The trans women in womens racing issue

[Biggut]

The latest column by Phillipa York has brought me to believe that this issue is being intentionally misrepresented and the lack of balanced coverage across all cycling media, not just this publication, is awful. Once again the issue is misrepresented by York. It’s not about domination, it’s about benefit from male development. The female category exists to exclude such benefit. There is no good evidence that altering hormone levels negates the benefits and yet somehow articles like York’s get published and when placed in public fora such as Twitter comments are not allowed.

The issue is substantial. the uplift from male development is real and the topic should be discussed in a proper open manner by publications such as this as it isn’t possible for current riders to comment openly. Instead of providing a one sided narrative shouldn‘t this topic be presented with facts and counterpoints. i would suggest a response from Ross Tucker be sought. Allowing people to mis frame the issue as York does repeatedlyis going to deepen the problem.

This Issue is not about domination. It’s not about saying anything negative at all about anybody because of their gender identity. It’s simply that males retain advanatge from their male development even after lowering T. It should not take a 1st cat male transitioning at peak and winning the womens world title to acknowledge this reality. it should not take dozens of males riding on the womens world tour. We know it’s an issue and arguing that they aren’t dominating is like arguing that doping is OK so long as the dopers don’t win too much.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The latest column by Phillipa York has brought me to believe that this issue is being intentionally misrepresented and the lack of balanced coverage across all cycling media, not just this publication, is awful.

Trans: I disagree with the view being expressed by CN. Balance means presenting my viewpoint and no one else's.

 

[Biggut]

Not at all. Present all sides. Present the facts and the arguments. That’s not what is happening though and the misrepresentation of the issue by York is clear.

 

[stonerider]

I will not watch a race where biological males are beating up on biological females. The whole trans thing just weakens women's cycling with advertisers and many, many fans. Why don't we see trans males racing in the men's category?

 

[BR2]

Okay, so I'll try a serious take:

It can be a problem.
Born males likely have an advantage.
The male/female categories are rather artificial, based on genitals (nobody will ask someone who was recognized as female at birth for their testosterone level or anything), and don't have much consideration for intersexuals left.
Nonetheless these categories have helped a huge part of the population to look for sportive success.
The best would be to rethink these categories and form new ones, based on something else than genitals, a combination of several hormone levels for instance, without linking this to a gender identity. But that seems like too big of a change to happen.
At the moment there is no reason to discuss this in the road pro cycling section because trans women don't play a role on the highest level AT ALL.
So, the question is, who has a problem with trans women in pro cycling - people who actually watch and race the races - or people who usually never watch a women's race anyway, but suddenly come out to "defend" women's rights by trying to ban trans women from the sport? Because then it doesn't look like people are actually trying to find a good solution, they are only transphobes trying to use this topic.

 

[theyoungest]

I feel a lot of people who say they're worried about this development have dishonest intentions and didn't care about cycling in the first place. Only when trans people start winning races it's suddenly a problem. If they're pack fodder it's not, because then they don't make the headlines and these culture wars types aren't paying attention.

Take Natalie van Gogh, for instance. Not a lot of discussion about her in the few years she competed in women's cycling. Why? Probably because she was a rather unremarkable rider in terms of results, and the online trolls weren't yet looking for anyone remotely out of the ordinary to vent their frustration on. Or when Austin Killips competed in international cyclocross and wasn't even close to the top riders, where were the so-called activists then? It's a lot of hypocrisy, that's what it is.

 

[EliseeReclus]

I feel a lot of people who say they're worried about this development have dishonest intentions and didn't care about cycling in the first place. Only when trans people start winning races it's suddenly a problem. If they're pack fodder it's not, because then they don't make the headlines and these culture wars types aren't paying attention.

Take Natalie van Gogh, for instance. Not a lot of discussion about her in the few years she competed in women's cycling. Why? Probably because she was a rather unremarkable rider in terms of results, and the online trolls weren't yet looking for anyone remotely out of the ordinary to vent their frustration on. Or when Austin Killips competed in international cyclocross and wasn't even close to the top riders, where were the so-called activists then? It's a lot of hypocrisy, that's what it is.

