we (genuine question)?

also, as she grew up as a biological male (and assuming she went through male puberty - not sure if this is the case) - her body was granted with male characteristics before she transitioned. which would be an advantage someone born as biologically female would not have enjoyed.

putting psychological matters to one side, this can be seen/will be portrayed (depending on your viewpoint) as someone who is physiologically a man who is taking some drugs to reduce testosterone levels to allow her to compete in female sports. and there's a superficially easy argument to make that identity and psychology should be left at the door when it comes to measures of physical prowess.

FWIW, i'm still trying to figure out where i stand on this.

ford2600

stecleary wrote: »

My issue with this is it wont be long before the ringers come into play, Remember this is sport and some people will do what ever it takes to be world famous.
I nearly think there should be a trans cat rather than mixing.

0.6 percent of adults (approximately) are trans gender, going to be a pretty small category.

Really hard to be fair to everybody here, I'd hate to be the one making the decision.

On transgender individuals, there has to be empathy for people who struggle with a part of their identity the vast majority take for granted. It seems to take a significant toll on mental health; quote below taken from a recent William Reville article on a US study on sexual identity (pretty controversial study but this quote is interesting).

"Non-heterosexuals are at increased risk for various adverse health and mental-health outcomes. For example, such people are at twice the risk of depression and 2½ times the risk of suicide compared with heterosexuals. Lifetime suicide attempts by transgender individuals is estimated to be 41 per cent of the US transgender population compared with 5 per cent of the overall population."

I have nothing but sympathy for a clean elite lady finishing second to someone with a huge biological advantage over her and the rest of field.

fat bloke

I think maybe it's easy for people to welcome it at first as a victory for equality and a recognition of transgender people and athletes, but I suppose if transgender athletes went on to consistently dominate the sports and the winners'/medal rostrums, I dunno if people (fans and competitors alike) would be so welcoming.

Interesting times ahead for sure.

quozl

There's an excellent article on this issue, but in atheltics rather than cycling, on the Science of Sport blog http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

Harper is unique in the sense that she speaks on this incredibly complex topic from all three aspects – science/physiology, performance and as a transgender person herself. She has been, and is, part of the various panels and groups that are exploring the issue, and so offers insights with authority and experience on what is likely to be one of Rio’s, if not sport’s, greatest ever controversies.

This has been a bigger issue for discussion in athletics as all 3 of the 800m medalists from the Rio Olympics are believed to be transgender. 2 are a matter of public record and Francine Niyonsaba is widely believed to be ,but correctly (IMO) she does not need to reveal this. Additionally, Caster Semenya's form has exactly mirrored the changing restrictions applied to testosterone levels. World beater, distant also-ran and then back to world beater as the testosterone supression requirements change.

There have also been elite female runners (Jenny Simpson, Brenda Martinez, a british athlete I can't currently recall, for example) commenting on the issue, on both sides, though there seems to be agreement that under the current system transgender women have a huge advantage in certain events.

I don't want to see many womens' events become only winnable by transgender atheletes. I also don't want to see transgender women denied access to compete under their gender.

I think it is an extremely difficult situation. I figure that we'll figure it out over the next decade or so, but for the moment certain events are going to be very very predicatable. Like the Rio 800m was.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

Enduro wrote:

However, I think this is the single biggest threat to women's sport, particularly proffessional sports (Even more than PEDs, IMO). The rules need to be tightened up considerably on who is allowed compete in the "Female" category (possibly combine this with renaming the "Male" category to "Open" and allowing everyone to compete in that category).

That's the most sense I've ever heard about the issue. Instead of it being "men" vs "women and others" they should have to compete against the more challenging category because transgender people have a "best of both worlds" situation. I don't think we'll ever see a headline "Transgender Woman Smashes in the Pathetic Bloodied Corpses of Male Competitors" or whatever the opposite headline would be. It's hard to know how they'd phrase it, because the only history of oppression women really have is of being the oppressed. Looks like business as usual there.

cruizer101

It really is very complicated, gender used to be black and white but now is getting blurred to the point of can we define females as a distinct separate category. They were separated because men had a clearly defined physical advantage however now that is getting blurred what about other physical advantages.

