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.
The ultimate reason it’s wrong to ban transgender people from competing in athletics competitions is that the implication is that testosterone can be considered a performance enhancing drug – even if the athlete in question is well within hormonal levels of any other cisgender athlete in the same sport.
If that’s the case, then it opens the door to banning other athletes for exceeding the testosterone limit, and guess what? Cisgender women with African heritage naturally produce more testosterone than the average woman world-wide. So banning transgender athletes leads to potentially banning African women which is obviously racist and wrong to do.
Also, poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a condition that affects about 1 in 10 women and a very common side effect of PCOS is elevated testosterone levels. So 1 in 10 women would be banned for medical reasons outside of their control. And banning people for a medical condition is ableist and obviously wrong to do.
And, ultimately, sports aren’t fair. We try to make them equitable by making the rules universal, but biological advantages are just part of sports. If we start banning athletes for hormones, why not ban athletes for being taller than average? Why not ban athletes for having better vision than average? Or better peripheral vision? Or faster reflexes? If only the absolute average, or below average people were allowed to compete then nearly half of all people would be unable to compete.
Plus, the vast majority of athletes say that they don’t want transgender people to be banned from their respective sports.
And not to mention that it’s just rude to exclude transgender athletes, and if it were truly such an advantage to be transgender then why aren’t transgender people winning tournaments left and right? About 1% of people are transgender, so if transgender people are winning 1% of all tournaments then that would mean that they’re exactly on exactly equal footing with their competitors. But I suspect that less than 1% of tournament winners are transgender which means that transgender people are actually at a disadvantage, which again, is fine because sports are inherently unfair as I outlined above.
At the end of the day, transgender athlete bans hurt everyone, and anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it’s face to uninformed people and so it’s a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don’t care about the sports they’re “trying to save”, they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.
So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.
IMHO, if fairness is the goal, then categories should be based on performance history alone. People should be competing with others of their class in the sport being played.
If I’m the best at tennis, I want to compete against the other best players, not the other best players with (or without) a peen or some other stupid grouping.
Yeah, something like weight classes in boxing/wrestling/MMA. Brock Lesnar vs Uriah Faber (yes, I haven’t watched MMA in a while) isn’t a good match for multiple reasons: Brock has way more muscle so he can hit a lot harder, but his muscles also make him a lot slower than Uriah who can use quick moves and grapples to his favor.
Women are naturally weaker than men, it’s a fact. A man can change on the surface (physically appearance) after becoming a woman, but his bone structure and ability to build more muscle is still there.
Your language betrays you, I don’t argue with transphobes.
Removed by mod
That study is irrelevant and their findings don’t change anything about my answer. That study could say “African women have more lean muscle mass and are taller than the average athlete” and you wouldn’t be sharing that study around saying that African women shouldn’t be allowed to compete with other athletes because that’s racist and stupid.
And besides, taking an extreme example and comparing it to the average is dishonest. The best way to determine if transgender athletes are actually dominating in sports is their top level tournament wins. As I said, about 1% of people are transgender, so about 1% of tournament winners should be transgender if everything is even. Anything above, means an advantage and anything below means a disadvantage.
So where are all the transgender people absolutely dominating tournaments above the average of transgender prevalence?
You can’t show me that because it doesn’t happen, and even if it did happen, that’s just sports! You simply can’t ban people for a biological advantage in a hobby where biological advantages are literally everywhere. Height, vision, reflexes, agility, intelligence, etc.
Take a note on how the other user responded to my question. You instead responded with hostility, good luck convincing anyone if that’s how you engage with a genuine attempt to discuss the topic
I apologize if you’re not a transphobe, but you reposted a singular study whose findings are trash at best and outright bigotry at worst. I think it’s natural for me to assume you’re a transphobe trying to troll considering I specifically said:
…anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it’s face to uninformed people and so it’s a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don’t care about the sports they’re “trying to save”, they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.
So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.
Of course trying to continue the discourse would make me assume that you’re transphobic. You should have been more clear if that’s not the case. Regardless, it shouldn’t take away from my point. Again though, I apologize if you posted it from a perspective of honest discussion, but I hope you understand that this topic is often a target of trolls who seek to muddy the water by “just asking questions” in bad faith.