100% this.

Adding to this, it seems everyone who is so vehemently against trans people in women's sport couldn't care less about the other massive issues in women's sport. I've coached girls and womens basketball in the UK in the past and an inability to actually get court time and resources to run sessions meant that the teams folded, and it's been such a similar story elsewhere in women's sport. The deck is massively stacked socially in favour of boys and mens sport from the beginning and I never hear any one who seems to care so much about trans women in sport actually address this.

To give a thought experiment - if we take a cyclist born as a male and who lives as a male until their 21st birthday, whereupon they transition (let's imagine for this scenario this can be done at the click of fingers rather than the long process it currently is) to being a woman. Assuming they continue as a cyclist, how much of their ability can be put down to some kind of innate benefit from going through puberty as a male and how much is down to them living socially as a boy/man and benefitting from a sexist sports system that gives significantly more time and resources to boys/men rather than girls/women? How do you disentangle this so-called biological difference from a social context of a sexist society? If we're suddenly controlling for the societal impacts should we not do the same for class, income, nation etc?

 

[Netserk]

The male/female categories are rather artificial

Are there any of your ancestors you wouldn't easily be able to categorise as one of the two?

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Ermahgawd, a trans woman won a race featuring none of the top-150 ranked women! This clearly proves that even the best cis women have no chance against trans women! Women’s cycling is RUINED!

Seriously - 2% of US adults aged 18-29 identifies as transgender, falling to 0.3% for adults aged 30-49. Currently 109 of the top-150 riders in the PCS women’s ranking is aged 29 or lower, so based on that, statistically the mean number of trans women you’d expect in the top-150 is just over 1.5 (109/150*2 + 41/150*0.3) if they have neither an inherent physical advantage nor a disadvantage. Currently, that number is zero. But tell me more about how allowing trans women to compete is ruining the sport…

 

[Biggut]

I think the how much question is largely irrelevant. The question is really is there any benefit from androgenised male development involved. That is what the female category exists to exclude. It’s not there to deal with cultural differences, or differences in upbringing or oportunity. It’s there simply to provide a category where male advantage is not permitted. So the question is can the advantages of male development be negated, there’s currentals no good evidence that it can be.

And to be clear, I am not against trans people in Women’s sport. Trans men who are not taking T should be welcome in womens races. I would also never condone excluding anybody on the basis of their gender identity. What is happening in many sports and in law is that males are excluded irrespective of their gender identity not because of it. Rather than casting aspersions as to why people make their arguments is it not better to actually deal with the arguments that are made?

As for supporting womens sport. I’ve coached women up to international level in two sports, founded a womens section in previously male only club, officiated in women’s events and have two daughters currently actively competing.

 

[BR2]

Are there any of your ancestors you wouldn't easily be able to categorise as one of the two?

I don't know what my personal ancestors have to do with the question.
However, I actually have a family member, not one of my ancestors, who I always took for simply "male" until I one day learned that he's actually xxy, and has been given hormones from on his birth to be clearly male. Intersexuals are another topic, but they are actually not as rare as we think. It's just that society often only saw them as a deviation that had to be corrected.

 

[Biggut]

Ermahgawd, a trans woman won a race featuring none of the top-150 ranked women! This clearly proves that even the best cis women have no chance against trans women! Women’s cycling is RUINED!

Seriously - 2% of US adults aged 18-29 identifies as transgender, falling to 0.3% for adults aged 30-49. Currently 109 of the top-150 riders in the PCS women’s ranking is aged 29 or lower, so based on that, statistically the mean number of trans women you’d expect in the top-150 is just over 1.5 (109/150*2 + 41/150*0.3) if they have neither an inherent physical advantage nor a disadvantage. Currently, that number is zero. But tell me more about how allowing trans women to compete is ruining the sport…

Again missing the point. It’s about whether there is retained male advantage. the expected number of participants at elite level would only be valid if you consider that trans women who have elite standard physiology all transition at or before peak and continue to train and compete at a the same ration as other males. There are trans women who were elite level males. There are none who have transitioned at or before peak.

