IOC Guidelines
8:29pm, 18th Nov 2021 | 9 Comments
Blog by RooA
| More by this blogger
| More bloggers
A couple of days ago the IOC released its new guidelines for the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. After indicating during the Olympics that the previous guidelines were not fit for purpose.
A few main points.
They say that "no advantage should be assumed" in the case of transwomen competing in the women's category.
They also advise that testosterone suppression is no longer necessary.
They push the actual policy decisions out onto the individual federations. Which is in some ways good because it means individual sports can assess fairness, safety and inclusion as pertains to the specific circumstances of their own sports.
They also state that transwomen should not be excluded from the women's category without proof that there is an "unreasonable" advantage. This places the burden of proof on the side of showing that a transwomen does in fact have an advantage, until that is proven the null hypothesis is that no advantage exists...
All this seems contrary to the Sports Councils UK guidance that was released earlier this year. Which, in case you missed it, determined that inclusion of transwomen in the women's category was at odds with safety and fairness in that category. The Sports Councils guidance was detailed, vigorous and transparent. The IOC haven't revealed who the stakeholders that they consulted are even.
The IOC also group together transgender athletes with athletes with Differences/Disorders of Sexual Development, which is a rather different issue. It creates an interesting question about whether Caster and other 5-ARD athletes would still be required to suppress testosterone though. If a transwoman is not required to do so. Seems incongruous.
I guess it depends on the individual sporting bodies now. But they've been put in a rather difficult position.
What I want to know is why we can assume a sporting advantage for male-bodied people who are happy in their maleness but not for male-bodied people who are unhappy in it or feel that they are really women, regardless of whether the latter reduce their testosterone production or not. What is it about the declaration that a person identifies themselves as a woman that then removes a sporting advantage (a feature of the physical world, rather than the mental one) such that it must now be seperately proven that this person does still have an advantage?
Surely if we include one male-bodied person with full testosterone into women's sports then we cannot justify the exclusion of any other such person.
It strikes me that the IOC don't actually give much of a shit about women and our right to safe and fair sport to be honest.
But maybe I'm just really grumpy because I have horrific period pains now after feeling ill for two days already. Maybe I get really pissed off about things like this when facing the reality of female biology as an often painful thing.
Still I did run today. Haven't logged it yet. Will upload tomorrow.
Look. I don't really mind if people think that the inclusion of trans people in the sporting category that makes them most psychologically comfortable is the most important thing we can aim for, that's absolutely fine. It is an opinion that people have a right to. But it is categorical that to do so must be to the detriment of safety and fairness (and thus I would say inclusion) of women in sport. So you also have to own that bit. It really should be patently clear that there is a conflict between these things and that we can't have both.
A few main points.
They say that "no advantage should be assumed" in the case of transwomen competing in the women's category.
They also advise that testosterone suppression is no longer necessary.
They push the actual policy decisions out onto the individual federations. Which is in some ways good because it means individual sports can assess fairness, safety and inclusion as pertains to the specific circumstances of their own sports.
They also state that transwomen should not be excluded from the women's category without proof that there is an "unreasonable" advantage. This places the burden of proof on the side of showing that a transwomen does in fact have an advantage, until that is proven the null hypothesis is that no advantage exists...
All this seems contrary to the Sports Councils UK guidance that was released earlier this year. Which, in case you missed it, determined that inclusion of transwomen in the women's category was at odds with safety and fairness in that category. The Sports Councils guidance was detailed, vigorous and transparent. The IOC haven't revealed who the stakeholders that they consulted are even.
The IOC also group together transgender athletes with athletes with Differences/Disorders of Sexual Development, which is a rather different issue. It creates an interesting question about whether Caster and other 5-ARD athletes would still be required to suppress testosterone though. If a transwoman is not required to do so. Seems incongruous.
I guess it depends on the individual sporting bodies now. But they've been put in a rather difficult position.
What I want to know is why we can assume a sporting advantage for male-bodied people who are happy in their maleness but not for male-bodied people who are unhappy in it or feel that they are really women, regardless of whether the latter reduce their testosterone production or not. What is it about the declaration that a person identifies themselves as a woman that then removes a sporting advantage (a feature of the physical world, rather than the mental one) such that it must now be seperately proven that this person does still have an advantage?
Surely if we include one male-bodied person with full testosterone into women's sports then we cannot justify the exclusion of any other such person.
It strikes me that the IOC don't actually give much of a shit about women and our right to safe and fair sport to be honest.
But maybe I'm just really grumpy because I have horrific period pains now after feeling ill for two days already. Maybe I get really pissed off about things like this when facing the reality of female biology as an often painful thing.
Still I did run today. Haven't logged it yet. Will upload tomorrow.
Look. I don't really mind if people think that the inclusion of trans people in the sporting category that makes them most psychologically comfortable is the most important thing we can aim for, that's absolutely fine. It is an opinion that people have a right to. But it is categorical that to do so must be to the detriment of safety and fairness (and thus I would say inclusion) of women in sport. So you also have to own that bit. It really should be patently clear that there is a conflict between these things and that we can't have both.
Got something to say?
To see the comments on this blog, or to add a comment yourself, you need to either sign in or register as a user.