Transgender players banned from international women’s cricket by ICC
theguardian.com
The International Cricket Council has become the latest sports body to ban transgender players from the elite women’s game if they have gone through male puberty.
The ICC said it had taken the decision, following an extensive scientific review and nine-month consultation, to “protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players”.
It joins rugby union, swimming, cycling, athletics and rugby league, who have all gone down a similar path in recent years after citing concerns over fairness or safety.
You are viewing a single comment
It's own category with like 5 people in each sport. Great idea.
What is the alternative though that won't ruin female's sports that was built as part or followup of female's emancipation ?
Some sports do it based on what kind of puberty you went through.
As a significant number of the physical advantages come through going through male puberty.
That could be a good start.
Which sports do that?
A quick Google gave me this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports
Oh i misunderstood i though you said that if someone is born one sex but get to transiaion by chems in puberty they are allowed.
No, it depends which puberty they go through.
You can trigger whatever puberty you want by taking hormones/medication.
The one where trans women play in the women's league and trans men in the men's. If it causes any sort on unfairness we would have seen it by now.
We have. That's why it's a dumb idea.
Where? All the hyped up news stories have been titles like "trans woman destroys women in insert sport here" but if you look into it they took 600th or something and beat maybe 10 women.
That is what tons of folks fights against. But i agree it makes sense. However, is taking testosteron considered doping for females or is it OK? if it's OK, why other "chems" are not allowed?
The testosterone for trans men is just to get to the levels that average cis men have, I'm pretty sure they test for excess testosterone. Some medication is allowed for sick athletes that is considered doping for anyone who isn't sick, like the therapy for increasing blood oxygen levels which is a common form of doping but is a valid treatment for some illnesses.
Medication for sick people seems kinda different thing to me than being healthy and chumming chems to gain muscles.
So testosterone for female( born) athletes should be allowed until they reach avg male(born) level? Is that really a thing we want to introduce into sports ? Will steroids also count as getting to avg male upper muscle mass ? Where is the line? Won't that make female athletes either obsolete or force them to chems chumming which then can cause them health issues given that most of them propably don't plan to transition and might want start families etc?
For trans men they get like an injection of testosterone, they aren't getting it to play sports, it's medication for dysphoria. I haven't said anyone else other than trans men should be taking it and definitely nothing about steroids.
The point i wanted to send across is that it gives athlete an advantage. So people will be incentivized to get it. And also those who do not get it will be at disadvantage. So if one form of chems advantage is allowed why others are not? Isn't that exactly the source of the issue here, fairness?
How does it give athletes an advantage?
What do you mean? I explained it in the posts above. So shortly It's basic biolgy. E.g. testosterone makes changes in the body.
If you have the same testosterone levels as everyone you are competing against it doesn't give you an advantage.
Intersting so female taking testosterone and female not taking it have same level of testosterone. I guess trans people are taking hormones needlessly if that is the true.
What? I said trans men take testosterone so their hormone levels would be on the same level as any other men competing.
Imo we should get rid of the distinction by gender and just use weight classes, or whatever attributes are appropriate for a given sport.
Avg Joe can weight about or even less than avg Jane but he still outperforms her in physical activities. It's gonna be quite hard. But i can see it working as one of the many params in complex evaluation formula which never will be finished in sense every year someone will come up with exceptions and new paralela.
That's true for grouping by gender as well, probably even more so. Genetic lottery means some will always be better at a given sport than others of the same gender putting in the same effort. But it's so engrained in our thinking that we don't even perceive it as a problem, instead we tell those with physical disadvantage that they were just not made for a certain sport.
So we are far from competing with perfect here, and being able to pick other attributes to group by should enable us create much more evenly matched groups. I mean, right now we just use one deciding factor for everything and call it a day. And that's before we get into the whole gender discussion.
Regarding the actual formulas, I think we just need to find good tradeoffs between fairness and practicality. Of course even a perfectly fair system will fail if it doesn't work in practice, but I think we can do much better than just using gender in pretty much all cases.
You've just killed all of women's sports by relegating them to the bottom tiers, congratulations.