Michael Phelps for example has a body shape advantageous to swimming so should all people with that similar body type be in one category and others in their own category.

magicbastarder

cruizer101 wrote: »

Michael Phelps for example has a body shape advantageous to swimming so should all people with that similar body type be in one category and others in their own category.

that's not something you can definitively quantify; i suppose one measure which is used to distinguish competitors is weight, for disciplines such as boxing.

maybe we should do the same for other physical characteristics - basketball for people under 6 foot tall.

terrydel

velo.2010 wrote: »

Providing her testosterone levels are within the normal female range then there is no real issue given her gender identification. However, if they are in any way elevated then she has an unfair advantage over the other athletes. How can that be continuously measured? I don't know.

In athletics, the IAAF have dropped the rule that hyperandrongenism must be treated with suppressive drugs. This ruling resulted in three athletes with HA dominating the 800m at the Rio Olympics and the 800m races this season.

If those rules banning suppression drugs apply to intersex/hyperandrongenism athletes, then what is to stop a non-op transgender person looking for the same standards applying to them? In theory, ordering someone to take suppressive medication to conform might be seen as a human rights violation just as the old rule of having to have the realignment surgery. That opens up a huge problematic area. Essentially, you could have those who identify as female, running/competing with all the male androgenic advantages against women with no legal obstacle.

But why should identification trump everything else in this instance. At this present time, 'she' is by the only criteria available to go on, a man. I can identify as 6'3'' but it doesnt make it so. Until she has successfully undergone whatever is necessary to be biologically be classified as a woman, she should not be competing in women's events. No different to any individual sport where one person or more is cheating and the rest arent, imho.

velo.2010

cruizer101 wrote: »

Michael Phelps for example has a body shape advantageous to swimming so should all people with that similar body type be in one category and others in their own category.

No. That's the straw man argument Ross Tucker was dismissing over the course of the Olympics. Many commentators ( like RTE's Joanne Cantwell) were comparing him with Semenya and why we weren't asking questions of him. The difference is... Phelps has genetic advantages regardless of his testosterone levels. You could also find a female swimmer with double-jointed ankles, lower centre of gravity etc. Phelps just happens to have the whole package (I'm sure there's an unintended pun there). Testosterone gives someone the male characteristics such as extra strength/muscle mass etc.

My earlier point was why should one group with high Test levels be made to take hormone suppressing drugs (the cyclist) and another not have to take anything (Semenya). The semantic argument is that the cyclist is fully male and has to take something, while Semenya is 'intersex' and might not have had all the athletic benefits of being 'fully male'.

Regardless, Semenya is superior to her fellow athletes while she is not taking suppressive drugs. When she did, her times fell away and she was not competitive. Ross Tucker believes that suppression, while not natural, is the most reasonable and fairest response. But how do you manage that? Just enough suppression to make someone top three or pack filler in races?

It's so complicated at the moment. I'd expect lots of legal/moral wrangles in the future. We haven't really heard the voices of fellow female competitors apart from what they feel they can only say in moderation to the media. I wouldn't mind seeing a forum and hearing the views of more female competitors on the issue - of course with due regard to the women who are transitioning/intersex.

magicbastarder

one question which i'm curious about - how come this hasn't happened before now? surely there would have been other women with the same physical characteristics before now who would have completely dominated their sport?

fat bloke

The testosterone limits / inhibitors are oddly reminiscent of the 50% haematocrit levels introduced in cycling, whereupon it became a target. If transgenders are required to peg back to a given limit, then should other athletes be allowed to boost their testosterone up to that limit?

robyntmorton

Firstly, I would have to say that yes, this is a victory for equality. Someone had to be the first, it happened to be Jillian Bearden. Though for those saying that it opens the floodgates for womens sports to be dominated by transgender athletes, remember that it has been pointed out by Ford2600, that only 0.6% of the general population identify as transgender. That's 6 in 1000 people. The percentage of elite athletes who identify as transgender is going to be much lower, before we even consider male to female and female to male split (note, all the issues seem to be around male to female, not the other way round). Even if we work with the figure of 6 in 1000, that says that in those 1,000, 994 are cisgender female. By sheer numbers alone, the odds are in their favour.