Do you think that without transition Killips would have been capable of win in the male Tour of the Gila. If so, then on what basis do you believe that to be the case?

The important factor in assessing advantage is whether performance prior to transition in the male category is lowered to equivalent level competing post transition and allowing for ageing and training and lifestyle changes. It is not what percentage of trans women are at elite female standard. You‘d need to show that 1.5% of elite males had transitioned at or before peak in order To expect that 1.5% of elite females should be trans women. That simply hasn't happened. Instead we see riders who are old or bang average now enjoying greater success in the female category than they did in the male.

So instead lets look for evidence of the physiological changes induced by suppressing T and the current evidence shows this gets nowhere near removing the advantages afforded by male development.

 

[Netserk]

I don't know what my personal ancestors have to do with the question.
However, I actually have a family member, not one of my ancestors, who I always took for simply "male" until I one day learned that he's actually xxy, and has been given hormones from on his birth to be clearly male. Intersexuals are another topic, but they are actually not as rare as we think. It's just that society often only saw them as a deviation that had to be corrected.

Because the male/female distinction is rooted in the two different roles in sexual reproduction. That's not artificial.

 

[Izzyeviel]

Its hard to take OP's viewpoints seriously when you realise this just another faux moral outrage. Trans people are the latest in a long line of minorities to be demonised.

It's pretty sad people think men are having their penises and testicles removed just to win in their chosen sport.

It's also pretty sad that people think women are delicate flowers and that competing with trans males will cause them to be hurt. The same argument was successfully used to ban womens football in the UK.

Its also pretty sad when people use the 'they're taking away spots from actual women' argument. For some reason, this only ever applies to trans women. Not trans men. Nor women who have exceptional talent and compete alongside men in male sports.

And their argument also ignores the existence of intergender people. Remember Castor Semenya? When your argument includes demands to visibly check peoples genitals especially those under 18...you might want to stop and think 'are we the baddies?'

& furthermore I'd like to think we could all agree that governments deciding who can & can't compete in sports is fairly sinister. Such decisions must rest with the governing body.

 

[BR2]

Because the male/female distinction is rooted in the two different roles in sexual reproduction. That's not artificial.

What does reproduction have to do with sports categories, though?

 

[Biggut]

Okay, so I'll try a serious take:

It can be a problem.
Born males likely have an advantage.
The male/female categories are rather artificial, based on genitals (nobody will ask someone who was recognized as female at birth for their testosterone level or anything), and don't have much consideration for intersexuals left.
Nonetheless these categories have helped a huge part of the population to look for sportive success.
The best would be to rethink these categories and form new ones, based on something else than genitals, a combination of several hormone levels for instance, without linking this to a gender identity. But that seems like too big of a change to happen.
At the moment there is no reason to discuss this in the road pro cycling section because trans women don't play a role on the highest level AT ALL.
So, the question is, who has a problem with trans women in pro cycling - people who actually watch and race the races - or people who usually never watch a women's race anyway, but suddenly come out to "defend" women's rights by trying to ban trans women from the sport? Because then it doesn't look like people are actually trying to find a good solution, they are only transphobes trying to use this topic.

It is already about more than just genitals In athletics and swimming. It’s about sex and specifically the benefits of androgenised male development. Gender identity is completely irrelevant, nobody is barred in either of those sports because of their gender identity. males are excluded from the female category because of their sex based advantage.

As for not discussing it because the very top elites aren’t impacted, why? It’s about fairness, not about domination. Fairness should exist at all levels of the sport. I have watched womens racing both on TV and in person. I have trained alongside females. Its also a complete misrepresentation to say that people want to ban trans women from the sport. It’s about which category they should compete in, not barring them from the sport.

 

[BR2]

It is already about more than just genitals In athletics and swimming. It’s about sex and specifically the benefits of androgenised male development. Gender identity is completely irrelevant, nobody is barred in either of those sports because of their gender identity. males are excluded from the female category because of their sex based advantage.

