Trans/Non-Binary Athletes Need a New Cat. for Inclusiveness and Fairness in Intl. Sports??

[JuicyBunny]

I have been watching a lot of Tokyo 2021. Love the Olympics and this year's event is no exception.
Have also been following all the controversies involving women's sports, trans, intersex and non-binary inclusions into the category and have come to the realization that trans/intersex/non-binaries should have their own category. Cheryl Hubbard's participation has been claimed historic though the women she failed to compete against did not feel the same way.

The bigger problem is testosterone levels. Many athletes were not allowed to participate due to testing failures of their home countries or the fact they have naturally high testosterone levels that cannot be "corrected" without surgeries or lots of hormonal treatments. I think it is evil to force trans/non-binaries to have any sort of surgeries or have them take high doses of hormone therapies to correct their chemical levels. Its in-human.

The best scenario I can see moving forward is a new category. Its a way to ensure bodily health, fairness and inclusiveness for all involved.

Thoughts?

 

[JuicyBunny]

Part of the controversy and the conundrum of a difficult situation...

Namibian medallist reopens athletics 'intersex' debate (msn.com)

 

[JuicyBunny]

Not looking for a fight or to upset people. really. Just curious about people's ideas on the subject.
Women athletes have so far shared this...

https://www.insider.com/womens-weightlifting-podium-refused-question-about-laurel-hubbard-2021-8

 

[JuicyBunny]

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

Not looking for a fight or to upset people. really. Just curious about people's ideas on the subject.

Actually, I think you've broached this subject with far more sensitivity than I would have expected from this board, so fair play to you!

It's a difficult subject, for sure, and one that I don't believe sports bodies have discussed with anywhere the levels of thought that are needed. Because transgender and non-binary athletes have every bit as much right to participate in sport as any cis person like myself, for instance. I think the way forward could be with more mixed gender events, which the IOC have been trialling more of in these Olympics. Beyond that, it's a minefield that I really struggle to have the answers to get through, really.

It is a shame, but also completely expected, that transphobes' voices have been heard loudest when it comes to Laurel Hubbard though. She had every bit as much right to compete in the Olympics as anyone else.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Delete

I moderate myself. Gimme a nickel.

Nickel = A half a gram.

 

[tvstrip]

I mentioned this in the other thread: I think it's possible to be supportive of trans rights but still be critical about cases where there is a distinct and artificial physical advantage.
I personally feel Hubbard crosses that line.

Conversely, you have:
Semenya misses Tokyo, may be forced out of Olympics for good (msn.com)
I strongly feel this focus on testosterone alone is not right. You have a male who transitioned into a female, and there's no issue because their testosterones levels are "low enough", despite being a fully developed male athlete at the time of transition who was also an elite athlete in that strength-based sport. Meanwhile, you have women (3 in this article alone) who naturally have high testosterone levels, lived their entire lives as females, then forced to take drugs or disqualified altogether. I feel much more sympathetic towards the latter.

I think the IOC dodged a bullet with Hubbard not finishing - had she taken the gold, or even medaled, it would have ignited a firestorm.

 

[JuicyBunny]

Actually, I think you've broached this subject with far more sensitivity than I would have expected from this board, so fair play to you!

It's a difficult subject, for sure, and one that I don't believe sports bodies have discussed with anywhere the levels of thought that are needed. Because transgender and non-binary athletes have every bit as much right to participate in sport as any cis person like myself, for instance. I think the way forward could be with more mixed gender events, which the IOC have been trialling more of in these Olympics. Beyond that, it's a minefield that I really struggle to have the answers to get through, really.

It is a shame, but also completely expected, that transphobes' voices have been heard loudest when it comes to Laurel Hubbard though. She had every bit as much right to compete in the Olympics as anyone else.

I have been watching the mixed events. Was surprised and actually quite happy about it. Makes sense. I do not know how the athletes feel about it but haven't seen any complaints. It could very well be the path forward.

As for Hubbard I am not sure she should have been selected based simply on her current readiness. She took a slot that could have gone to a person with a chance to win or at least place. I think her participation was entirely political. She did win by being here. But others potentially lost because she was here.

There are so many factors here at play; science, identity, politics, individual circumstances. There was another transgender in the games, that I know of, Stephanie Barrett, in archery. I think she may have placed actually. Interesting that media are keeping her birth sex a secret as much as possible. Dishonesty in the media is also a driving force in all of this and every topic we as humans face today. If people feel hoodwinked their reactions will ultimately be negative.

