>>Under a new participation policy that the governing body said was “predicated on fairness”, such athletes will compete in an ‘open category’ with men.
>>The female category will be “for those whose sex was assigned female at birth”.
I havent quite understood
Are they creating a new “open” category for all those who don’t identify as the sex assigned at birth identity?
Or will those who don’t identify with their assigned at birth sex compete with men?
Are they changing the name women’s category to “Female category”?
“Under the new rules, which were greeted with sharp criticism by Bridges, the men’s division will be replaced by an “open category” – which will now also include transgender men, transgender women and non-binary individuals. Meanwhile the “female category” for any form of competition from elite to grassroots will be preserved for those with a birth sex of female.”
[removed]
An open category does seem to be the fairest and most practical solution.
[removed]
I have to commend them for tackling this issue and trying to come up with a solution. It’s a massive hot potato and I doubt a solution exists that pleases everybody, but it seems like there’s a spirit of fairness with this and that merits acknowledging.
I hope this works out for all involved.
Slight question about how this works however; if people are taking testosterone supplements as part of a transition, does that count as using a banned substance?
The correct decision and one that needs reflecting across all athletic sports
[removed]
I hope that transpeople can positively embrace these changes – society is finding the sensible accomodation points for the actual issues, and hopefully areas where it is simply prejudice against transpeople can make more positive progress.
Hopefully, creating a clear structure will remove some of the topic’s heat. It’s horrible to see athletes on both sides of the debate receive unimaginable hate.
Generally my take on this is that it’s cruel to have allowed them in the first place and then gone back on it.
You do get the feeling that a lot of these policies and discussions that come through on the surface are about ‘just doing XYZ to make it fairer’ but in context of each other actually are coming together to put more and more limits on the ways in which transgender people can actually participate in society and navigate public spaces.
I’m hoping that things like this coming through can then stay limited to professional sport etc. instead of being taken by bad faith actors and people with an agenda as evidence that the majority of the public is on board with *generally* banning and excluding trans people from more general spaces and activities.
A sensible decision.
Apparently there are 50 transgender women competing in elite level cycling.
There have been several cases of trans women winning cycling events – a new challenge for the sport.
A very successful female cyclist, Hannah Arensman, quit the sport after finishing second, placing between two trans women. The reason? They couldn’t see the point when the competition was no longer fair.
One of the cyclists that beat her, Austin Killips, is apparently on track to compete at the Paris Olympics.
I can see why this would be a disappointing outcome for trans athletes, but it makes a mockery of female sport to allow the current situation to continue.
[deleted]
Feel sorry for athletes in this tbh. They were given no guidance and let’s be honest teans athletes competed where they were told they could…its not their fault. An open category would make sense….but if you’re transitioned from male to female and take testosterone blockers what chance would rhey have in a male dominated field? It’s such a hard one
I’m an archer. I compete against men rather than women because I know the hate and abuse I’ll get if I compete against women, even though I’ve been told I’m welcome to pending blood tests. But you know what else I get competing against men? Hate and abuse.
Can’t win. It’s not about the sport, not really. People just don’t want to acknowledge we exist.
Slightly surprised that the other possible scenario isn’t brought up often. In other words, what about trans men who want to compete in sports? Would the expectation be that they compete against biological males?
I just kinda feel that a trans man would struggle a lot more against biological men than a trans woman would against women. And maybe having that discussion could help figure out what we do in general?
A common sense decision. An open category is the way forward.
Good, common sense, realism and fairness prevailed. They should just make a separate category for trans people, or something like the Paralympics where they compete against other athletes of similar circumstances
It’s the right decision – there’s a difference between equality and equity, and in this instance equality was making things uncompetitive to the extent both cis women and transwomen weren’t really competing fairly to the point it was causing unnecessary conflict in the sport.
Like others have already said, to make it truly fair and “equitable”, open races would make sense.
No major issues with timings, no separate races causing obstructions, and you could say runners could be judged on individual and group merit better e.g. fastest cis man, fastest transwoman, fastest under 21/50+ and whatever other potential titles (e.g. receiving x treatment, has x disability, maybe for those running to support a cause?).
If anything it opens the door to more competitors and interest in sports, as others could look at X racer and think, “I’m like them, they did it this way – I could do that”. They could even compare to whoever ran the fastest as a benchmark, neither taking away from the fastest runner’s achievements nor those below. Seems a no brainer to me?
The term ‘cisgender’ is widely regarded to have been introduced in 1994.
Whereas ‘womens sport’ has been around since at least the 19th century, with Olympic women’s events first held at the 1900 games.
It’s safe to say then that ‘womens’ sport was introduced, that it meant and continues to mean ‘sport for ciswomen’. The words just weren’t available to clarify this exclusivity at the time that the concept was introduced.
The fact that proponents are attempting to argue for transwomen’s inclusion on a semantic basis, is a bit daft considering the hundreds of languages in the world, of which many almost certainly in their own tongue would dub the concept ‘female sport’ – relating to sex, rather than ‘womens sport’ – relating (supposedly or in a modern sense) to gender identity
[removed]
Can women enter the open one. Didn’t see that mentioned
Good call, just have mens, womens and an open category.
BREAKING NEWS: Sky continues abusing the breaking news image.