As for not discussing it because the very top elites aren’t impacted, why? It’s about fairness, not about domination. Fairness should exist at all levels of the sport. I have watched womens racing both on TV and in person. I have trained alongside females. Its also a complete misrepresentation to say that people want to ban trans women from the sport. It’s about which category they should compete in, not barring them from the sport.

And I'm open to actually discussing this topic if it is done with the best interests of everyone at heart. I think it is a complex topic, and I have suggested what I would see as a fair solution, with admitting that this will not go through.
Problem is that this is often hijacked by people who don't care about women or their rights.

 

[memyselfandI]

If society recognize more than two genders, then we need more than two competition classes that do not mix, isn't that very simple solution.

 

[Netserk]

What does reproduction have to do with sports categories, though?

Why do we have different sports categories?

Because humans are biological organisms, and different humans and different groups of humans differ biologically.

Sexual dimorphism (and thus androgenisation) serves sexual reproduction. And androgenisation has a massive impact on athletic ability.

 

[Biggut]

Its hard to take OP's viewpoints seriously when you realise this just another faux moral outrage. Trans people are the latest in a long line of minorities to be demonised.

It's pretty sad people think men are having their penises and testicles removed just to win in their chosen sport.

It's also pretty sad that people think women are delicate flowers and that competing with trans males will cause them to be hurt. The same argument was successfully used to ban womens football in the UK.

Its also pretty sad when people use the 'they're taking away spots from actual women' argument. For some reason, this only ever applies to trans women. Not trans men. Nor women who have exceptional talent and compete alongside men in male sports.

And their argument also ignores the existence of intergender people. Remember Castor Semenya? When your argument includes demands to visibly check peoples genitals especially those under 18...you might want to stop and think 'are we the baddies?'

& furthermore I'd like to think we could all agree that governments deciding who can & can't compete in sports is fairly sinister. Such decisions must rest with the governing body.

I have not and never will say that trans women have transitioned in order to win. Why lie? The motivation for transition is entirely irrelevant to whether it is fair or not. the issue is male advantage being permitted in the female category.

If you have to resort to straw men and ad hominem rather than dealing with the actual points made then clearly you aren't engaging honestly with the discussion. Sadly this happens all to often on this topic.

On the subject of the DSD regulations in athletics, you appear to be woefully uninformed. the regs do not apply to any females. they apply exclusively to people who are XY with testes producing male range T that they are sensitive to. All such people are male with benefit from androgenised male development. My position far from ignores the issue. It recognioses the actual issue and restricts the exclusion from the female category to those who have the advantage that the category exists to exclude.

 

[Izzyeviel]

so why is it ive never heard anyone say trans women should compete with men? Its always they should be banned from sport.

 

[Netserk]

so why is it ive never heard anyone say trans women should compete with men? Its always they should be banned from sport.

I haven't heard anyone wanting them banned from sport. Only excluded from the female category.

 

[Biggut]

so why is it ive never heard anyone say trans women should compete with men? Its always they should be banned from sport.

Never heard anybody in this debate say that, ever. It is always that they should not be competing in the female category. Certainly any serious contributor on the topic, such as Ross Tucker, would never argue that.

 

[BR2]

Why do we have different sports categories?

Because humans are biological organisms, and different humans and different groups of humans differ biologically.

Sexual dimorphism and andronisation serves sexual reproduction. And andronisation has a massive impact on athletic ability.

We could also base the categories on something completely else. Like some other hormone levels, max VOM or whatever. Some people have natural advantages in most sports.
The decision to have men and women competing apart is based on social realities. One that both people who simply don't want to deal with the other sex and those who actually care about giving women opportunities as well, can get behind.
There are good reasons to have these categories, but they also come with problems. And I think it's fair to both see the good and bad that comes with it, to look at where the categories come from and what other possibilities there might be.

 

[BR2]

Never heard anybody in this debate say that, ever. It is always that they should not be competing in the female category. Certainly any serious contributor on the topic, such as Ross Tucker, would never argue that.

What is Ross Tucker's expertise on this, though?