Understanding the UCI's New Policies for Transgender Athletes
The UCI recently announced its first major revision to transgender competition participation rules since 2020. The policies went into effect today, July 1st 2022, increasing the amount of time required to transition and lowering the maximum plasma testosterone level permitted for transgender female athletes.
In a June 16th press release reporting from the UCI's regular meeting session with its management committee in Arzon, France, the UCI wrote that it had decided to change its rules following new research in 2020 and 2021. Now, athletes who have transitioned from male to female will be required to prove that their blood testosterone has been below the permitted level for 24 months - doubled from 12 - before competing in the women's category. The release cites findings that while markers of endurance ability lower to "female level" after six to eight months, the decreases in muscle mass, strength, and power take longer.
The UCI will also be halving the maximum permitted plasma testosterone for transgender female athletes in competition, lowering the limit from 5 nmol/L to 2.5 nmol/L. In early 2020, the UCI lowered the limit from 10 nmol/L and introduced the 12-month transition period. In addition to meeting these new requirements, athletes will have their requests to participate in the women's category assessed and decided by a panel of international experts independent of the UCI and must regularly undergo serum testosterone tests for their entire time in women's competition.
The UCI Press Release Section Relating to Transgender Athletes:
In March 2020, the UCI published rules governing the participation of transgender athletes in events on the UCI International Calendar in the category corresponding to their new gender identity. Although these rules are stricter and more restrictive than those published by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2015, the UCI has begun consideration on their adjustment following the publication of new scientific studies in 2020 and 2021. The principle of eligibility of transgender athletes (in particular female athletes, ie those who have made a transition from male to female) is based on the reversibility under low blood testosterone (the level commonly observed in “born female” athletes) of the physiological abilities that determine sports performance, and on the time needed to achieve this reversibility.
The latest scientific publications clearly demonstrate that the return of markers of endurance capacity to “female level” occurs within six to eight months under low blood testosterone, while the awaited adaptations in muscle mass and muscle strength/power take much longer (two years minimum according to a recent study). Given the important role played by muscle strength and power in cycling performance, the UCI has decided to increase the transition period on low testosterone from 12 to 24 months. In addition, the UCI has decided to lower the maximum permitted plasma testosterone level (currently 5 nmol/L) to 2.5 nmol/L. This value corresponds to the maximum testosterone level found in 99.99% of the female population.
This adjustment of the UCI’s eligibility rules is based on the state of scientific knowledge published to date in this area and is intended to promote the integration of transgender athletes into competitive sport, while maintaining fairness, equal opportunities and the safety of competitions. The new rules will come into force on 1st July. They may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.
Moreover, the UCI envisages discussions with other International Federations about the possibility of supporting a research programme whose objective would be to study the evolution of the physical performance of highly trained athletes under transitional hormone treatment.
In March 2020, the UCI published rules governing the participation of transgender athletes in events on the UCI International Calendar in the category corresponding to their new gender identity. Although these rules are stricter and more restrictive than those published by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2015, the UCI has begun consideration on their adjustment following the publication of new scientific studies in 2020 and 2021. The principle of eligibility of transgender athletes (in particular female athletes, ie those who have made a transition from male to female) is based on the reversibility under low blood testosterone (the level commonly observed in “born female” athletes) of the physiological abilities that determine sports performance, and on the time needed to achieve this reversibility.
The latest scientific publications clearly demonstrate that the return of markers of endurance capacity to “female level” occurs within six to eight months under low blood testosterone, while the awaited adaptations in muscle mass and muscle strength/power take much longer (two years minimum according to a recent study). Given the important role played by muscle strength and power in cycling performance, the UCI has decided to increase the transition period on low testosterone from 12 to 24 months. In addition, the UCI has decided to lower the maximum permitted plasma testosterone level (currently 5 nmol/L) to 2.5 nmol/L. This value corresponds to the maximum testosterone level found in 99.99% of the female population.
This adjustment of the UCI’s eligibility rules is based on the state of scientific knowledge published to date in this area and is intended to promote the integration of transgender athletes into competitive sport, while maintaining fairness, equal opportunities and the safety of competitions. The new rules will come into force on 1st July. They may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.
Moreover, the UCI envisages discussions with other International Federations about the possibility of supporting a research programme whose objective would be to study the evolution of the physical performance of highly trained athletes under transitional hormone treatment.
On fairness & balance
Previously, some cisgender - i.e. not transgender - female athletes have raised concerns about the testosterone levels of their transgender competitors. Conversely, some advocates believe that a testosterone-centric approach is too simplistic, that testosterone alone isn't a clear determinant of athletic performance, and that unnecessarily invasive testing and policing could have unintended consequences for access to the sport, especially at grassroots levels.
Several professional mountain bikers we spoke to say the UCI has struck an appropriate balance here. Professional downhill racer Kate Weatherly, who is transgender, told us she feels the new rules are fair, as they allow room for trans women to participate while setting reasonable physiological limits as we learn more about any advantages trans women may have compared to the rest of the women's field.
 | Overall, I feel that the decision made by the UCI to change their transgender inclusion policy is a positive one. By extending the required period before trans women can compete and reducing the testosterone limit the rules are indicative of the ever evolving understanding of trans people and our place in the sporting world. An extra year is a relatively insignificant amount of time in a transition, a process that often takes many years. In addition, most trans women with successfully blocked testosterone would still fall well below the 2.5 nmol/L limit (most trans women sitting at around 0.5 nmol/L). Transgender inclusion in sports is a complex discussion and decisions need to consider the experiences of all involved with a focus on evidence rather than opinion. Many people are concerned about the perceived threat to women’s sports that transgender women present. However, with rules in place like that of the UCI, governing bodies can ensure that trans women have successfully undergone a medical transition to reduce any advantage that may be present from male puberty while still ensuring fair and accessible competition. I feel that tightening restrictions on trans athletes is appropriate as long as those decisions are made from an educated perspective without influence from existing biases that potentially unjustly ban trans women from competition. |
Kate Weatherly says the UCI's policy update is a positive one. Photo: Andy Vathis
What does the research say right now?
As trans athletes remain relatively unstudied, most sports have relied on plasma testosterone levels to determine which athletes are allowed to compete with cisgender women. As part of the medical transition process, trans women take medications that suppress testosterone, typically leading to testosterone levels well below the average for cisgender women. What follows is a decrease in strength, mass, bone density, and recovery. Studies have yielded mixed results on just how much performance dips, and it seems to vary across sports - transgender runners appear to maintain little to no advantage, while athletes in strength-based sports may maintain some strength- and mass-based benefits.
