Some good news for women's sport today, as British Rowing has followed a recent decision by British Cycling to reinstate the female category. The women's category had become mixed sex under their old rules.

They have both gone with exactly the proposal that I outlined on here about a year ago. The former Men's category becomes "Open" (open to all males regardless of how they identify and also females if they so choose - if they identify as men for example) and the Women's category returns to female only.

British Cycling led the way for the international governing body, the UCI, to change its rules as well. Cycling had become farcical. As one example, an elite level woman only in her early to mid twenties retired from the sport earlier this year in frustration. The final straw for her was seeing her family watch in tears as she placed 4th, sandwiched between a 3rd placed male and 5th placed male. The policy of so called "inclusion" leading to exclusion of dispensable females as expected and predicted. A male rider went on to win the women's Tour of the Gila and associated prize money from stage wins and the overall classification, which is probably what forced the UCI to finally act.

Hopefully World Rowing will also follow Britain's lead but it is not a given.

Looks like a sensible decision alround. If trans athletes want to compete in sport that’s fine (and of course they should be allowed to compete like anyone else) , providing they’re in a class representing their biological “ birth sex” .

Thanks for your responses Alarge and Rowls!

The reference to "birth sex" reminds me that although Rowing and Cycling have done the right thing, they still used the language of the ideologically captured, indicative of what has crept into nearly all our large corporations and organisations it seems. They refer to "assigned male at birth" rather than "male", "gender identity", "cisgender" and so on. It is not very inclusive for people (especially gender non-conforming people or followers of other religions) who, whilst welcoming people of all religions and beliefs, do not share the same belief in gender identity ideology. The recent ECHR judgment on Caster Semenya also used confusing language and avoided addressing the unfortunate reality of that situation.

Quinn of the Canadian women's football team has shown the way things can be done. Quinn is female but identifies as a transman and played in the current WWC until Canada were knocked out. Guess what - no-one cared and rightly so. I doubt any opponents or spectators caused Quinn any problems. Surely, in 2023, men are capable of being equally open minded and accepting of transwomen in the Men's or "Open" category?

I have several times been chided (or insulted such is the nature of some) for simply remaining silent on other women's issues (even bizarrely for not commenting on Andrew Tate of all people)!

I am sure you are no hypocrites, so what do the regular commenters on women's sport/issues think? Are these policies good or bad? If bad, why?

Isn't it time to set up a separate "trans" category for all sports?

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 9:37 pm

Isn't it time to set up a separate "trans" category for all sports?

Disagree. I do not think it is practical. The Canadian footballer is a good example. Quinn would not have adequate numbers to play with or against. Surely it is far better for people to just accept trans people participating in their correct biological sex category like everyone else. It worked for Quinn.