You don’t get to decide what people can and cannot discuss. And if someone replying was transphobic then maybe responding calmly and rationally would help change their mind. Just calling people transphobes does more to turn people away from your cause than just not replying
You’re just some person on the Internet arguing for the sake of arguing. For trans people these arguments are used to slowly erase our rights. Don’t demand civility from people you help oppres because you were board.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s worth noting that “scientifically a male” is genuinely a more complicated phrase than it might initially seem at first, because trans people generally do more than just socially transition, changing their name and clothes. Sex differences are primarily mediated through sex hormones, and radically changing one’s hormonal profile, as happens with hormone therapies, causes very real biological effects. A trans woman, while being stronger than your average cis woman, will lose a meaningful amount of muscle due to the lack of testosterone (and will also generally develop better cardiovascular health, again due to the lack of testosterone). Depending on the sport and the individuals in question, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there are cases where some amount of residual muscle doesn’t necessarily confer a particularly large benefit such that a blanket ban is warranted.
Depending on the sport and the individuals in question, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there are cases where some amount of residual muscle doesn’t necessarily confer a particularly large benefit such that a blanket ban is warranted.
Agreed. That said, I’ve yet to see a major sport league that bans transgenders in women’s divisions without at least some empirical research existing that demonstrates an unfair advantage.
Can’t pretend I’m particularly familiar with the specifics, but to be clear, I do think it is absolutely possible, and indeed likely, that there are situations where a genuine advantage is present, and I think the line really needs to be drawn by each individual sports body.
I understand the idealism of wanting there to be no real restrictions, but you need some regulations, if only to prevent the bad-faith asshole who decides to identify as a woman for the day of a competition. As time passes and more studies are done, we’ll be able to draw more evidence-based lines that more accurately balance accessibility and fairness.
My only real point here is just to say that this phrase “biological/scientific male” is way way messier than a simple binary category like that might suggest. A huge amount of tissues in the body of some level of sex differentiation, and that differentiation also varies a lot based on the stage of development that their exposed to hormones. A trans person isn’t going to change their skeleton with hormones, but there are other things that do meaningfully change to get closer to the other sex. A trans woman’s breasts, for instance, are genuinely just as “biologically female” as any cis woman’s.
I mean both chess and pool have recently banned transgender women from competition.
So the push is not purely an evidence-driven one. In fact there is a very loud political faction trying to remove transgender women from all events, from the highest levels all the way down to park fun-runs.
Isn’t that ridiculous, given that women have empirically proven to be better swimmers in most cases that most men. And I’m certain the reason for banning transgender women from chess is because they realize these people are smarter than the average bear. And more likely to outclass their opponents every time. And you know what? They’re right about that.
My bad, I actually wasn’t aware of that. That’s fucking ridiculous.
Sport is the most boring show on TV by far, and yet the actors are paid insane amounts. The fandom is the most toxic bullshit out there and the show runners encourage it.
Cancel sport already, it’s really dumb.
As one of the characters in (the book) Jurassic Park says, “the two most boring things in the world are sports and fashion.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. But I do have a lot of family members who are athletic, and some have gone as far as olympic competitions. So, I can’t really say they have no valid right to enjoy their sport. And those family members are the most kind and welcoming people, they are absolutely appalled by all this bigoted negativity toward trans athletes, and are smart enough to see if for the fascist malarky it truly is.
TRUE!!!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
no transphobia here
citation needed
I’d be mad except… it’s fucking cricket.
Like baseball but slower.
Cricket is the second-most popular sport in the world.
I’ve literally never seen a game of it, and know nothing about it, but this affects a lot of people.
In theory trans women are superwomen and then in reality they’re weaker and derpier than the top female athletes and all of this is just a scare tactic because these theories havent played out in the real world at all.
On the sports angle, esports looked like it would finally be the place for me to be a fan because the athletes are relatable to me. But no, they got bought up by the Saudis, so all I get for relatable media is drag queens and furries or whatever.
My fist thought was “why does the International Criminal Court care”
God I thought it said the international criminal court
deleted by creator
Cricket is as a fun as baseball.