Estimates vary when it comes to the athletic performance difference, on average, between men and women. At the Fort William World Cup DH race this year, the top five women's times averaged 16% slower than those of the top five men, with the gap decreasing toward the top riders. Nina Hoffmann's winning time was 13% behind Amaury Pierron's. However, the role of testosterone appears to only account for a small part of the athletic difference between men and women. Other factors include physical size and shape as well as socialization - factors that differ on average between men and women, but include significant overlap between the sexes. The topic is further complicated, too, by the fact that sex isn't as easily defined in the binary, genetically, as it's easy to believe: a commonly estimated 1.7% (though other estimates range from 0.018%-4%) of people are born outside of the common "XX = female and XY = male" configuration: XXX, XYY, XX but showing a typical male phenotype, XY but showing a typical female phenotype, and other possibilities. The binary paradigm accurately describes most - but not all - assignment of birth sex, and it's around the edges that that simplification becomes problematic.
It appears, too, that women with genetic variations from the average sometimes have athletic advantages: The prevalence of 46 XY - a typical male chromosomal arrangement displaying typically female physical characteristics - among female athletes is about 7 per 1000 adults, which is 140 times what is seen in the general population. Much like genetic variations from the average in height, strength, mass, and other physical factors - not to mention variations in socioeconomic factors that generate advantage - biological variation affects athletic performance, too, on a very broad spectrum. It's an understatement to say that the issue is complex, and with that much gray area, the black-and-white line becomes a bit arbitrary. That line, restricting those outside of the most common 46 XX female chromosomal genotype and testosterone limit, has affected not only transgender athletes, but athletes born and raised female, who happen to fall outside of the norms, like Olympic track runner Caster Semaya, who has effectively been banned from racing unless she decides to medically lower her testosterone.
Chromosomal definitions aside, scientists are also divided on whether having experienced male puberty affects post-transition athletic performance for transgender women. In 2019, the International Olympic Committee met to try to create new guidelines for the inclusion of transgender athletes at the 2020 Olympic Games, but ended up leaving its previous guidelines in place until late 2021. The IOC had long limited athletes' testosterone levels to 10 nmol/L and had proposed halving that figure, for a similar policy to the UCI's former one. However, some members of the discussion honed in on transgender women being, on average, bigger and stronger than cisgender women, and argued that even with suppressed testosterone, trans women would still have an advantage. The discussion was abandoned because there was no consensus.
The paper by Xavier Bigard cited by the UCI in its recent update, titled "The current knowledge on the effects of gender-affirming treatment on markers of performance in transgender female cyclists," concludes that 12 months of testosterone suppression is not long enough to erase the physical strength advantages, thus the change to a 24-month transition period. Above all, the paper emphasizes the need for more research. Bigard is a previous scientific advisor of the French anti-doping agency and former president of the French Society for Sports and Exercise Medicine (SFMES) and is currently the medical director of the UCI.
The broader context of trans athletes in women's sports
The new UCI rules come at a time when multiple sports governing bodies are reassessing their guidelines for transgender athlete participation. The world swimming governing body, FINA, recently approved new regulations that effectively ban any transgender women who have gone through any stage of male puberty from participating in elite women's swimming competitions, currently the strictest policy from any Olympic sports body.
FINA also plans to introduce an 'open' category, in which trans and nonbinary athletes can compete regardless of assigned birth sex, testosterone level, or puberty history. A similar category has been suggested for bike racing, but the extremely small number of transgender women racing mountain bikes means that such a category would take away a competitive element that, for most athletes, is at the heart of racing. Some advocates also say that such a category would also continue to 'other' trans people, who already face numerous social and emotional barriers to acceptance within their communities.
Following FINA's decision, world soccer federation FIFA announced that it, too, is reassessing its rules for transgender athlete participation, but has declined to reveal the specifics.
The IOC, for its part, has moved in the opposite direction. Rather than restricting athletes' testosterone levels, as was the policy from 2015 until late 2021, the IOC has shifted the decision-making to sports' individual global governing bodies, meaning that the regulations are likely to vary significantly across sports. The organization did, however, add an emphasis on inclusion over exclusion: "Until evidence determines otherwise, athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status." Still, revision to FINA's, FIFA's, and the UCI's regulations may signal turning points for more governing bodies, and the ripple effect will likely affect not only elite sports but national, local, and scholastic leagues, too.
The United States has reckoned with gender inclusion in sports for decades, but tensions have bubbled over in the last two years, during which nine states have enacted rules that bar transgender girls and women from competing in women's sports at public schools. Some advocates have expressed worry that FINA's new regulations will set a precedent to make other such bans more likely in the future.
This discussion is complex, and there are no easy answers - for anyone. Physiological and biological factors are just some of many factors that affect athletic performance, especially alongside similarly impactful sociological factors. Enduro racer and freerider Blake Hansen, who is transgender, supports the UCI's new legislation as "balanced and science-based" while also prompting us to look beyond the racing itself: "We should be talking more about the real world implications of inclusion vs exclusion when we talk about transgender people." Alongside the scientific discussions, "can you imagine what that must make a child feel like who can't participate on their swim team anymore? Not to mention everything else they're already up against. We should all be doing everything we can to change that."
Regardless of how we make sense of the many competing elements at play, one thing is clear: as Bigard suggested, we need more research. Given the very small number of transgender elite athletes, study is slow, but the more we learn the more we can understand how to move forward in a way that is as inclusive and fair as possible. In the meantime, let's remember that we're all trying to uphold the pursuit of excellence, challenge, and camaraderie that's at the heart of competitive sports.
Comment Moderation
As these conversations unfold, please remember that there are other people at the end of your words. We expect the comments here to be respectful and constructive. Specifically, don’t violate Pinkbike's terms of use, which state that any hate speech or personal attacks will not be tolerated. Pinkbike, like other platforms and media companies, considers misgendering and ‘deadnaming’ (using someone’s former name) to be slurs and personal attacks. Don't do it.
The aim is not to censor conversations or ideas, but just like other slurs, misgendering and deadnaming are not welcome on our platform. Violations of Pinkbike’s terms of use may result in suspensions or bans. Harassment, bullying, or incitements to violence will result in lifetime bans.
As these conversations unfold, please remember that there are other people at the end of your words. We expect the comments here to be respectful and constructive. Specifically, don’t violate Pinkbike's terms of use, which state that any hate speech or personal attacks will not be tolerated. Pinkbike, like other platforms and media companies, considers misgendering and ‘deadnaming’ (using someone’s former name) to be slurs and personal attacks. Don't do it.
The aim is not to censor conversations or ideas, but just like other slurs, misgendering and deadnaming are not welcome on our platform. Violations of Pinkbike’s terms of use may result in suspensions or bans. Harassment, bullying, or incitements to violence will result in lifetime bans.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Also kudos for commiting to writing on such a sensitive subject and imo elevating the conversation
The FINA approach is mentioned, but then there are these two well-written seen seen sentences criticizing it without any rebuttal or perspective allowed from alternative opinions:
A similar category has been suggested for bike racing, but the extremely small number of transgender women racing mountain bikes means that such a category would take away a competitive element that, for most athletes, is at the heart of racing. Some advocates also say that such a category would also continue to 'other' trans people, who already face numerous social and emotional barriers to acceptance within their communities.