On the subject of hormones. Lumen has already posted a link to a post which contains the rules to be followed, quoted here for ease of reference:

303Cycling wrote:

Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions of the IOC.

2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.

2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).

2.3. The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months.

This is not a simple case of declare gender as female, take a bunch of anti androgens to dump the testosterone level, go on and crush the field. There is a lot more involved. Looking at 2.2, there is a MINIMUM of 12 months of low testosterone levels required, with the possibility on a case by case basis for longer. The body will have adapted quite an amount over this time, even from a normal male baseline. The further requirements on minimum of 4 years of solely female eligibility and the chance of a 12 month ban for not being very diligent in compliance means that you would need to be very serious about what you are doing to consider going through with this. To try and jump back and forth between categories would be folly, as would telling transgender athletes that they must compete as male. Doing so, psychologically would be very damaging - you are effectively denying their gender as legally declared - and physically would leave them as perpetual also rans - the decreased muscle mass and testosterone levels would leave them with no ability to compete against cisgender male athletes.

The case of a transgender athlete competing with an altered base of male physiology has also been brought up. Unfortunately, there is an absolute lack of data with which to base observations. This is a rare occurrence. Until more data is available, it is difficult to give a valid answer as to how much of a difference it makes. That also makes the process of setting rules very difficult. We can't currently say whether or not the rules, as currently set, are correct - but as they stand - the rules are the rules. If new data says that the rules should be changed one way or another, so be it, but you can't retroactively change results to suit a new set of rules.

Finally, the headline, as used by Sticky Bottle, is a travesty, used for the specific purpose of gaining clicks. It implies that Jillian Bearden is an imposter, a fraud - essentially a cheater. It is not her fault that she is who she is. To the best of our knowledge she has complied with all the required rules to compete as female (though we may never gain that knowledge - her medical records are rightly confidential between herself, her medical team, and where necessary, the relevant governing body), and to imply that she did what she did solely to "dominate" a womens cycling event is insulting, both to Bearden, and to transgender people as a whole.

MB Lacey

magicbastarder wrote: »

one question which i'm curious about - how come this hasn't happened before now? surely there would have been other women with the same physical characteristics before now who would have completely dominated their sport?

It has happened, but it was within the world of American MMA so easily missed. If you look up Fallon Fox you'll see the big fall out over her dominance of the female MMA world. There was a film called Game Face in the Gaze film festival last year documenting her story, very interesting.

It is a complex issue.
Will there be a time when competition categories will no longer be broken down into the two basic fields of female/male?
Will competitors be placed into certain competing categories based on their similar biological make up, so being fe/male becomes irrelevant?
If so, to what enth would those categories go?

nak

magicbastarder wrote: »

one question which i'm curious about - how come this hasn't happened before now? surely there would have been other women with the same physical characteristics before now who would have completely dominated their sport?

Chris Mosier is a transgender (female to male) athlete competing for the US in men's duathlon.

velo.2010

terrydel wrote: »

But why should identification trump everything else in this instance. At this present time, 'she' is by the only criteria available to go on, a man. I can identify as 6'3'' but it doesnt make it so. Until she has successfully undergone whatever is necessary to be biologically be classified as a woman, she should not be competing in women's events. No different to any individual sport where one person or more is cheating and the rest arent, imho.

I think we take it on good faith that someone is genuine about their gender identification, plus the cyclist, Bearden, is taking suppressive drugs to minimise the androgenic benefits. Of course if some guy rocks up to an event and says he identifies as female just to get in and try and win then that is wrong.