23 comments
>>Under a new participation policy that the governing body said was “predicated on fairness”, such athletes will compete in an ‘open category’ with men.
>>The female category will be “for those whose sex was assigned female at birth”.
I havent quite understood
Are they creating a new “open” category for all those who don’t identify as the sex assigned at birth identity?
Or will those who don’t identify with their assigned at birth sex compete with men?
Are they changing the name women’s category to “Female category”?
Edit
[This article](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/26/british-cycling-bars-transgender-women-from-competing-female-category) has answered my questions
“Under the new rules, which were greeted with sharp criticism by Bridges, the men’s division will be replaced by an “open category” – which will now also include transgender men, transgender women and non-binary individuals. Meanwhile the “female category” for any form of competition from elite to grassroots will be preserved for those with a birth sex of female.”
[removed]
An open category does seem to be the fairest and most practical solution.
[removed]
I have to commend them for tackling this issue and trying to come up with a solution. It’s a massive hot potato and I doubt a solution exists that pleases everybody, but it seems like there’s a spirit of fairness with this and that merits acknowledging.
I hope this works out for all involved.
Slight question about how this works however; if people are taking testosterone supplements as part of a transition, does that count as using a banned substance?
The correct decision and one that needs reflecting across all athletic sports
[removed]
I hope that transpeople can positively embrace these changes – society is finding the sensible accomodation points for the actual issues, and hopefully areas where it is simply prejudice against transpeople can make more positive progress.
Hopefully, creating a clear structure will remove some of the topic’s heat. It’s horrible to see athletes on both sides of the debate receive unimaginable hate.
Generally my take on this is that it’s cruel to have allowed them in the first place and then gone back on it.
You do get the feeling that a lot of these policies and discussions that come through on the surface are about ‘just doing XYZ to make it fairer’ but in context of each other actually are coming together to put more and more limits on the ways in which transgender people can actually participate in society and navigate public spaces.
I’m hoping that things like this coming through can then stay limited to professional sport etc. instead of being taken by bad faith actors and people with an agenda as evidence that the majority of the public is on board with *generally* banning and excluding trans people from more general spaces and activities.
A sensible decision.
Apparently there are 50 transgender women competing in elite level cycling.
There have been several cases of trans women winning cycling events – a new challenge for the sport.
A very successful female cyclist, Hannah Arensman, quit the sport after finishing second, placing between two trans women. The reason? They couldn’t see the point when the competition was no longer fair.
One of the cyclists that beat her, Austin Killips, is apparently on track to compete at the Paris Olympics.
I can see why this would be a disappointing outcome for trans athletes, but it makes a mockery of female sport to allow the current situation to continue.
[deleted]
Feel sorry for athletes in this tbh. They were given no guidance and let’s be honest teans athletes competed where they were told they could…its not their fault. An open category would make sense….but if you’re transitioned from male to female and take testosterone blockers what chance would rhey have in a male dominated field? It’s such a hard one
I’m an archer. I compete against men rather than women because I know the hate and abuse I’ll get if I compete against women, even though I’ve been told I’m welcome to pending blood tests. But you know what else I get competing against men? Hate and abuse.
Can’t win. It’s not about the sport, not really. People just don’t want to acknowledge we exist.
Slightly surprised that the other possible scenario isn’t brought up often. In other words, what about trans men who want to compete in sports? Would the expectation be that they compete against biological males?
I just kinda feel that a trans man would struggle a lot more against biological men than a trans woman would against women. And maybe having that discussion could help figure out what we do in general?
A common sense decision. An open category is the way forward.
Good, common sense, realism and fairness prevailed. They should just make a separate category for trans people, or something like the Paralympics where they compete against other athletes of similar circumstances
It’s the right decision – there’s a difference between equality and equity, and in this instance equality was making things uncompetitive to the extent both cis women and transwomen weren’t really competing fairly to the point it was causing unnecessary conflict in the sport.
Like others have already said, to make it truly fair and “equitable”, open races would make sense.
No major issues with timings, no separate races causing obstructions, and you could say runners could be judged on individual and group merit better e.g. fastest cis man, fastest transwoman, fastest under 21/50+ and whatever other potential titles (e.g. receiving x treatment, has x disability, maybe for those running to support a cause?).
If anything it opens the door to more competitors and interest in sports, as others could look at X racer and think, “I’m like them, they did it this way – I could do that”. They could even compare to whoever ran the fastest as a benchmark, neither taking away from the fastest runner’s achievements nor those below. Seems a no brainer to me?
The term ‘cisgender’ is widely regarded to have been introduced in 1994.
Whereas ‘womens sport’ has been around since at least the 19th century, with Olympic women’s events first held at the 1900 games.
It’s safe to say then that ‘womens’ sport was introduced, that it meant and continues to mean ‘sport for ciswomen’. The words just weren’t available to clarify this exclusivity at the time that the concept was introduced.
The fact that proponents are attempting to argue for transwomen’s inclusion on a semantic basis, is a bit daft considering the hundreds of languages in the world, of which many almost certainly in their own tongue would dub the concept ‘female sport’ – relating to sex, rather than ‘womens sport’ – relating (supposedly or in a modern sense) to gender identity
[removed]
Can women enter the open one. Didn’t see that mentioned
Good call, just have mens, womens and an open category.
BREAKING NEWS: Sky continues abusing the breaking news image.