I thought I told you to get rid of those sideburns! …“But Mr Burns I don’t think know you what sideburns…”
I’ve had it with your attitude! You’re outa here!!
Downvote this foo!
Or don’t, I’m not your mama.
Fuck this. Sports are games, they shouldn’t be taken this seriously. Like, for example, Micheal Phelps has webbed feet and freaky monster lungs but nobody’s banned him from swimming events for that. Every human is different, people need to fucking accept that sports can never be totally fair and realize that’s not what this is about.
Damn straight the reason why people play sports is to have fun.
It’s makes me sick these commentators are their hiding transphobia in their “competitive arguments”.
We don’t need to have these invasive requirements to test someone’s hormones just let people play their gender identity. No human deserves to be excluded from having fun when they only got one life.
I think that gender specific leagues need to go the way of the dodo but while they’re here they’re essentially weight/strength classes and most transwomen are more fairly matched against AMAB men than AFAB women.
Ideally, we could just realize that having multiple league levels based on body type would be much more equitable.
most transwomen are more fairly matched against AMAB men than AFAB women.
Source?
Not only do I think this study is complete non-sense, but 3 other professors at the same journal published their comments and concerns with this study and how it’s being spread around as though it’s fact when in truth, the “science” in it is rubbish.
Here’s a link to the article in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37726582/
PubMed unfortunately doesn’t have a transcript, but you can read the transcript here (or click on the link next to DOI in PubMed that I linked above): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8Here’s TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study’s scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn’t been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
And besides, even if the original study were true, wouldn’t transgender athletes would be winning at a rate higher than their prevalence in sports? Considering about 1% of people are transgender, they should win 1% of the time, but that doesn’t happen, because any advantage is entirely fictitious.
And even if there was an advantage, there are lots of people who have a biological advantage. That’s just a part of sports that’s impossible to eliminate because we’re not all robots running on the exact same hardware and software.
You aren’t factoring in how many people win as a %. Only like .01% of people compete at the top level of sports, if 1% of people are Trans it’s going to take a while to actually hit someone that is both talented enough to be relevant and trans.
And backing up your claim, thank you!
No worries at all. I know this is a really sensitive subject and it’ll basically require a change in how we view sports leagues and gender to resolve.
I just want you to know that the study that was posted is trash. Here’s link to a comment on that same study by 3 professors from the same journal https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8
And here’s a quick TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study’s scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn’t been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
That doesn’t surprise me, but I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks!
Petite women compete against tall women all the time though
That’s why I think weight/strength classes are the way to go - we arbitrarily divide sports in half by gender and it makes most body types uncompetitive.
As a trans woman who works out but doesn’t really do sports because people make them suck, I have to say that I don’t think that study is correct based of my experiences. Trans women often have lower testosterone than cis women after being on hrt for a while (2 years max typically, but it can be sooner). When I started hrt, literally only about 2 weeks later I noticed massive muscle atrophy and I literally couldn’t even help my father move heavy furniture that I doubt I would have had a problem with before. After that I decided to start lifting and it’s been a few months since then I am still not as strong as I used to be.
It really depends on the sport imo. Trans women may retain some more muscle and some parts of the skeleton are largely unaffected, but muscle elasticity, hip rotation, flexibility, and endurance all end up being more dependent on hormones than birth sex in the long term. How much these things matter varies a lot from sport to sport, and the current system is not sufficient to balance these traits even among people of the same sex. Multiple leagues based on broad body types sounds reasonable, but I have no idea how complicated the rules would have to be to make it completely fair, given we already accept a great deal of unfairness currently.
I’d look to wrestling as an example - it manages to have several leagues of weight classes that participate… but yea, it’d be a pretty big change.
The problem is that there’s too much money on the line. If certain performance enhancing drugs (like testosterone) are allowed, every athlete will be required to take them if they want to compete at the highest level. Athletes are known to favor short-term gains over long-term health consequences, and they’re pressured by their environment to do so as well.