Thanks to you both for replying. I hope we may continue this discussion.

Gender discussions aside, many here, in Japan, think it is time for the IOC to disband. Not the games but the IOC. Bach is seen as a criminal and the organization as a whole completely lacking any integrity.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I don't think any new categories are needed, and I also don't think transgendered people should be able to complete outside of their original gender because there are too many generic differences that make it unreasonable.

For the Olympics and sports competition it should not be allowed, but for beauty contests and similar non athletic events there is no is no reason that would make it unfair.

I think in the cases of athletics more can instead be done to be more inclusive and accepting of transgendered people competing in their original gender.

Simply measuring testosterone/estrogen levels is not a reasonable standard for separating gender in athletic events - especially since those levels are easily tampered with and altered.

I agree with @tvstrip that the IOC dodged a bullet with Hubbard not reaching the podium, now the IOC had a chance to review their policies and hopefully made a more reasonable decision.

I think the best way forward for the IOC is to only allow original gender at birth to be the standard, and to have more transgendered accommodations such as whatever they require to feel less excluded - such as private bathrooms and private living spaces etc, or whatever else within reason.

If gender at birth is not the standard, the risk is not having reasonable standards at all where there will be no gender separation, making it unfair for girls competing against boys in speed/strength competitions - and unfair for boys competing against girls in whatever girls gender does better.

 

[gmase]

I didn’t expect the greatest Canada’s greatest rock band to make a Cameo in this thread. Great selection though.

 

[tvstrip]

I'll take a stab on how I evaluate this:

-If you're born with a distinct physical advantage (and there's no reasonable doubt surrounding its legitimacy), you should be freely allowed to compete without any artificial inhibitors. We don't handicap tall players in basketball, or make Ian Thorpe fix his webbed feet. Some people are born with genetic advantages (like women with high testostrone), if they're legit, that's the luck of the draw. You still have to put in the work/training to be good at your sport; it's not like some genetic cheat code that guarantees you a gold. Plus, if you were a girl growing up with elevated testosterone, I have to imagine puberty & high school would have been just as difficult as any trans person in the same age group.

-If you started your transition prior to puberty or before significant physical changes to your body occurred, no problem there. You're growing up mentally and physically in your true identity, and if there's no tangible physical difference by the time you've matured, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with you competing in that gender.

-Regardless of when you transitioned, if any physical advantages from your prior gender don't give you a definitive advantage in your sport, again, no problem. I'm thinking sports like table tennis, shooting, fencing and maybe skateboarding. In fact, I wonder why some of these sports even divide by gender at all.

Off the top of my head, these would be some factors I'd look at. They're nothing more than personal opinion, and I welcome any similar/contradictory points. I very well could be missing something here, and I'm always open to learning.

I also agree with Villella that transgendered accommodations would be a great idea, if not a given. Let them feel comfortable and included so they can focus on competing.

I'll throw out one more point: if you're competing in a sport where your transition gave you a physical disadvantage, I would think you'd have universal support. If Hubbard competed in the men's category, I bet very few people (if anyone) would take issue with it, and had she placed, she would have received universal acclaim instead of controversy.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

I know we're talking fairness/inclusiveness stuffs but about how much would these games cost and would they be worth the investment? Which cities would be the most eager to host these games? How would you differentiate the non-binary drug tests and what exactly is a world record anymore?

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I'll take a stab on how I evaluate this:

-If you're born with a distinct physical advantage (and there's no reasonable doubt surrounding its legitimacy), you should be freely allowed to compete without any artificial inhibitors. We don't handicap tall players in basketball, or make Ian Thorpe fix his webbed feet. Some people are born with genetic advantages (like women with high testostrone), if they're legit, that's the luck of the draw. You still have to put in the work/training to be good at your sport; it's not like some genetic cheat code that guarantees you a gold. Plus, if you were a girl growing up with elevated testosterone, I have to imagine puberty & high school would have been just as difficult as any trans person in the same age group.

-If you started your transition prior to puberty or before significant physical changes to your body occurred, no problem there. You're growing up mentally and physically in your true identity, and if there's no tangible physical difference by the time you've matured, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with you competing in that gender.