Jillian Bearden believes she is a woman and until such time that a method for allowing fairness between competing athletes is developed, she is allowed to compete in women's events while taking into account the rules outlined in a previous post. To deny her so would be an infringement on her human rights.

magicbastarder

nak wrote: »

Chris Mosier is a transgender (female to male) athlete competing for the US in men's duathlon.

just for clarity, i was referring to the unusually higher testosterone/Y chromosome phenomenon; caster semenya is not the first woman with this genetic makeup, so i would have expected sportswomen in the past to have had a colossal advantage over their competitors. i was wondering if this had happened.

Jimoslimos

velo.2010 wrote: »

I think we take it on good faith that someone is genuine about their gender identification, plus the cyclist, Bearden, is taking suppressive drugs to minimise the androgenic benefits. Of course if some guy rocks up to an event and says he identifies as female just to get in and try and win then that is wrong.

Jillian Bearden believes she is a woman and until such time that a method for allowing fairness between competing athletes is developed, she is allowed to compete in women's events while taking into account the rules outlined in a previous post. To deny her so would be an infringement on her human rights.

Believing you are a woman isn't the same thing as actually being a biological female.

I'm a fairly unfit beginner male cyclist in my 30s and already most of my times are faster than nearly all female cyclists on Strava.

Hormones are a crude measurement of sex anyway. It's a gross simplification of biology to state testosterone = male / oestrogen = female.

Controversial opinion: Transgender athletes should be able to compete, in a separate category in the Paralympics. Makes sense if we follow the line of thinking that transgenderism is actually a case of being born into the wrong body (seems like a pretty big physical disability) that cannot be fully cured/treated.

While this might be hailed as a great step for transgenderism* it certainly doesn't help in encouraging young girls to get involved in sport. A group that already suffers from poor participation rates for many reasons.

*Yes I can understand why some people are celebrating this, especially since transgender people are often portrayed badly in the media and suicide rates are shocking. Still there needs to be a recognition that self-identification/hormones and sometimes surgery cannot change your fundamental biological makeup. Learning to accept this is a saner alternative than convincing yourself and others that you are absolutely 100% female.

magicbastarder

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Controversial opinion: Transgender athletes should be able to compete, in a separate category in the Paralympics. Makes sense if we follow the line of thinking that transgenderism is actually a case of being born into the wrong body (seems like a pretty big physical disability) that cannot be fully cured/treated.

main concern with that idea is ghettoisation (if that's a word).

velo.2010

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Controversial opinion: Transgender athletes should be able to compete, in a separate category in the Paralympics.


Learning to accept this is a saner alternative than convincing yourself and others that you are absolutely 100% female.

There isn't a facepalm big enough...

Lumen

Jimoslimos wrote: »

it certainly doesn't help in encouraging young girls to get involved in sport. A group that already suffers from poor participation rates for many reasons.

Are you suggesting that a 5 year old girl won't pick up a hurl because she's worried about competing against transgender athletes as an adult? LOLZ.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a 5 year old girl won't pick up a hurl because she's worried about competing against transgender athletes as an adult? LOLZ.

just thinking out loud - there will be, like it or not, i'm 'just trying to be realistic' - a certain number of female athletes who will be put off competing if they feel there's unfair competition (regardless of whether or not you agree with their motives).
this could lead to fewer female sportspeople as role models, which could theoretically have a knock on effect on bringing young girls into sports.

Enduro

robyntmorton wrote: »

Firstly, I would have to say that yes, this is a victory for equality.

For equality of what particular group though? It's potentially another marker in the destruction of competive female sports as we currently know it, which would be a massive defeat for equality in that sphere.

robyntmorton wrote: »

Someone had to be the first, it happened to be Jillian Bearden. Though for those saying that it opens the floodgates for womens sports to be dominated by transgender athletes, remember that it has been pointed out by Ford2600, that only 0.6% of the general population identify as transgender. That's 6 in 1000 people. The percentage of elite athletes who identify as transgender is going to be much lower, before we even consider male to female and female to male split (note, all the issues seem to be around male to female, not the other way round). Even if we work with the figure of 6 in 1000, that says that in those 1,000, 994 are cisgender female. By sheer numbers alone, the odds are in their favour.

