Is there an advantage? Is it a good idea to ban trans women from competing in female categories? Is there a separate category? Is sport more inclusive?
The inclusion of trans women in women's sport has divided opinion both in and out of the sporting sphere, drawing comment from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Trans women can compete in female categories without their biological sex giving them an unfair advantage or presenting a threat of injury to other competitors if the balance of inclusion, sporting fairness and safety is not right.
Two scientists who are on opposite sides of the debate were interviewed by the sports desk.
Tucker andHarper answered the key questions being debated from a science perspective. You will hear from a lawyer who argues that human rights must be considered.
There are two examples where the advantages are not unfair and one where they are.
Left-handed athletes have an advantage over right-handed athletes. 40% of elite fencers are left-handed, compared to 10% of the population.
Right-handed fencers and left-handed fencers can engage in meaningful competition despite the advantages that left-handed fencers have.
No matter how good the little boxer is, you never put a big boxer in the ring with a little boxer. Even though the little boxer works hard, trains hard, and is competitive, they cannot beat a big boxer. There is no competition between big boxers and little boxers because of the size difference.
The question isn't "Do trans women have advantages?" but "Can trans women compete against one another in meaningful competition?"
Trans women can have disadvantages because of their larger frames being powered by less muscle mass and less aerobic capacity, but that is not as obvious as the advantages of being bigger.
Competition can often come down to a very small margin, but there are many factors that come into overall performance and just saying that someone has an advantage doesn't do it justice.
When boys reach the age of 13-14, things start to change physically, and we see increased muscle mass, bone density, and haemoglobin levels, all of which are significant contributors to performance.
Lowering the testosterone has some effect on those systems, but it is not complete, and so for the most part, whatever the biological differences are that were created by testosterone persist even in the presence of testosterone reduction.
There is a significant portion of what gives males sporting performance advantages over females.
The point of the women's category is to exclude male advantage, which comes from testosterone.
I would say that there is no basis to allow trans women in until it is proven that there is no advantage.
If there was no evidence at all, I would say that an exclusion policy was the best way to start.
We have 13 studies that show retained advantage. We have a number of studies of men with lower testosterone levels and we know what happens with training, so I think the picture is strong to suggest that advantages are retained.
The prediction that Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges will happen over time is the result of what we know will happen in the body.
I am quite confident that the policy that regulates women's sport by excludes male advantage is the evidence-based one.
I think the IOC got it backwards in the beginning by allowing it in until proven otherwise, but it is not impossible that in time evidence will emerge to challenge that and then we can reconsider that. Until it could be shown that the advantages can be removed, it should not be included.
We are not going to have definitive answers for at least 20 years.
The IOC has said that until we know more, we shouldn't restrict trans athletes.
I would say that until we know for sure, the governing bodies of sport should do the best they can with the data they have, with the understanding that any policy they create now should be subject to change.
World athletics said that once women reduce testosterone for a year, they should be allowed in. World athletics says that is the best we can do with the available science, even though it is not a perfect policy.
I think that is a more reasonable approach than saying that trans women shouldn't be restricted or that we shouldn't let them in until we know for certain.
We can look at different ways of dividing in recreational sports. Is there a male and female category in every case? Is it possible to separate in other ways? Maybe there is a third category that is effective.
If you require all trans athletes to go into a trans category, you have three different categories, one with 49.5% of humanity, the other with 49.5% of humanity, and one with 1% of humanity.
Is the UK going to be able to field a football team? Will any other country field a football team? Will the UK football team have anyone to play?
It is almost impossible to consider a trans category in team sports.
There are situations where it might be beneficial to be flexible.
When we separate into categories, we reduce advantages to the point where anyone who is in the category can enjoy meaningful competition with anyone else in the category.
When we divide into male and female, it's true. If we want to see women winning Olympic gold medals or earning professional sports contracts, we can't have men in the category.
Can we have trans women who have gone through puberty? That is not a settled question.
It might be that in the future.
It would be a positive step, but I don't think the world is ready for that.
There would be so few athletes that I am not sure they would be able to sustain a sporting competition or category that is viable.
There is still a lot of stigma attached to being trans and I am not sure that trying to force or create a platform through sport would help overcome that. There might be some barriers that are created.
I am not sure if society is ready for that in some countries, where it would be illegal, and that it would be fair.
I think it might be a solution at some point in the future, but I don't think we are there yet.
Trans women are not going to take over the sport of women. Trans people make up 1% of the population.
America is the best example of a population study. More than 200,000 women compete in NCAA sports every year. We should see 1,000-2,000 trans women every year because they make up 1% of the population.
Trans women were allowed to compete in the NCAA 11 years ago. We should be seeing a lot. Every year we see a few.
Trans women are not taking over NCAA sports 11 years after the rules went into effect. They are still under represented.
If you asked women how many they would accept, they would say "well, how many would you accept?" Would you accept 10? Does it have to be 50?
We have had a few women athletes who are trans in the last few years. There are a number of people in the US who are winning titles, even if they aren't getting much attention.