-Regardless of when you transitioned, if any physical advantages from your prior gender don't give you a definitive advantage in your sport, again, no problem. I'm thinking sports like table tennis, shooting, fencing and maybe skateboarding. In fact, I wonder why some of these sports even divide by gender at all.

Off the top of my head, these would be some factors I'd look at. They're nothing more than personal opinion, and I welcome any similar/contradictory points. I very well could be missing something here, and I'm always open to learning.

I also agree with Villella that transgendered accommodations would be a great idea, if not a given. Let them feel comfortable and included so they can focus on competing.

I'll throw out one more point: if you're competing in a sport where your transition gave you a physical disadvantage, I would think you'd have universal support. If Hubbard competed in the men's category, I bet very few people (if anyone) would take issue with it, and had she placed, she would have received universal acclaim instead of controversy.

Alot of good ideas for how to evaluate advantages/disadvantages, it won't be easy to ascertain all of the advantages/disadvantages for each sport - I think even shooting and the others you listed might have some that we can think of, the best thing I think would be to first research into the best Olympic scores/times/records/etc of both guys and girls in every event then see if any of the girl Olympic records are comparable. This way we can see which events if any the girls exceed the guys or vice versa.

If there are any, those events could be considered for reclassification in the future for mixed gender competition. The events where the difference between genders is to significant would have to be left to the traditional seperation of biological genders.

As for what the original poster said about the corrupt IOC, I think it's pretty common knowledge worldwide that the IOC is corrupt - in my opinion this is no difference from any government or corporation, I don't condone or accept it as unchangeable, I just note it as our current reality.

As for scraping or replacing the IOC, I don't know the exact process, but I guessing that the the Olympic brand is a trademark or brand copyright owned by some sort of company/corporation/foundation/etc that controls or appoints people to the IOC - and most companies are dictatorships, so while not impossible it is probably improbable to effect much change unless some sort of profit crisis were to occur to this company to pressure it to change, similar to boycotting of companies that harm the environment etc.

So, unless countries and people worldwide started to boycott the Olympics causing the Olympic brand to lose value, I don't think much else would cause change within the IOC.

The way I understand it is the IOC signs contacts with host cities or countries for them to use their trademarks/copyrights/brands/etc for specified mutual gains/profits - exactly like any other business contact is negotiated and consummated. So the negotiating power of the IOC is not easily weakened, and thus they have no incentive to change - and as we have seen, even bad publicity has little effect.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

I know we're talking fairness/inclusiveness stuffs but about how much would these games cost and would they be worth the investment? Which cities would be the most eager to host these games? How would you differentiate the non-binary drug tests and what exactly is a world record anymore?

Yeah, I agree the gender seperation standard should remain biological.

 

[John_8581]

This is a tough subject to discuss. Because most transgenders (if they are truly serious about changing their sexual orientation: from male to female and/or verse versa) are taking massive hormonal drugs (estrogen, testosterone, etc.) plus they are undergoing and having surgeries to change their genital areas. The IOC in the past has banned that. Especially in the eastern European countries like the USSR, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania and in the (now) Czech Republic. Gives those countries an unfair advantage.

I also remember in the early seventies that this even affected a male to female long distance runner in South Africa. This runner could not participate at the Olympics. This was before South Africa was banned from international competition because of Apartheid with the assistance from Amnesty International in getting that country banned at the Olympics.

Off-topic.

I didn’t expect the greatest Canada’s greatest rock band to make a cameo in this thread. Great selection though.

Kudos to Rush!

But let's give some love to these Canadians with the help of two Americans: Levon Helm and Joni Mitchell.

 

[JuicyBunny]

I didn’t expect the greatest Canada’s greatest rock band to make a cameo in this thread. Great selection though.

Me either. Who did that? Hehe. I was listening to the lyrics while working and it seemed they fit in. They are legendary. Band and lyrics. 💞💗💖💝

 

[JuicyBunny]

There is a new book out last month by a Harvard Biology Professor. Testosterone. https://www.harvard.com/book/t_the_story_of_testosterone_the_hormone_that_dominates_and_divides_us/
It seems a cut and dry case by the professor until...there is the question of intersex. Male and female with female genitals. Like Semanya.