The article doesn't include any perspective from the non-trans women who are affected by this issue.
The article also doesn't take into account perspective of biological females who have become males. It primarily expresses the perspective of biological males who have become females, like Kate. Under the UCI plan, biological females athletes will face severe disadvantage with little chance to be competitive. Which is why trans athletes should have their own category to be fair to everyone. This article offers tells the other side of the story:
www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/fina-found-the-fairest-solution-to-the-transgender-issue-in-sports-183133124.html
"Taken to its logical conclusions, where there might be a dozen, or dozens, of transgender athletes competing in a race, female athletes would be boxed out of elite competition or even put at physical risk in contact sports such as soccer and basketball.
“Without eligibility standards based on biological sex or sex-linked traits, we are very unlikely to see biological females in finals, on podiums, or in championship positions,” FINA’s policy paper concluded.
Previously FINA, and other organizations, tried to handle this through the testing of testosterone levels. However, its research showed that obvious advantages can come through going through puberty as a boy — in swimming’s case things like height, arm length, hand and foot size and so on."
How are Trans-athletes going to feel in 2030, after UCI is done milking this issue for all its regulatory-political-commercial potential, reverses course and strips them of their palmarès?
@commental: does this mean also giving LGBQIA their own category or categories? Intersexuals could be a big problem, since according to Amnesty, they represent 1.7% of the population
I have no sympathy for someone and or their supporters (feelings), as they positions themselves in these competitions, while other competitors suffer mental anguish after having invested and sacrificed so much- time, energy, money and hardships to excel in their proper categories, only to be abandoned from the reward of a win, podium positions + earnings for their achievement's of diligence, fortitude and hard work ethic.
This particular issue is a construed atmosphere, where society is being manipulated to have special feelings and to direct special attention to those that feel they have been wronged or shunned by the majority for their choice and or disposition; while exacerbating their emotions which have become a dictator over society and it's inalienable right to reject such a notion and participation / enrollment into competitive events of opposite gender or age groups. Thus, the overlooked and non- regard for the field of competitors being forced to relinquish all they sacrificed and worked for is a devastating blow to their well-being if not more than it is for the one's with identity or gender issues.
I do believe none of us are perfect in this world and we all have fallen short of Gods glory and His will for our lives. Therefore, it is best if we respect the fundamental aspects of "Do unto others as you would have them to do to you".
Luke 6:31
Aside from all the back and forth clamoring and remarks towards one another that i myself and many others on this site have participated in, in the past; this is not being hypocritical or as to push religion but rather to express the Golden Rule and it's value without question and helps us to all be unified aside from our indifference's; in turn, producing gracious Human Beings.
Could be fun? A bunch of confused people with jumbled parts running/biking around complaining.
And can we not be human without Luke 90210 sticking his oar in? You can quote any part of the bible to back any argument, but it's reverse engineering at best, complete mental annihilation at worst.
As for the rest, maybe.
What I don't understand is the difference in the treatment of male athletes who transition compared to female athletes who transition. We don't seem to be too concerned about inclusivity for these athletes, otherwise more would be done to level the playing field for females who transition. Currently everyone just acknowledges they aren't competitive and seems to accept that status quo, but when it's an athlete transitioning in the opposite direction we move heaven and earth to accommodate them. If we're not going to make concessions for the one group should we be doing so for the other? Reeks of inequality to me.
Alternatively a separate category is a way where the inclusivity box can be ticked.
My problem with taking this position is that it makes me look like a fundamentalist
@adespotoskyli: I get it. Yes, our understanding is still pretty basic. It could be beyond rationalizing.
Can anyone make a reasonable point against it?
"(...) the extremely small number of transgender women racing mountain bikes means that such a category would take away a competitive element that, for most athletes, is at the heart of racing. Some advocates also say that such a category would also continue to 'other' trans people, who already face numerous social and emotional barriers to acceptance within their communities."
This is a very complicated topic that isn't well researched, thus a new category would remove complications that are due to ignorance on the subject.
It seems that a scientific approach would look more like FINA’s policies. Haven’t science deniers done enough damage over the past 2.5 years?
Yes, people have advantages. A basketball player will also fail in horse race because they are too big. Should someone be allowed to have an advantage in a sport because they want to play it and fairness goes out the window? It’s fine to say that you are a science denier and are more interested in social inclusion.
Could argue that disabled people are also a small portion of the population but look at how big the Paralympics has become from where it started off. Once you give people a platform to work from the platform becomes bigger and more popular.
Some of you haven't taken any classes on statistics and it shows.
Your counter argument is a facetiously disingenuous remark about segregating further based on biological differences, in a comment section relating to an article about trans inclusion?
You suck, dude.
I think it is great that society for the large part is trying to be more inclusive, and all sides need to be heard, but all people with extreme views should give the benefit of the doubt and listen to the science, even if it is uncomfortable. The US has just shown us what happens when we stop listening with an open mind to evidence based science, and rather follow some Christian conservatives views.
In my humble opinion its wrong on every level, its strange that science is just a subjective means to an end now, point in case, some will say climate crisis, and count millions of carbon, but wont count 2 chromosomes.
Its turned into a case of feelings over facts, throwing the baby out with the bath water, yes have your own category, i see some said it has to start somewhere, but lets be honest say football ( soccer ) world cup, most men dont watch the womens football as much as the mens, so if you have a transgender category, probably only get transgenders watching that racing, similar to the para olympics, im not disregarding the Para olympics, but i have never watched it as i dont have an interest, as im not a para, but i do watch the Olympics.
So if i watched a female DH race and a Transgender won , i would probably treat it like, watching a sprinter getting caught for drugs cheating to win, and loose all interest in watching the sport.
Bit like if ya had the drugged up Olympics probably wouldn't be interested in that either.
Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. (cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html) So yes, "appearance" as you put it, I would put it as the presence or absence of certain organs and functions, is absolutely part of the definition.
Would it be possible to create a relative rank for all cycling competitors regardless of age, gender or anything else, maybe based on ranking them based on their performance relative to the winner in their previous races, averaged over say their last 5 races?
Then we just have classes for relative speed and let people get on with it?
There’s probably an obvious flaw to this - I suppose it stops people who can’t physically compete with the fastest people (usually men) from ever reaching a pinnacle, but if we make the prize money equal across categories then maybe it becomes about the competition? E.g. the racing in the Juniors at the moment is often just as interesting as the Elites. Or Touring Cars vs F1 in a car analogy.
In preparation for that someone best fuel up the outrage bus because you'd have a lot of punters to pick up, I can hear the wails already.
I am not expressing a personal opinion on the topic but it is pretty hypocritical for you to be calling someone a science denier for supporting a change made to policy as the result of scientific research.
