Posted: Feb 26, 2019 3:59 am
I'm With Stupid wrote:But what you're basically saying there is that trans athletes are never going to be allowed to compete at the elite level, only against other trans athletes.
Not at all. Elite trans athletes would be able to compete against elite trans athletes in exactly the same way that elite women can compete against elite women. or elite flyweight boxers compete against elite flyweight boxers. Or indeed elite U17s against elite U17s.
There's absolutely no requirement to compete against women in order to be elite.
The distinction I made between elite and non-elite is only that at lower levels, where there aren't resources and numbers to, as you suggested, make up a full team of trans players (in say the Southern Sunday league division 3) you don't need to enforce the rules to the same degree as in the Olympics. This already happens in lots of ways.
I'm With Stupid wrote:Just to put it in perspective, trans athletes have been eligible to compete at the Olympics since 2003, and in that time, precisely zero trans athletes have qualified. We're not living in a world (yet, at least) where trans athletes are dominating women's sport.
Yes, but with restrictions on their level of androgens in place. And as I already said, trans athletes are not the main issue here. Caster Semenya who we were discussing is not trans.
ETA: Incidentally, I'm not quite sure at what age Dr McKinnon transitioned, it appears to have been completed around the age of 30, so I'm not sure the success being in an age appropriate bracket (and not one I'm sure is governed by the IAAF?) is all that surprising. As far as I can tell, before transition Dr McKinnon was not an elite male athlete, and this is one of the thorny issues in her case.
ETA2: Just a thought on "fairness" and how I would define it in sporting terms. Take an example: Let us suppose that in terms of upper body strength men are, on mean average (for whatever biological reasons, relating to androgens or otherwise) 50% stronger than women, and that this has been scientifically established with excellent reliability, accuracy and reproducibilty. Let us also suppose that some sport, maybe a form of wrestling, is largely governed by upper body strength.
If it was found, again by rigorous scientific method and sampling, that men who transitioned to women (and who then adopted whatever set of requirements on androgen reduction or increase were stipulated by whatever governing body was applicable) only lost 30% of their upper body strength on average, I would say that represents an advantage - an unfair advantage - over women born as women. Similarly, if it was found they lost 70% of their upper body strength on average, I would say that represents an unfair disadvantage.
A telltale sign of unfair advantage would be that non-elite men who transitioned to women became elite women. A telltale sign of unfair disadvantage would be that elite men who transitioned to women became non-elite women. I am taking it as understood that elite men outperform elite women in this event.