Trans women in sports

[tristan_geoff]

i think they should just do the logical thing and take away everyone's ability to do sports, stop doing professional sports, filming them, doing them, selling tickets.  every sports person should lose their job and billions of sports fans should get upset that they can't indulge in their homoerotic tendencies thru watching the superbowl on their flatscreen i think it would fix things real quick

[Lucem Ferre]

i think they should just do the logical thing and take away everyone's ability to do sports, stop doing professional sports, filming them, doing them, selling tickets.  every sports person should lose their job and billions of sports fans should get upset that they can't indulge in their homoerotic tendencies thru watching the superbowl on their flatscreen i think it would fix things real quick

Nah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.

[tristan_geoff]

Nah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.

they can play sports again after the equivalent of a stock market crash for ball game

no hate towards sports but i think this is a good idea!!!  nothing can go wrong at all

[Trollheart]

Nah. I don't like sports typically but it's not my place to judge which forms of entertainment are valid.

Of course not. It's Tristan's. 

[Trollheart]

Eh? Henry and McGrath played in the men's systems. Its only the same argument if you want the trans women to play in the men's leagues. That's not what we're discussing.

There will be a lot more than 30 trans athletes in England. That number of 30 is ones who are registered with organisations or something along those lines. You cannot honestly believe there are only 30 people who play sports out of the entire trans population in England (hundreds of thousands of people).

Might not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.

At every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.

Ah now you're just misreading my posts, I'll assume not intentionally. McGrath and Henry were used to illustrate what it might have been like had the UKSC decided BLACK PEOPLE could not play football. Nothing to do with men's, women's or other. I asked if you thought that, had that been the case, black people should have been told to form their own clubs (And at the top of the league for another season it's Black Man United...) which is basically what you're saying about trans people. If you take the gender issue out of it, and treat them all as people (what a shocking, novel idea, sir!) then what you're proposing is that the only way trans people (well, trans women) can play or should be allowed play football is if they "stick to their own kind" and "have their own teams." It's exclusionary rather than inclusionary, and a form of segregation in its own right.

As for more trans women wanting to play sport, I'm sure those who have first-hand experience will tell you if I'm right or not, but my impression is that, having transistioned, the last thing most trans people want to do is be in shower rooms and changing rooms - they're tentative and careful and even maybe a little scared. These are, after all, people changing their gender entirely, and while you may say that's their choice, and it is, it does not lend itself to these people wanting to play sport, where all, or most, will likely be on display and where there may be awkward questions asked. It also doesn't necessarily follow that all trans women will like or get on with all other trans women - they're not a separate species or a new race or anything: I'm sure there are nasty ignorant people within their ranks the same as there are in any group, so sort of lumping them all in as one body and saying "let them play with themselves" (bad pun yes) seems a little callous. But it's to answer your contention that "many more will get into sport". No. No they won't. The tiny fraction of people already in sport compared to the overall amount of trans people even in the UK shows that. It's not even, I imagine in a lot of cases, that they want to play it, but they feel that they should be able to if they want. And they're being told they can't. And that's the problem, as I see it. Choice is being taken away. I bet even those who have no interest in ever playing sports are still fuming about this and have an opinion on it.

[jimmy jazz]

Ah now you're just misreading my posts, I'll assume not intentionally. McGrath and Henry were used to illustrate what it might have been like had the UKSC decided BLACK PEOPLE could not play football. Nothing to do with men's, women's or other. I asked if you thought that, had that been the case, black people should have been told to form their own clubs (And at the top of the league for another season it's Black Man United...) which is basically what you're saying about trans people. If you take the gender issue out of it, and treat them all as people (what a shocking, novel idea, sir!) then what you're proposing is that the only way trans people (well, trans women) can play or should be allowed play football is if they "stick to their own kind" and "have their own teams." It's exclusionary rather than inclusionary, and a form of segregation in its own right.

The UKSC hasn't decided that trans women can't play football though. That's why I answered your question the way I did.

Its no more exclusionary or segregational than women's teams.

As for more trans women wanting to play sport, I'm sure those who have first-hand experience will tell you if I'm right or not, but my impression is that, having transistioned, the last thing most trans people want to do is be in shower rooms and changing rooms - they're tentative and careful and even maybe a little scared. These are, after all, people changing their gender entirely, and while you may say that's their choice, and it is, it does not lend itself to these people wanting to play sport, where all, or most, will likely be on display and where there may be awkward questions asked. It also doesn't necessarily follow that all trans women will like or get on with all other trans women - they're not a separate species or a new race or anything: I'm sure there are nasty ignorant people within their ranks the same as there are in any group, so sort of lumping them all in as one body and saying "let them play with themselves" (bad pun yes) seems a little callous. But it's to answer your contention that "many more will get into sport". No. No they won't. The tiny fraction of people already in sport compared to the overall amount of trans people even in the UK shows that. It's not even, I imagine in a lot of cases, that they want to play it, but they feel that they should be able to if they want. And they're being told they can't. And that's the problem, as I see it. Choice is being taken away. I bet even those who have no interest in ever playing sports are still fuming about this and have an opinion on it.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Not all cis women get on with each other. Not all cis men do.