The UCI’s decision is based on limited criteria differentiating men and women, which is testosterone levels. I acknowledge this scientific fact, but also recognize that there are other irrefutable biological advantages that have nothing to do with testosterone.
I’m following the scientific method. Ignoring the other facts is the opposite of the scientific method.
Some video games also use it as a convenient way to match up players of relative skill in online gaming lobbies.
What about a person that grows up in an affluent family Whistler versus someone who grows up economically disadvantaged in Kansas. The person in Whistler has an enormous edge in gravity mountain biking sports. Should they feel bad if they are in a contest/race with the person from Kansas? Should they opt not compete? ‘Fairness’ in sports is a complete fallacy. Is being a Transgendered person from Kansas who meets all testosterone requirements more of an advantage than growing up in Whistler and having full factory support from pre-teen age? Maybe you’d argue yes. I would argue no.
real unbiased Information on this subject is out there but you need to take some time to find it.
I like the weight class idea, I’m thinking
Racing snakes, slim, acceptable BMI, podgy, super podgy and “top of the Rock Shox fork psi chart”
I’m in the latter
All I am saying is that I think this is a discussion worth having and not as clear cut as some seem to try to make it. as the article states, testosterone levels are not the only criteria.
Got it.
You could take two disadvantaged riders from Kansas and make one a girl and another a born a boy but calling himself a girl and take a wild guess as to who on average would have the physical advantages in racing?
You didn't though you just said men's hearts and lungs are bigger.
This issue comes down to more than just the size of hearts/lungs, it is about at which point (if any point) in a transition that natural advantages are negated - this is a wholistic question about overall performance.
"The UCI’s decision is based on limited criteria differentiating men and women, which is testosterone levels."
This is just not correct the UCI statement actually says " that while markers of endurance ability lower to "female level" after six to eight months, the decreases in muscle mass, strength, and power take longer."
I.e. they have evaluated the wholistic impact and and are adjusting based on the science.
There is no such thing as science fact.
You are not following the scientific method as you are just ignoring science that does not confirm your bias.
I am not telling you that you have to support the UCI decision or you can't have your own opinion. But just stop pretending you are right and using convenient scientific snippets to shout others down.
How is decreasing testosterone impacting lung size? It is not. You can’t refute this, nor can you refute that men have larger lungs than women.
Of course this follows the scientific method. We hypothesize that testosterone levels are the only variable that we need to control in order to level the playing field for a trans male to female athlete. UCI says, ok thumbs up no further testing of our hypothesis required because we are satisfied with this answer. On the other hand, you can look to a factor such as lung size which does exist and cannot be changed as a variable in this equation, so the hypothesis fails.
I’m not shouting down anything or ignoring information. Saying that a more than statistically significant increase in lung size is a “convenient scientific snippet” in a sports than require endurance is disingenuous.
What are the impacts transitioning have on the ability to utilise those differences is more relevant.
"I’m not shouting down anything" you literally are calling people science deniers for making decisions on the back of scientific research. That is shouting down.
Not saying you have to agree with their decision or the research they based it on, that is okay to explain you disagree with that in a rational way but just shouting science denier is not very rational.
And as said earlier, appearance might be a definition, it not always clear at birth. This has happened on occasion, and the sex was initially incorrectly assigned, but the individual later developed completely normal according to other criteria.
The strawman is a bunch of people, pretending to care about ‘fairness’ in sport to further alienate and harm and already marginalized community. It’s a great shield/deflection point for generally covering up bigotry.
Obviously everyone has "struggles" - it's pretty obvious from context that I'm referring to the struggles they face trying to compete in racing. You really think that people are publicly saying they don't identify with their assigned at birth gender, dealing with all the hate and backlash about that, then entering and competing in a race in a different gender category so they can then roll the dice and hopefully not crash or get a mechanical to then win? Sure, that's why so many people do it right? I mean women's DH is full of transwomen isn't it! Obviously the prize purses in sports like this are famously big so it must be worth it right, an easy way to make a fortune? Makes sense as DH racers are all super rich ballers yeah? I guess that's why the highest paying female sports like football and tennis are so full of people doing this as well yeah?
Saying calling someone transphobic is not putting any thought in to my argument or making an easy argument? It's not an argument if it's statement of fact though is it? I wasn't making an argument, I was saying that someone who did a transphobic thing was being transphobic, no argument needed, it's literally what the word transphobic means, that's kinda how language works! If you see something red do you not say it's red because that's not putting enough thought into your argument?
It's laughable that you're coming at me for not putting thought into an argument I wasn't having, you've clearly put loads of thought into yours haven't you? I mean, you've obviously thought critically about the situation, looked for comparisons in other areas to draw links, managed to navigate a nuanced topic?
Also what are you even taking offense at? What is your point? What are you trying to achieve? Are you just after the dopamine hit of feeling that you've put someone in their place and shown the world how clever you are? Just because you can put some words together in a line and make them counter to someone else's words it doesn't mean that you're right, they have to actually be based on something, like an understanding of what the other person actually said, context, nuance, comparison to other situations, something like that. I really hope you're young and still in school because you have got a lot to learn. One bit af advice I recommend you think about is that you should spend less effort trying to drag others down - it's far more important to be kind than it is to be right. The trans community need kindness, not righteous people telling them what they should and shouldn't be doing.
And before you come at me again with your dumb unconsidered BS let me be clear. Firstly, the point I'm making is that trans athletes are not doing it to make easy money by winning races, there is no evidence to support that, all evidence suggests it is not true,that opinion is transphobic, and as it fosters a mistrust of trans athletes in others it spreads transphobia too. Secondly, I'm not going to read your BS replies, this whole page is a sad sad reflection of our community and I'm feeling less proud to be part of it. I'm going to go ride my bike instead and try to forget this whole thing happened, I suggest you do the same.
I never implied that transgenders compete for fame and money. I don't know why you went there,I don't believe I even implied that.
This is a complex situation and I truly don't know what the answer is. My intention was not to offend anyone. My response was maybe a little to quick and not well thought out.
I hope you have a great ride.
I think the research of actual scientists kind of trumps your quick wiki search.
Males are athletically superior from BIRTH no amount of hormone therapy or drugs can alter this. they can make a trans person weaker than reference males but STILL around 30% stronger than reference females.
In 2003 trans competitors had to have had the surgery and be legally a woman to compete under IOC rules, this has since been changed to making a declaration that you identify as female and have had some pretty irrelevant hormone blockers.
If we are talking about majority in these social matters, test whether the majority feel athletes should be racing as per category as originally described on a two option binary birth certificate and or having being described as at time of transitioning into teenagehood and be done with this divisive and repetitive issue.
On this one issue and this only the science is settled.
In theory, that should be impossible after they change!!
1. Would not letting trans women compete in the women's category not emphasize their trans status and isn't the whole point of transitioning to be a woman like all women?