Capitalism ruining good things, as always. In the case of trans men on testosterone, though, who cares? I feel like that just levels the playing field for them generally. And as a trans woman? Estrogen has fucked up my body’s ability to build muscle if anything. These arguments all boil down to excuses.
Removed by mod
By this logic, we should all go back to open division sports, which is what historically led to a de facto exclusion of women from all sports because, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them were unable to be competitive in divisions that had men in them.
Most sports actually have an open division. People tend to just call it the men’s division since, as you point out, women get completely zoned out by men in sports. High school boys dominate leader boards when compared to Olympian women.
While I won’t deny there is a biological difference that impacts performance there’s also a systemic societal difference that doesn’t help.
In general women are not given the same support, whether from family, schools, coaches, research or funding, to become top athletes.
It’s certainly much better that it has been in the past now days and it’s getting better, but even just people saying “women aren’t as good as men” is something that sinks into the psyche of women who want to compete.
It’s akin to men from poorer nations who can’t afford resources, time and training, having a hard time competing against “richer” nations who invest more into it
How about adding a third category instead: a free for all category where all genders are welcome to compete and can use as much steroid as they want.
While I think people should be allowed to do anything they want with their bodies, I understand that sports leagues don’t want the athletes to push boundaries and destroy their bodies with stupid amounts of steroids.
Removed by mod
Women should be allowed to compete in women’s leagues. There could be some argument if the sport gave heavy advantage to people who had high testosterone during their teens, but that is not the case in cricket. This shouldn’t be a discussion.
Not sure how familiar you are with the sport but the fastest bowled delivery in the men’s game is over 100mph. In the women’s game the fastest is just over 80mph.
Couple that with the fact that women have slower reaction times (men’s are faster although some may argue the difference is negligible), and men have greater muscle mass (to hit harder and further), the playing field isn’t exactly level.
Not sure if you’re familiar with transition as a concept? Because your uncritical comparing men to women without even considering that transition might have an effect implies you aren’t.
indeed, I think even the top transfem olympian did not rate compared to the top ‘natural’ (I use that word only to distinguish, not to disparage) women.
Removed by mod
Cricket isn’t on that list. What is the relevance? Genetic differences are significant somewhere else?
And “men who pretend to be women” are not what transgender is about. Saying so is very shitty.
Removed by mod
Oh I’m american I barely know what cricket is tbqh. I just hate how people like me are being discriminated against and excluded from healthy, mainstream pursuits like this especially. Pretty much the holy grail of trans representation because it’s the most dangerous-to-conservative-sensibilities kind of visibility we could have. Like, gods forbid fit trans people do something so normal on TV
Hej, I‘ve seen quite a few comments using weird expressions to refer to trans women here, so to clarify, a trans woman is not:
- a scientific male (trans women are scientifically women)
- a biologically born male (Biologically born? Yes. Male? No.)
- a biological male (as, usually, biological markers such as anatomy, hormone levels, chromosomes and behavior in trans women are ambiguous)
A trans woman is:
- a woman (female) who was assigned male at birth
- often, but not always, a person who has gone through testosterone puberty, but identifies as female
Just use the words trans woman and cis woman, it‘s concise, correct and respectful. I‘m not saying that there are no differences between trans women and cis women, but simply that trans women are women. If you disagree with that, go watch ContraPoints or PhilosophyTube.
Consequently, the international cricket council should call it the elite cis women‘s game from now on, that would just be consistent.
Uh oh, someone is conflating gender and sex again, despite claiming to be a trans ally.
I agree with much of what you said but have to nit-pick a part that I found confusing.
trans women are women
And cis women are cis women?
Comes off as if an afab person, who has always referred to herself as simply “woman” now has to refer to herself as “cis woman” to be exact, whereas trans women have now adopted “woman”
I’m a guy, and I’d be pretty irritated if people suddenly started insisting that I not refer to myself as “guy” anymore, because trans guys are now “guys” so they get my old title but now I have to specifically state that I’m a “cis guy” everywhere…
Like why would I have to give up my title? It’s one thing for them to adopt it as well, not like I mind, more the merrier! But why am I having to change my title when I’ve been the same all along?