Choice isn't being taken away, there is a choice, you just don't like the choices available. That's actually another argument for a trans system tbh.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Its no more exclusionary or segregational than women's teams.

Yes it is, it's excluding certain women from playing on women's teams via a blanket ban based solely on what their genitals looked like at birth, not because of any significant and proven baseline of advantage. They're segregating all trans women based on vibes rather than practical reality.

Choice isn't being taken away

What do you mean? They took away the option to play in women's sports. The only choices now are "play in men's sports and be humiliated and at a physical disadvantage" or "don't play sports".

And as for the "just make a trans league" thing, in addition to this idea being a lot of conjecture numbers wise, do you really think a "trans women only" sports category is something anyone wants to make? Something that would be at all successful? Trans people are already outsiders in the mainstream in the UK, where is the funding for this going to come from? Where will these sports be covered in media? Where does this leave trans men? The whole point of transition for most of us is to just live normal lives as our transitioned gender, I don't think the vast majority of trans women would be happy with this or have much desire to strive for greatness in tiny competitions where we're segregated away from other members of our gender and shoved in our own special little box.

And calling competitions with trans women participating alongside cis women "rigged" is clearly not the case, there is no data showing any notable amount of win/loss ratios that are skewed in favor of trans athletes. As Auroras pointed out, cis women can and do also have genetic or developed bodily features that give them advantages over the majority of their competition. But it's never considered "rigged" in their cases, because as I've said, the whole thing is rooted in transphobia above everything else.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Relevant and very nice to see cis women in football standing up for us.

[tristan_geoff]

cis ppl playing devils advocate with some of the most traumatized people on the planet as if it's some sort of fucking game

[Jwb]

Might not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.

I don't honestly even know what it means to have a cup instead of a league in terms of numbers. If there were actually the numbers to support it then I could see that, but again I just think that seems like wistful thinking based purely on the number of trans women in society,  let alone trans women athletes.  That's my intuition anyway. Also I think that forcing them into the men's league is not going to lead to an up tick in the number of trans women athletes.  I would expect the exact opposite. If anything the way to build up the numbers would be to have them compete in the women's league.

At every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.

Clearly the standard isn't that it's a rigged game if one group with a statistical advantage over another group competes in the same league.  I understand that enough of an advantage can make that situation untenable like in the case of men vs women. But again, that's cause if we integrated the sexes in sports, women wouldn't be able to compete.  And they would face a potentially hostile or hazardous environment in the case that they did.  That's why the women's league exists.    If trans women have those same basic issues, but are such a small segment of the population that they don't have the numbers to support any kind of league of their own,  then it's not necessarily obvious to me that the women's league isn't actually the best place to have them compete with the least disruption.

I don't have a very strong stance on this issue, and I would assume in some sports it might pose more of an issue than in others.  I would also assume it would have to be contingent on a certain standard of hormone therapy etc.  But ultimately it seems like it's somehow a travesty of justice if there are a handful of trans athletes who have some level of presumed statistical advantage playing in the women's league,  but if the arrangement amounts to a de facto exclusion of trans women from sports altogether,  that's somehow seen as perhaps unfortunate for them but still ultimately more fair. 

[jimmy jazz]

I don't honestly even know what it means to have a cup instead of a league in terms of numbers. If there were actually the numbers to support it then I could see that, but again I just think that seems like wistful thinking based purely on the number of trans women in society,  let alone trans women athletes.  That's my intuition anyway. Also I think that forcing them into the men's league is not going to lead to an up tick in the number of trans women athletes.  I would expect the exact opposite. If anything the way to build up the numbers would be to have them compete in the women's league.

I didn't say there would be an uptake if they played in the men's league. So if you read it that way then apologies. I meant a trans league could encourage an uptake.

Clearly the standard isn't that it's a rigged game if one group with a statistical advantage over another group competes in the same league.  I understand that enough of an advantage can make that situation untenable like in the case of men vs women. But again, that's cause if we integrated the sexes in sports, women wouldn't be able to compete.  And they would face a potentially hostile or hazardous environment in the case that they did.  That's why the women's league exists.    If trans women have those same basic issues, but are such a small segment of the population that they don't have the numbers to support any kind of league of their own,  then it's not necessarily obvious to me that the women's league isn't actually the best place to have them compete with the least disruption.