2. Haven't there been, and won't there be complains about unfair advantages when trans women win women's competitions (the whole point of this article)?
3. Don't the two points above make this a very complex topic (again, the fact these types of articles are necessary confirms the complexity of the topic)?
4.With skull fractures already happening, is it completely unfair and bigoted of me to place safety of female boxers above inclusivity and preferring a different solution for trans women boxers to competing in the women's competition?
5. With racing not having the above risk, is it unfair or bigoted of me to not have these reservations there and agreeing with Kate that trans women should be able to compete in the women's competition in a way that science confirms doesn't hold unfair advantages?
I don't see anything untrue or unfair here, so maybe people can start to actually read and comprehend things before they upvote or downvote things.
With boxing, I'm firmly in the 'let's not take the risk' category, but with racing, I'm with Kate on the 'let's follow the science'.
But 2 winners out of 32. That's very very good when considering how many biologically natural women compete and don't medal.
Pink bike is really slacking on the comment moderation here.
1 you can define your self as you wish, no issue at all with that. but you can't change facts, born male you are a male no matter what you do, you can't change genes, you may altrer certain caracteristics but it’s superficial. So demanding to race against women because hormone levels is plain stupid, unethical and ufair for the rest, it's the same thing as a transable person entering paraolympics,
2. If you want to mix trans with their prefered definition of sex you have to accept anyone at any time that likes to define him/his self as such and include all genders in all sports. If you don't accept that it means that you clearly know the limitations of trans persons not to be up to the level of actually being born a specific sex. Simple, no ftm trans is a complete male and no trans mtf is a complete female, in fact they still are what they were born. So it’s useless to mix them up and unethical. Do a separate category, if they're not enough bad luck. Simple.
If not, then it’s not about ‘fairness’ for women and women’s sport, its about holding another community down.
Single laboratory based metrics are far from the complete predictor of sport performance. If you take a big picture view of the history of Transgendered athletes, they do not ‘dominate’ like you’d have others believe. Show me one sport where a Transgendered athlete has come in and won at the highest level and then continued to do so for multiple years? Winning and continuing to win is domination and it hasn’t happened. I used the example I did because Transgendered athletes have been allowed to compete in the NCAA for 30+ years making it one of the longest time samples to demonstrate this.
I don’t care if a person’s VO2max in a lab is 95 mL/kg, until they win the Tour de France or the Boston Marathon five times straight it means nothing. And that VO2max isn’t a predictor for end performance in either of those things in spite of both being highly aerobic.
lia thomas- below average male swimmer, record shattering female swimmer
kate wheatherly - below average male racer, elite podiums and national titles as a female.
the new zealand weight lifter who's name i forget, terrible as a male world records as a female.
numerous teenage track athletes in the USA.
none of these people were anywhere near world class as males but magically become world class one they define themselves as female. they haven't suddenly improved they have used the genetic advantages they were born with to game the system.
the last national race i watched in the UK, rachel atherton, arguably the greatest female DH racer ever just about beat the 13-14 year old boys category, thats the gulf in speed down purely to the genetic differences between males and females.
Katie Ledecky’s American record, and that record is like four seconds faster than the next-closest female. He was not below average or even mediocre as a male. As a male, he was damn good. Which makes it even that much more unfair for him to be competing with women.
Look, everyone saying the best athletes like Ledecky has some sort of unfair physical advantage — there is no more unfair advantage out there than being male. Take Ledecky. Whatever physical advantage she might have over women (and I’d be curious to know what that advantage is), she would rank in the lower third of her male counterparts at Nationals, and probably the lower 25 percent of men at a major international comp. And that’s Ledecky. She is LIGHTYEARS ahead of all the women. Take a look at any other swimming event, and the best women will likely finish last or second-to-last in any other event. I coached decent high school boys in swimming who were faster than the best women in the world. They finished maybe 6th or 7th at the state high school championships.
Stop it with the nonsense. Men or fromer men competing with women is absolutely unfair.
But living how YOU feel should not negatively impact the lives of other people.
"Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
Here you go, her name is Dr Emma Hilton , developmental biologist. everything you need to know is covered very comprehensively.
Nothing i have said is in any way transphobic, i'm simply stating medical facts, if men want to live as women good for them just don't use it as an excuse to cheat at sports.
you sir are a clown.
please indicate the transphobic elements of my argument.
it's ridiculous to even suggest it's a level playing field.
It's selfish, narcissistic, and hypcritical because she ONLY considers the situation from her biological male perspective, with no consideration for biological females whom the UCI is screwing over with this decision. I wonder what she would have said had Alicia asked her about the unfairness of biological females competing with males?
She mentions "existing biases that potentially unjustly ban trans women from competition."
She is essentially trying to create a false victim narrative by using a lie. Creating a separate trans category is not banning trans women, it's simply making it fair for biological women who never went through puberty as males and gained significant physical and psychological advantages.
✅This should have been titled as an opinion piece, not news. Then the fact that you have Alicia and Brian Park making comments supporting the perspective of biological males while again ignoring the perspective of biological females to me illustrates some serious ethical beaches of honest journalism.
the feels of a handful of trans folk should never ever be put before the years if not decades of training and effort ladies in any sport put in to excel at their chosen discipline.
1. A male baby is born with 20-30% more neurons in the visual cortex. This is essentially a faster CPU and video card that allows males to track moving objects, assess speed, etc. faster. No advantage in swimming, but a huge advantage in sports like motor racing, combat sports, ball sports, clay target shooting, and... downhill. This advantage is never taken away with hormone blockers etc. and also is why the fastest women in the world always know some local male kid who is smaller, weaker... and faster than her. A male passenger in a car driven by a female is not pushing his accelerator foot into the firewall because he thinks he is a better driver, it's because in one glance he can assess speed, judge distance, and do the calculations for exactly how fast he needs to accelerate in order to get into the moving slot between two cars at the Give Way / Yield sign. The female driver slows down to make sure there won't be a collision, the opportunity passes, and now the male thinks the female sucks at driving. He's wrong - he just doesn't know his processing of moving objects is superior.
Differences in male/female eyesight is documented in scientific literature. Women got better colour recognition because gathering the wrong berry etc. was fatal and her genes weren't passed on (nor her family's). For millions of years women gathered and men hunted (the participation of women in hunting in such a society was rare - something like 13 out 225 societies in one study I heard a talk about IIRC). Note that women were highly valued from a food production point of view because gathering was almost 100% successful every day whereas highly-prized meat was brought back only in only one out of every four or five hunts.
2. Google images for 'male and female skulls'. Which one would you choose to protect your brain in a crash? Thicker skulls, sloping forehead to ward off glancing blows, eyebrow ridge, thicker jaw - advantages for a male that went through puberty hence why some trans women opt for facial feminization surgery. Even if both are wearing helmets, and women would take a lower force to knock her out or cause concussion. Evolution. In the hunter-gatherer society from where we all evolved, being better at killing men and being harder to be killed by men meant the 'tougher' man pass on his awesome-skull genes and the dead man did not.