They are taking places from women within the women's sports category, so playing the numbers game to me seems really dangerous, because by the Olympic Games beyond Paris, we could be seeing half a dozen. Who knows?
It seems to be a problem that is only getting worse.
There should not be an assumption that a trans athlete has an unfair advantage in female sporting events according to new guidance from the International Olympic Committee. Individual sports can find the right approach.
Tucker said that the IOC was intent on finding inclusion at the expense of the integrity of women's sport.
The IOC have compromised it even further. At a time when they have more knowledge than they did seven years ago, there is no presumption of advantage.
Despite the fact that we now know more, all the evidence points towards retained advantage, never mind existence of advantage in the first place, and yet they have gone in the direction of saying that we no longer need to measure testosterone.
The IOC has failed in its leadership by not giving them a stronger framework with which to work, because most Olympic sports don't have the capacity to make this decision.
As the problem continues to grow, sports will have to sort it out as they have gone with a scientifically bereft policy guideline.
The new IOC framework doesn't provide enough substance, and certainly saying there shouldn't be any restrictions until we have data, I don't agree with that.
The IOC has prioritised inclusion, and I think inclusion is valuable, but again I would prefer the example of World athletics, which is taking a more proactive stance, where they have said this is what we think we should do, we know it won't work for all sports, but It is possible to criticize the IOC.
It's difficult to create a policy for trans people.
I wish the IOC had done something other than what they did, but it is also true that both trans women and cis women have been put in a very difficult spot.
We should have some sympathy for sports governing bodies, who have been put in a very difficult spot.
Emily Bridges is 21 years old. She is a world-class athlete. She should be able to do her sport and go to uni.
She has the weight of the world on her shoulders, people are debating her all across the world, she has been called some horrible things, and she just wants to ride her bike.
It is heartbreaking to see what has happened to Emily.
It's hard to see someone you know going through this level of suffering.
The Bridges situation is a perfect example of the mess that sports have gotten themselves into and the reason that that exists is because they haven't listened to their own athletes.
When it starts to talk about individuals, you will hear people say that they're only identifying as women in order to win women's sports, and I'm not comfortable with that at times.
If you can even call them contributions to the debate, they are very uncomfortable and sometimes unpleasant. I wish we could have this debate impersonally and not refer to individuals, because I think it is unfair on them and they are following the rules. The rules are the problem.
I think we can have this conversation without having to have exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C.
I would encourage people to debate the policy.
Tucker says that there isn't an ideal scenario where the ideal is to keep everyone happy.
If you want to restore fairness, you have to either exclude trans women or accept a degree of unfairness through the inclusion of trans women.
It will be difficult for sports to make that decision.
Sports leaders will have to decide if they want to include trans women or if they want to exclude trans women.
I cannot see a compromise solution. Some sports have leaned that way, it has to be a choice.
Over the last few hundred years, the world has moved towards being more inclusive of minorities. We have come to understand that human beings share more than we do.
Trying to be accommodating of the differences that humans have is a process that I hope will continue.
The idea that trans women are men who think they are women is not true because many people don't know any trans people. There is no way to separate the gender identity of trans people.
Trans people are who we say we are. I believe that I should be with other women because I am a woman who was born with different body parts than other women.
That is something that would be accepted by an inclusive society. Things are a little more complicated when it comes to sports.
It is impossible to maximize inclusion, fairness, and safety in sport without having an impact on the other.
It comes at some cost to fairness and safety if we maximize inclusion. I think that we can come up with solutions that are close to maximising all three of the parameters, and that none of them are overly impacted.
The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination. There are exemptions when it comes to sport.
Section 195 of the Act states that it is permissible to restrict the participation of trans people in sporting contests if the competition is fair or the other competitors are safe.
Dr Seema is a lecturer at the law school. She studied the regulatory balance between inclusion and exclusion in competitive sport. She has been researching the topic of trans athletes and the law for almost 20 years.
The legal, regulatory and human rights factors that should be balanced within this debate as well have been ignored by the focus on the science thus far.
There can't be just one consideration when determining eligibility rules for gender diverse athletes. It has to come from more than just science and medicine.
There has to be a discussion from sociologists, lawyers, academics, athletes, and other people to determine what is best and how to move forward.
The guidance from the IOC is new. It is the first time an international governing body has sought to ensure that everyone can participate in sport regardless of their gender identity or sex variations.
We have never had guidance that focuses on principles of inclusion.
The focus on human rights is necessary to ensure a balance. They should be considered with each other to make sure the best outcome for athletes.
The test will be whether governing bodies actively engage and adopt the objectives set out in the guidance, which currently doesn't seem to be the case.
The turning factor on this should not be the science. Law, regulation, sociology, athletes and human rights have to be part of the equation.
The exemption clause in the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act allows for sex segregation on the basis of biology.
The exemption is problematic. To base an argument on the exclusion of trans athletes is highly controversial and the government would need to look at any amendments to future legislation in this area.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