It’s like if people began changing cats into dogs, and claiming the name “cat” for the former dogs. Cool, do what you will, but then they tell me that my “cats” aren’t “cats” anymore, they’re cis-cats and I must refer to them as such. Why? They’ve always been cats to everyone? How you gonna tell me that you get the name “cats” but my lifelong “cats” are now something else?
Trans women are women, and cis women are women. Simple. No one is “taking” someone else’s name.
Last comment stated international women’s cricket should be renamed international cis women’s cricket 🤔 because women who experienced testosterone puberty are excluded
Whereas a group of TW playing football can 100% use “Women’s football league” Even if the league is 100 trans women and cis women are excluded
That’s all I’m saying, how’s that not taking a title? Not saying this with any malice, hope that’s clear I’ve no dog in this race other than supporting everyone but that’s weird to me
… But where is that women’s football league that excludes cis women while still calling itself “[just] women’s football”?
Whereas we already have many women’s leagues in sports that exclude trans women.
So if it’s actually happening, then sure I’ll agree to calling it “taking a title” and honestly be against it; imo it sets the fight for trans rights back if we use “woman” exclusively for trans women and cis women only ever get called “cis women”. But again, where is that happening? Who is calling for that?
I only ever see people claiming that cis women should have exclusive use of the word “women”, not the other way around. Which is just another way of arguing that trans women “aren’t really women”…
I am still confused. My understanding was that trans people change their gender. This is something I am able to wrap my head around because gender (man/woman) is a human construct anyway and people should have the freedom to choose where they are on that spectrum.
But isn’t sex a genetic thing that can’t be changed? If it’s the case that a person can choose whether they are male or female then science is going to need new terminology to replace male/female for XY and XX because the words science used to use have been commandeered to mean something more like gender?
In particular when referring to humans, the definition of sex is ambiguous, as is the term “biological male”. And I think this problem is intrinsic: Gender and sex are complicated (with many different markers which may be congruent for many people, but are not for trans and intersex people), and the usefulness of categories depends on context. For example, in a dating context, gender might be a useful category. In a medical context, sex is not a useful category for trans and intersex people: It’s not sufficient information, and sometimes ambiguous.
I agree that it would be nice to have other words than for XY/XX chromosomes (or small vs large gametes), this would make the language more exact and inclusive. However, I (and others) dislike the term “biological male”, because I think it exists only to create a category that equates cis men with trans women. Even if we agree on defining “biological male” as a person having XY chromosomes, in a sports context this is an unhelpful category because there are large differences between XY cis men and XY trans women. When there is apparently so much concern for fairness and safety, why not ask the big questions: How can we make sports inclusive, safe and fun for everyone (including trans people!), regardless of genetics? Are sex or gender useful categories to separate competition — or are there other, more useful markers? (And maybe even: Are international competitions as we have them now a desirable system?)
Removed by mod
However, I (and others) dislike the term “biological male”
I dislike the lack of an enclosing comma. Would you, pretty please, fix that?
Seriously?
Don’t use cis. Woman is a woman.
Get that terf garbage out of here.
fairness or safety
my ass…
(edit to clarify: the only concern in making these decisions are the fragile egos of cis people)
I’m all in for all of us holding hands and walking into the sunshine. But if someone has a concern about a potential unfair advantage because their oponent used to be male/female, they are automatically labeled as having “fragile ego”? That sounds very condescending. What should they do, just walk it off because you don’t like it?
They should make tests for all sports and decide if there is a potential advantage to be gained from being born male/female and decide on a case by case basis. If there is none, perfect, game on!
I think there was a scandal in the US with a swimmer some time ago? My wife used to play tennis as a child and she said it was brutal when they were training and playing against males. It was a completely different level.
Also not a big fan of being called “cis”, to me it sounds offensive.
not a big fan of being called “cis”
If you aren’t trans, then you are cis.
If you aren’t gay, then you are straight.
Do you also dislike being called straight?
I’m ok with being called straight.
Cis is just a term trans people came up with so they could label normal people as they’ve been labelled.
It’s literally a Latin prefix. Exactly the same as “trans”, being the antonym thereof.
Cis is the term that just means you are the gender you were born, you aren’t trans.