And yeah, I'm generalising a bit but the basic facts are there. I've been reading about this stuff for years. This is not my field of professional study, but all this is easily found on the internet.
@alicialeggett I wanted to raise these facts as everyone only ever talks about strength and bone length and muscles and lungs and socialisation etc. No peak sporting body has looked at eyesight as far as I know, and the advantage is huge at the pointy end of the field.
Additionally, humans have not evolved to cope with sustained speeds faster than running speed. It’s the real root cause of most bicycle and car crashes. Your statement about driving makes no sense either. Men in their prime are also the highest likelihood to get in a crash… so clearly vision superiority over the opposite sex is a very small part of what matters when moving at speed.
Yes, trees stay still, but the rider moves. That still means you need to judge speed. The advantage of colour for women is not outweighed by the advantage of motion for men. Are the women's times closer to the men's times on a cloudy day? I only use 'video card' to explain what the visual cortex does. Does everyone know what the visual cortex is?
Don't assume my point of view. I'm pretty sure you'll be wrong.
I think some of the resistance to talking about these less obvious advantages is because they're just so ludicrously unfair--on the part of God/Darwin, I mean. Not only do I get stuck being comparatively small, slow and weak, but now you're telling me I can't SEE as well as males either? Why the **** not?! Seriously. This all really flies in the face of the progressive notion that life should be fair, can be fair, and is currently bending toward fairness.
Go ahead and say Incel - you know you want to.....
Saying trans athletes should transition at an age as young as 12 is a null point, they practically cannot. If we ever want to get to a point where trans athletes are even comfortable transitioning in their teen years we need beacon athletes like Lia Thomas to show them they can be trans and still compete, FINA squashed that.
No doubt had she been able to transition earlier (although I cannot speak as to whether or not she wanted to) Thomas still would have developed height and talent in distance events, when I knew her she was already a distance zealot. Easily one of the hardest-working on a team that took state champs 3 out of 4 years I swam there.
Obviously, she is benefitting from a transition that has occurred later in life than many, perhaps benefitting from competing so early into her transition. At the same time I believe it is important she competes, even should her records be listed with an asterisk beside them. The recent FINA regulations, which are essentially targeted at ensuring Lia Thomas can no longer compete and are very strict on enforcing trans athletes, only serve to exacerbate the problem of athletes transitioning later in life. Those who truly feel that they do not conform to their assigned gender should be able to transition earlier in life without feeling as if this will mean giving up the sport they love, unfortunately, FINA has communicated swimming is no place for trans athletes.
[Before transition, Kate was] managing top 10 finishes at national level in the amateur male category (ie. a mile off an elite men's time)
The next year a newly trans female Kate Weatherly managed to WIN every single national Elite women's race and the following year podiums at WC ELITE level.
Testosterone levels while competing as a woman didn't really even come into it.
this isn't any sort of phobic post. Simply the facts.
Hope you are doing well and fully recovered from past injuries.
This is where the problem lies. If we're going to try to make it fair for trans athletes to compete in the women's field, how do we go about making it fair for trans athletes to compete in the men's field? Because if we can't, how can we achieve true equality?
I started racing downhill seriously in 2015 which is the same time that I started my transition. I was finishing mid pack in the mens field but this was the domestic field. So no, I likely would never have been strong/fit/fast enough to finish mid pack at a World Cup in the mens field.
I was more meaning that if you look at my times, they were comparable throughout my racing career to other girls with similar experience and time riding. If I had an unfair advantage you’d expect to see me winning races without trying. However, I regularly get beaten and when I do win it’s after hours and hours in the gym and on the bike. People love to reference the fact I won every national race the first year I came out. Half those races I was the only woman competing since several of my competitors was sick and NZ has always had a small womens field in downhill. A great example would be Jenna Hastings who currently races in the junior field, she’s beaten me several times on her home tracks.
I can’t speak to your question about making it fair for trans men to compete with cis men as this is somewhat a question about socialisation prior to competition. Most of the trans men I know never played sport before transitioning and therefore don’t following it. I do know a couple high level trans masc athletes who compete in America but they never get any attention because they aren’t considered unfair. Similarly to the fact I only get attention when I win events. I’ve been racing in the womens field for 4 years, so how come people only reference one World Cup finish and a national race from back in 2018???
bodies to come up with solutions. everythings changing and moving all the time and that's a good thing.
Reminds me of the comments from racists saying there not racist because they have a [insert minority] friends.
I've already stated it before, but I'll say it once more: if a person transitioned in their teens or earlier (socially in this case), there would be no way of finding that out without having access to sensitive data. Hell, maybe there's even more trans women on the WC circuit and we don't know that, but Kate with her being out became the unfortunate scapegoat.
I've been transitioning medically for 10+ years and have never been a part of a community and don't have a desire to be so. I actually despise the so-called trans communities and am against modern activism. I'm not ever outing myself to another trans person. Only my parents, immediate family, trans-care doctors, sexual partners and a bunch of trustworthy people from my childhood know about me. Not one "outsider" would ever find out and I have no obligation to disclose my status to anyone.
gender dysphoria is a mental state. they are nothing to do with each other.
please stop with the strawman stuff.
A mental state, as you call it, means neurological problems. Pretty sure a brain made of neurological tissue is a physical organ and is prone to diseases, malfunctioning and conditions on its own. One of them is transsexualism/gender dysphoria, which is literally a mismatch between the body and how your brain is wired up. It being in the brain and you not seeing it doesn't mean it is not physical, since neurons are involved.
I'm also not sure what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that gender dysphoria is a mere mental state and thus not a real medical condition, that should be treated by psychotherapy?
noun: gender dysphoria
the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity to be at variance with one's birth sex.
Think that pretty much describes a mental condition.
A boy that wants to be a girl or vice versa. no mention of any identifiable physical "illness".
If a person wants to live life as the opposite sex all power to them but don't use it as an excuse to cheat at sports and potentially ruin the careers of others.
I'm in no way against trans people or any other group.
That said, 2 categories, Open for men and everyone else that wants to compete & genetically XX women.
Any other solution is just outright denial of actual biology.
These rules will be rewritten again in time, maybe 5 years with low test next time.
If you have ever done youth coaching by about the age the kids hit 6, well before the flood of T that causes puberty, the males on average are already outperforming the females by significant margins in spite of the fact there is no size advantage yet.
XX vs. XY chromosome IS the determinant factor in the 35% or so physical advantage that males hold (on average).
1. someone who is born with genetic variations and
2. a biological male who decides to become a female.
Rules and regulations should exist to resolve the first with the goal to place the person in the category they most accurately represent. Like you said, that is the point of the rules.