That's meaningless though. The whole point is if that tiny minority has, by virtue of the way the rules are currently written, a considerable competitive advantage over those not in that group, then they are likely to begin to dominate the top end of the sports. The small relative numbers will just make this even more stark. This has been perfectly illustrated in the case of the Olympic 800 meters.

robyntmorton wrote: »

On the subject of hormones. Lumen has already posted a link to a post which contains the rules to be followed, quoted here for ease of reference:

This is not a simple case of declare gender as female, take a bunch of anti androgens to dump the testosterone level, go on and crush the field. There is a lot more involved. Looking at 2.2, there is a MINIMUM of 12 months of low testosterone levels required, with the possibility on a case by case basis for longer. The body will have adapted quite an amount over this time, even from a normal male baseline. The further requirements on minimum of 4 years of solely female eligibility and the chance of a 12 month ban for not being very diligent in compliance means that you would need to be very serious about what you are doing to consider going through with this. To try and jump back and forth between categories would be folly, as would telling transgender athletes that they must compete as male. Doing so, psychologically would be very damaging - you are effectively denying their gender as legally declared - and physically would leave them as perpetual also rans - the decreased muscle mass and testosterone levels would leave them with no ability to compete against cisgender male athletes.

Hence my suggestion of an open category where absolutely everyone: male, female, and all possible points between, can compete without any chemical manipulation or psychological issues.

And your argument that transgender athletes would be at a physical disadvantage competing against male athletes is exactly the mirror argument to the disadvantages faced by female athletes competing against transgender athletes. You can't have it both ways.

Also, with PEDs like EPO huge gains are made because of the massive increase they allow in training load. These gains continue long after the PED abuse stops (Which is one very strong argument for lifetime bans for some PED offences). It's highly likely that at least some trans-gender (M->F) athletes will retain advantages from their time training with physical advantages of male hormones in a similar way.

robyntmorton wrote: »

The case of a transgender athlete competing with an altered base of male physiology has also been brought up. Unfortunately, there is an absolute lack of data with which to base observations. This is a rare occurrence. Until more data is available, it is difficult to give a valid answer as to how much of a difference it makes. That also makes the process of setting rules very difficult. We can't currently say whether or not the rules, as currently set, are correct - but as they stand - the rules are the rules. If new data says that the rules should be changed one way or another, so be it, but you can't retroactively change results to suit a new set of rules.

I'm certainly not talking about retroactively changing anything. I'm talking about the need to protect female competitive sport going forward, not retroactively changing results. In fact I think that's what everyone is trying to assess... what is the best way forward. Any talk of retroactive changes is a bit of a strawman arguement.

robyntmorton wrote: »

Finally, the headline, as used by Sticky Bottle, is a travesty, used for the specific purpose of gaining clicks. It implies that Jillian Bearden is an imposter, a fraud - essentially a cheater. It is not her fault that she is who she is. To the best of our knowledge she has complied with all the required rules to compete as female (though we may never gain that knowledge - her medical records are rightly confidential between herself, her medical team, and where necessary, the relevant governing body), and to imply that she did what she did solely to "dominate" a womens cycling event is insulting, both to Bearden, and to transgender people as a whole.

Again, strawman argument there, as far as the way this thread is developing. Nobody is blaming Jillian Bearden for anything. She competed withing the rules as they are currently written. It's the rules that are being questioned, not her.

However, I'd be extremely careful if your intention is to more broadly assert that no-one would try to win a female event unless they were 100% female. There are historical cases of 100% male athletes winning olympic medals in female events.

It's well known that a large number of elite competitive athletes would be prepared to shorten their lifespan considerably if they knew they could get the top as a result. Its not a huge leap to deliberatley re-assign gender to achieve similar results. It would be extremely nieve to dismiss this as not only possible, but highly likely if the rewards are there.