 

[tvstrip]

Alot of good ideas for how to evaluate advantages/disadvantages, it won't be easy to ascertain all of the advantages/disadvantages for each sport -

Fair point. Those who play & regulate the sport should have a say in that; they'd know best when the playing field is no longer level.
However, as the press conference shows, if none of the top three finishers in your event were willing to support you, even when you didn't finish, that's a pretty clear endorsement on where they stand. And I think that should carry a lot of weight, definitely more than any non-competitor like myself.

As for scraping or replacing the IOC,...

I think the decline is already happening. For 2012, there were 9 bids, 5 which made it to the final ballot. For 2016, there were 7 bids of which 4 made the finals. In 2020, there were only 6 bids of which 3 even made it to the vote. For 2024/2028, they were awarded by default since there were no other applicants left. It was so bad they overhauled the entire process for 2032.

Cities are catching on that just the bidding process isn't worth kissing up to the IOC, especially when actually winning the Olympics will usually end up costing them more. I remember for Nagano, the Japanese committee had to bribe the IOC with gifts of freaking samurai katanas. Imagine spending all that taxpayer money and effort to butter them up, only to lose out and have literally nothing to show for it?

The worst part is, 2021 showed that the IOC is a dictatorship even over the host country. Even if Japan wanted to cancel/postpone the Olympics, it was made clear that they actually don't have that right. It's 100% up to the IOC as the whether the games go on. You can bet that Japan won't be bidding on another Olympics for decades (if ever) after this.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

Fair point. Those who play & regulate the sport should have a say in that; they'd know best when the playing field is no longer level.
However, as the press conference shows, if none of the top three finishers in your event were willing to support you, even when you didn't finish, that's a pretty clear endorsement on where they stand. And I think that should carry a lot of weight, definitely more than any non-competitor like myself.


I think the decline is already happening. For 2012, there were 9 bids, 5 which made it to the final ballot. For 2016, there were 7 bids of which 4 made the finals. In 2020, there were only 6 bids of which 3 even made it to the vote. For 2024/2028, they were awarded by default since there were no other applicants left. It was so bad they overhauled the entire process for 2032.

Cities are catching on that just the bidding process isn't worth kissing up to the IOC, especially when actually winning the Olympics will usually end up costing them more. I remember for Nagano, the Japanese committee had to bribe the IOC with gifts of freaking samurai katanas. Imagine spending all that taxpayer money and effort to butter them up, only to lose out and have literally nothing to show for it?

The worst part is, 2021 showed that the IOC is a dictatorship even over the host country. Even if Japan wanted to cancel/postpone the Olympics, it was made clear that they actually don't have that right. It's 100% up to the IOC as the whether the games go on. You can bet that Japan won't be bidding on another Olympics for decades (if ever) after this.

Agree with all above. The Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi had the same conclusions you have about the IOC and for those reasons and more withdrew Calgary Olympic bid.

 

[JuicyBunny]

Fair point. Those who play & regulate the sport should have a say in that; they'd know best when the playing field is no longer level.
However, as the press conference shows, if none of the top three finishers in your event were willing to support you, even when you didn't finish, that's a pretty clear endorsement on where they stand. And I think that should carry a lot of weight, definitely more than any non-competitor like myself.


I think the decline is already happening. For 2012, there were 9 bids, 5 which made it to the final ballot. For 2016, there were 7 bids of which 4 made the finals. In 2020, there were only 6 bids of which 3 even made it to the vote. For 2024/2028, they were awarded by default since there were no other applicants left. It was so bad they overhauled the entire process for 2032.

Cities are catching on that just the bidding process isn't worth kissing up to the IOC, especially when actually winning the Olympics will usually end up costing them more. I remember for Nagano, the Japanese committee had to bribe the IOC with gifts of freaking samurai katanas. Imagine spending all that taxpayer money and effort to butter them up, only to lose out and have literally nothing to show for it?

The worst part is, 2021 showed that the IOC is a dictatorship even over the host country. Even if Japan wanted to cancel/postpone the Olympics, it was made clear that they actually don't have that right. It's 100% up to the IOC as the whether the games go on. You can bet that Japan won't be bidding on another Olympics for decades (if ever) after this.

We agree 100%. It will be political suicide for anyone to advance interests of IOC here. Japan was advised it could be sued by multiple parties if they canceled. Japanese HATE lawsuits. Its really the last route to take and IOC knew/knows it. I have read that other countries have been withdrawing their efforts to host. Good.
I like the World Championships. Congrats to the wieners!