The second scenario involves drawing some arbitrary line in the sand about what the difference between a male and a female is, allowing opportunities for biological males to compete unfairly against biological females. Yes, there are biological differences in high performance athletes, that’s probably why most of them can do what they do while the rest of us can’t. Using that as an argument for inclusion of everyone is incongruent with the spirit of competition. You can still create spaces for those who fall into the first category while ensuring biological males cannot unfairly compete against biological females.
I guess the distinction is that the hypothetical intersex woman hasn't modified her hormones in any way. She might have an advantage, but it's the genetic advantage she was born with. The trans woman acquired her advantage later, through medical transition and switching classes. You could look at it as a form of doping, I guess--which is not at all to suggest that trans athletes are transitioning for the sake of competitive advantage, that talking point is ridiculous. But if the effect is a performance advantage for trans women in many sports, I can see some rationale for categorizing it that way.
Making a distinction between the two isn’t singling out trans people, there is a difference. Even the language we use infers that there is a difference, we say trans woman to clarify that a biological male now identifies as a female. We say woman and it’s generally understood to mean biological female, although that water is pretty muddy right now.
You know believe the science.
Now the left wants to ignore basic biology. It's simple, go through puberty as a male and you have an advantage for the rest of your life.
Wouldn't have a standard if it wasn't a double standard.
Notice there isn't a single trans-male smashing male records.
Wouldn't most transgender males be excluded from competing in the male category due to exhibiting "illegal" testosterone levels? Seems obvious that transgender females should not be able to compete in the female category.
Obviously we need more research into trans gender athletes, but also current male and female athletes to under the current state of play, just how blurred those lines are and help us understand what we currently mean by 'fair'. Armed with that information, it will hopefully make it easier to 'place' trans gender athletes into the current system.
I don't think that's entirely true. I think we can find plenty of examples of folks who have abnormal lung and heart size, or who have extreme strength or stamina - but for whatever reason they aren't the best in their chosen sport because they lack some other skill.
Me personally - I'm a fairly strong guy. Got surprisingly close to some lifting records while in highschool and my track coach asked why I was doing running sports instead of Wrestling or Football. I just didn't like those sports. I still prefer riding to the gym. Unfortunately, my lung capacity is terrible, and I'm a pretty terrible rider from a fitness standpoint. Meanwhile guys who can barely snap a pencil will outride me all day long. Whatever advantage I might have in one area doesn't outweigh the huge disadvantages I have elsewhere.
Tests needs to be positive for hyperlipidemia, A1C of at least 7, hypertension, and positive for sleep apnea?
Sports however, are different. In most sports, having a male body is a huge advantage. So we created separate categories for men and women. This is the fundamental difference between sports and society I think. Some sports go even further, and divide contestants into weight classes as well as sexes. But very few sports have no sex segregation.
Then comes the issue of transgenders and persons with non-standard chromosomal arrangements. People that do not fit the categories that were created. In society, we can easily fit everybody in, even if some are unwilling to do so. We don't have to worry whether trans persons can be allowed to keep their profession or whether they are still eligible for a Nobel prize after transition. Because it doesn't formally matter what your sex or gender is.
In sports, it matters. That's where it starts to rub. We made categories and put a fence between them, so it will be nigh on impossible to keep everybody happy with who is on what side of the fence. We can make sports more like society and abolish sex segregation. That means we do not exclude anyone based on their sex or gender. Except that in practice, it will prohibit female athletes from ever having a realistic chance of a World Championship, or even a win in their local race. We can make even more categories and possibly deny even more people the right of deciding for themselves which category they belong in. I don't see a win-win here.
Note, this is a real question, it is just as real to these people as someone who is transitioning. Just ask them.
Ah yeah, that’s why we see a proportionate amount of women transitioning to men and then competing at the highest levels against men… oh no wait?
With that said, I have one question. And I mean this in a polite tone, and will listen with an open mind...
Would people consider it to be fair if a Bruni, Minaar or Amaury decided to transition and compete in their identifying gender category?
For instance Lia Thomas went from a national ranking of #462 as a male, to absolutely dominating swimming and being rated #1 as a transfemale.
If hormones alone could change your sex, a trans person's relative placing would be similar after they transitioned.
why not just say female athletes rather than cisgender. Female is sex so it is what you are at birth (excluding non-wild type). Trans-gender woman are not female given you cannot change your sex.
Agree or disagree, like it or not, this is happening and as I see it the UCI is trying to do their best to make it as fair as they can. Sure we can have our own opinions but most of what I have read in the comments has no substance at all. It is a complex thing and there is no easy solution but change starts somewhere and this is what the UCI are trying to do.
Extending the transition time to allow for muscle mass to lower sounds reasonable and even if there is some measurable difference after this time, is it a real advantage or just a number.
Kate Weatherly has not won the overall World Cup and from what I read, only one podium. Womens DH fields are small and so varied in ability levels that big winning margins are not uncommon at all. Rachel Atherton has won countless World Cup races by big margins against all the other 'top' women so it does happen and will be more common at lower level events. Margins depend on many factors and in a category where numbers are small and abilities so varied I think it's a bit narrow minded to just look at the margins.
If I was a male wanting to transition to a female to take make the most of the 'advantage' I'd have over the other women, I'd be picking a sport where I could make a hell of a lot more money.
For me, if the other females feel strongly enough about this be it for or against in any sport, it's up to them to air their thoughts/concerns with their respective governing bodies. Like anything, you can find facts for or against whatever point of view you want to put across.
Move with the times, be accepting of change. People are still people no matter whether they are male, female, straight, gay, bisexual or transgender, religious, non religious etc and deserve to be treated with respect. How would you feel if your child or family member was transgender and still wanting to compete in a sport because they love sport and them having to endure all of this .....
Regulating testosterone levels will not reduce the physical advantages already gained.
An Open/Trans category is the only solution, if women’s sport is to remain safe and fair.
FYI no amount of testosterone blockers and estrogen can effect strength, reflexes, speed, endurance or risk taking behaviour, regardless of how long. Surgery needs to be a minimum requirement
The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen
It truly is fascinating, in a train wreck kind of way, to see this same concept played out on a much larger scale. The scale of otherwise educated, smart, civilized individuals, feeling compelled, out of a warped sense of empathy, to outright deny undeniable biological reality is truly staggering to witness. I'm not ordinarily inclined to dramatics, but it really does feel like we're crossing a threshold here from which we can't turn back. Is this a rejection of the enlightenment and the ushering in of a new, subjective-reality, "postmodern" era? God help us if so.
I'd really like to hear what some of the girls of the Women's Elite DH-class have to say about this. Like what are we even doing here trying to discuss things that don't even affect us. How can we even say what's fair and what isn't. Maybe next time ask the ladies of Women's Elite DH for a comment.
Given science is empirical, "scientific facts" continue to evolve.