All of this is a massive threat to female sports, and has the potential to destroy it both as competive level sport at the top, and destroy female sport's commercial viability (in a very similar way to the PED threat).

magicbastarder

random (supposed) fact - the only athlete who did not have to undergo gender verification at the 1976 olympics was princess anne.
two reasons; one obviously diplomatic, the other was that it was an easy decision as equestrian sports are one of the few disciplines where men and women compete on the same level, so the test is kinda redundant anyway.

saccades

magicbastarder wrote: »

just for clarity, i was referring to the unusually higher testosterone/Y chromosome phenomenon; caster semenya is not the first woman with this genetic makeup, so i would have expected sportswomen in the past to have had a colossal advantage over their competitors. i was wondering if this had happened.

800m running is a distance where the trade off works apparently - enough power to sprint harder but not so much remaining bulk to slow them down.

THis all came up after the Olympics, the rules on testosterone have changed, it was a massively high limit (for a woman) that castor and others had to get down to, it's since been thrown out and castor et al are now starting to win races again.

It's a tricky topic and something that will keep grabbing headlines as more transgender people start to compete.

Jimoslimos

velo.2010 wrote: »

There isn't a facepalm big enough...

Feel free to debate the points made.

Enduro

magicbastarder wrote: »

main concern with that idea is ghettoisation (if that's a word).

It's arguable that the Male - Female split is a form of ghettoisation already (As has been pointed out above, some sports don't have/need it). What's being debated is how to adapt the ghettoisation to adapt it to cope with originally unforseen edge cases.

Jimoslimos

Lumen wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a 5 year old girl won't pick up a hurl because she's worried about competing against transgender athletes as an adult? LOLZ.

No, I'm suggesting that young girls entering puberty, with all the surrounding body issues, are more likely to drop out of sport. This isn't helped when the people they should be looking up to as role models and who they should be striving to emulate never went through this.

secman

Getting to the stage that there might have to be separate transgender races and probably 2 to covers both male to female and female to male.
As seen by the current discussion that person was a cat 1 male cyclist and now a female, hardly fair on the fair ladies. There would I'd imagine be a huge difference in the
Testosterone levels between a female and a male to female person. It is after all a natural anabolic steroid.

c montgomery

Not fair on the ladies that he's allowed race against them

Lemming

secman wrote: »

There would I'd imagine be a huge difference in the
Testosterone levels between a female and a male to female person. It is after all a natural anabolic steroid.

And one could be fairly sure that medically qualified people have poured over the requirements for transgender athletes to compete in their chosen fields, as Lumen has already pointed out. TBH, this whole stickybottle article headline is a) clickbait, b distasteful as f*ck and c) prejudice looking for outrage.

Statistically, as as already been mentioned, the number of possible elite transgender athletes is going to be exceptionally small in an already exceptionally small group of people. Transgender folk make up a percentage of single digit population numbers. So straight off the bat, having a seperate category is up there with licence plates for cyclists; a solution looking for a problem. Secondly, it's an extrordinarily crass and - dare I say - cruel suggestion.

Why?

What it will do is force transgender people to have to openly declare themselves as being transgender just to compete at all, and consequently making them readily identifiable to any and all members of the public. As a group of people, they are arguable among the most marginalised and discriminated-against groups (if not the most) to be found in society. They receive prejudice from all quarters - including more than a few prominent feminists - and violent crime statistics for transgender people make for sobering reading beyond any and all notions of 'sobering' (something like [2014 USA] single digit percentage of LGBT population making up over 50% of violent crime victims and only about 4% of survivors for same).

So, we can either tell transgender people that we do not recognise them for who they are and/or tell them they cannot race unless they agree to openly paint a target on their backs (to the sum total of their lives should someone choose to cash in on that bullseye ... of which the odds are decidely higher than almost any other social group). Or we can leave this incredibly difficult conversation to people who are medically versed in human physiology and pharmacology to determine if a particular person has an unfair advantage over their respective gender field.