I don't have a very strong stance on this issue, and I would assume in some sports it might pose more of an issue than in others. I would also assume it would have to be contingent on a certain standard of hormone therapy etc.  But ultimately it seems like it's somehow a travesty of justice if there are a handful of trans athletes who have some level of presumed statistical advantage playing in the women's league,  but if the arrangement amounts to a de facto exclusion of trans women from sports altogether,  that's somehow seen as perhaps unfortunate for them but still ultimately more fair.

And football is one of them. I don't think you guys arguing over this truly grasp how big a difference even a miniscule advantage can have which is why you don't think it's a big deal. I don't think you grasp how scientific and forensic the details are now to try and get ahead of the competitors. That miniscule difference could mean winning or losing a title or safety. If you do get relegated do you understand the repercussions it can have? It can mean hundreds of millions of pounds lost. People lose their jobs. I'm not talking about multimillionaire athletes I'm talking about the person in the concourse serving the fans or the assistants in the club shop, security in the stands on minimum wage. And fans don't want to follow or support something if it they don't believe it's authentic, they lose interest and the whole thing suffers. 20 years ago Italian football was hit by a match fixing scandal. It still hasn't recovered from that.

So yeah it is more fair.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

All of this imo is beside my point, which is that the root of all of this is not some intense debate about fairness, it's the fact that this is being done in 2025 specifically as a response to the rise of state sanctioned transphobia in government and institutions, which is particularly strong in the UK.

The group said that it knew of fewer than 30 trans women active in women's soccer across both countries and that most had been "playing for a number of years without incident."

From the NYT article on the ban. They had been playing for years without incident because the issue of trans women in sports had already been addressed via regulations on hormone levels. The entirety of this current hysteria over sports is an extension of the overall anti trans hysteria, as is evidenced by the fact that this was never a hot button issue prior to 2022 and the practical stuff re: inclusion of trans women was already addressed by sports organizations years ago in ways that didn't include firing 30 people who did nothing wrong.

The root of all of this is transphobia and desire to exclude us. You said it yourself, they won't support if they don't believe it's authentic. Belief doesn't mean they're correct. Is the average British football fan at all knowledgeable about bodily physiology and endocrinology? No, they're just going along with the transphobic narrative. What's unfair is capitulating to people's personal anti trans bias just because lots of money is on the line. That some people in the sports industry would be upset and the sports would lose money may certainly be true, but my point is that doesn't make banning trans people the fair or morally correct thing to do.

Obviously the organizations that had had those hormone regulations and the amateur teams that included trans women up until now disagreed with you about the theoretical advantages trans women might have had, so it's clearly not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Nobody would notice the minuscule advantages if a team with an unusually muscular cis woman played, and nobody would care.

[Key]

How long can people debate for before people start saying the same things over and over again. Let's wait and see.

[jimmy jazz]

That some people in the sports industry would be upset and the sports would lose money may certainly be true, but my point is that doesn't make banning trans people the fair or morally correct thing to do.

Yes it does.

Obviously the organizations that had had those hormone regulations and the amateur teams that included trans women up until now disagreed with you about the theoretical advantages trans women might have had, so it's clearly not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Or they didn't want to cause a shit storm and open themselves up to possible legal trouble. The fact they've now gone back on it shows they never agreed with it in the first place.

Nobody would notice the minuscule advantages if a team with an unusually muscular cis woman played, and nobody would care.

Do you think you can tell whether someone has been doping just by looking at them?

You can't. That's why they have drug tests. Just because you can't see it it doesn't mean the advantage isn't there.

And people wouldn't care because the cis woman hasn't had the unfair advantage.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Or they didn't want to cause a shit storm and open themselves up to possible legal trouble. The fact they've now gone back on it shows they never agreed with it in the first place.

I don't know how you can assume that they never agreed in the first place, but it doesn't actually matter, it's still a shitty thing to do to those 30 odd people who had been playing without issue for years. As I've said before, the white schools that began to admit black students in the civil rights era faced lots of public backlash; I understand why people with an interest in pandering to public opinion would make the decision they did, but using "not wanting to cause a shit storm" as the rationale for callously stripping certain people of a right they'd previously had in the name of money or optics or whatever is still a shitty and cowardly thing to do.

Frankly I'm inclined to agree with Key at this point, it's clear that we're not going to agree on this so I don't see any point in keeping the back and forth going.