So I assume you are now supportive of this change given it is based on scientific facts?
so what your saying is science is a load of balony, and we can just change it to suit the narrative, and keep everyone happy, when do we get the young shredder, winning the gold medal in the masters race, because he identifies as 50 years old, once you open the flood gates anything is possible.
Sadly, the honest truth is I still wouldn't podium competing against 10 year old girls
I didn't actually indicate any personal opinion.
I was just highlighting that the other user said he believed in science fact and asked that given the changes are the result of scientific studies does that mean he supports them.
That is fine, you are entitled to an opinion and entitled to base it on whatever you want.
But if you choose to ignore scientific research then don't claim your opinion is right because science fact.
At one point science fact was the earth is flat (to some, possibly you it still is ) but as further studies were done our understanding evolved and we followed the science.
No amount of estrogen or testosterone blockers effect strength speed or reflexes:
Deadnaming or misgendering is not a slur or harassment.
Ah, simpler times!
Has anyone considered the possibility that fairness is the opposite of competition?
Hot. Get it. Your username. haha.
that being said I agree with your assesment.
Her
Him
They
Done!
Get rid of race categories based on sex and start bucketing people by other bio-factors such as testosterone and vo2 max, etc. you want to inject testosterone, cool you’re bumped to a new category. You want to reduce your testosterone, alright you are in a different class now.
In a way boxing is close, you bulk up, you now fight people your own size. Or maybe car racing would be a good way to consider it in the sense the athletes are being compared to cars. What’s their horse power? Well that’s what class they are in. Gender becomes a non issue and anyone can excel in a given bracket.
Yes, the highest “output” athletes in todays world would still most likely be males, but that is already true. At least this way the playing field would be leveled for all humans wanting to race bikes. As a benefit top pros that are juicing could do so openly and just compete against others doing the same because it’s no longer an unfair advantage, it’s just what you do to get in to the class you want to race against.
Sport is only ever 'fair' to the degree that everyone follows the arbritary rules of the game - whatever those rules happen to be.
The chief concern is that trans athletes have an unfair advantage. So how can we make it fair and be inclusive? In this case fairness is not a red herring. It’s the main argument the UCI is leaning in to.
What I’m suggesting is inclusive, don’t say trans athletes have to effectivly be excluded in the name of inclusion.
Feminists made that nightmare up.
1. Transition is very expensive (tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of USD).
2. Transition is not available to everyone.
3. Transition is vey confusing and time consuming. Think in years, not months for the actual transition, and decades for the emotional growth needed to approach it.
4. Transition has many non-financial risks such as loss of support systems, family, income, physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, loss of health care coverage, suicide attempts, higher than average opportunity to be murdered, and more.
5. Pills, surgeries, dating, sex, and going the grocery store are all dangerous for those transitioning.
Now, can you confidently say that a reasonable person would risk all of those things, all of that money, time, and their very lives to participate in a super dangerous sport (potentially without health care support) just to win a few grand over a whole season?
No, that math doesn’t check out.
Stop trying to stomp on someone just trying to find a way to continue to experience the same joy and happiness you all do when participating in this sport.
We’re all here for the love of the ride.
now, if you actually are a thinking human, you understand why that's asinine.
This is just a political correctness policy, that oblage everyone accept something, just because it has commeted to have voice.
Above all, all PEOPLE should be respectaful to one another independent of cromossome, gendrt they think/claim they are, race, religion or anything else.
I wouldn't mind race a transgender, and wouldn't care if he/she/it/hem would be in front of me.
In recent past, trans have already won races/championships/medals.
Is this is what about competition?
Changing odes just because if he/she/it/hem wouldn't do ANYTHING in it's CROMOSOME CLASS?
I claim respect... not this BS!
So the "born as both or something non-binary" is also bullshit.
Seriously, thank you for reporting on this in the manner that you did. Please ignore the comments where bro science and fear of anything new live
She then said 'so a man can switch from oppressor to the oppressed after just a few months of hormone therapy and proceed to oppress women in their little sanctuary. If these were primarily black men doing this the uproar would be deafening, but since white men control everything and it's white men doing it, this isn't just allowed, but championed as brave. '
'Wow', is all I could respond with.
People seem to think they're standing at a street corner when they say the stuff they do, but they don't realize they're actually inside a business.
Plenty of people have stopped in to have their say and not get banned. They put a bit of thought into their words, maybe got some back and forth. They weren't suspended or banned because they weren't being a*sholes to people. If passive agressive ad-homenism is how lazy you are then you're going to get kicked out of McDonalds.
And yeah, PB is Canadian. But even in 'Murica "free" world or speech or whatever isn't without consequence. Say what you want but be prepared to pay for it if it's really your thing.
I’ve raced against Kate many times - and never felt that is was unfair. yeah she might have some slight physical advantages but hey, I also had to race against women like Tahnee or Rachel who’s parents were minted and moved to hilly places or bought their children hillsides so they could train. I raced against women who had parents that supported their kids so they could only focus on racing. did we, the girls that didnt have that support and needed to make sure we got our life and money together by ourselves moaned about how unfair that is? no we didnt. we just all did our best, were stoked we could race against other kick ass women (with former-willies or not) and just had amazing times on our bikes!
all these keyboard warriors care about is the top girls with the funny blue helmets anyway - and no trans girl ever threatend them so calm down boys, and let them compete in whatever category they want. because every athlete has his and her baggage and if anyone think sports are fair then go home, because it isnt. newsflash: generally life’s unfair und we just all trying to do our best with the cards we’re dealt! :-)
Ivy is the first transgender world track cycling champion (UCI Women's Masters Track World Champion, 35-44yo) and a doctorate whose research is focused in the philosophy of language, specifically in the lens of feminism, gender, and queer identities. Long story short, trans women are women; to relegate them to a different category questions their womanhood. You can see why that would be offensive. (Full disclosure, writing this as a cis man.)
The answer here is not another category. Not only is it less competitive (per the article), but there would also be no path to an elite, professional career for an open category. Look how long it's taken women to get a foothold in the industry - and they represent half the general population - now imagine how a trans female racer in a small "open" field can race elites as anything but a privateer.
Regarding Kate, check out this article from Outsports in 2020: www.outsports.com/2020/6/12/21283645/kate-weatherly-mountain-bike-uci-world-cup-new-zealand-rotorua-leogang-lenzerheide-trans-athletes. She goes into detail about her transition and the lengths it took to get to her Leogang podium. It's not as simple as "switching categories and waiting two years." And when people quote that she pipped Marine Cabirou by 0.2s to 3rd place on the 2019 Leogang podium? Nina Hoffmann beat them both by 7s, and Tracey Hannah beat them by over 9. I'm pretty sure 2019 was also Marine's breakout year. She went from very good to winning races. Kate went from good to a single podium (pretty sure there was only one). Clearly there is more at play in a World Cup podium than gender assigned at birth.