Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Epiphanies 2022: Attorney General endorses transphobia

KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
edited January 7 in Limbo
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teachers-should-not-pander-to-trans-pupils-says-suella-braverman-2qfgj70rv

What is the likely impact of this on the ground if schools follow this advice?

Sorry about the paywall for the full content but you can probably see enough on the opening paragraphs
«13

Comments

  • Bluntly? An increase in
    self-harm, suicide and other
    indications of severe distress in trans kids.
  • I thought a lot of schools will ignore it. Apart from the sheer cruelty, do they really want the publicity, and possible legal action?
  • I thought a lot of schools will ignore it. Apart from the sheer cruelty, do they really want the publicity, and possible legal action?

    I'm sure Birbalsingh will be right on board.
  • Bringing the culture wars into schools? Good God.
  • Many comments going around that its illegal to discriminate against trans people. I dont know.
  • Given this evil shower's propensity to law-breaking (in a limited and specific way, of course), I doubt if that'll bother them at all.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Many comments going around that its illegal to discriminate against trans people. I dont know.

    Trans status is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    AIUI, that Act became law soon after Labour lost the 2010 General Election, but would it have been (so to speak) produced by Gordon Brown's government?

    Either way, I doubt if today's Criminals will worry about it...
  • Given this evil shower's propensity to law-breaking (in a limited and specific way, of course), I doubt if that'll bother them at all.

    Well, no, but it might give parents leverage against any school that does discriminate. Of course, you need money for legal advice.
  • True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:
  • I'm waiting for the government to accuse parents of "grooming" trans kids. The hard right are already saying this.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    There is no depth so low that this government will not stoop down to it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    .
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    My worry is that the AG is expressing a legal view that the trans status of people who haven't legally transitioned doesn't qualify under the protected status legislation. This throws a lot of people under the bus in order to screw over trans kids.

    The really worrying thing is the number of otherwise progressive inclusive people who will be totally on board with this. I notice she name-checks You Know Who
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    .
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    My worry is that the AG is expressing a legal view that the trans status of people who haven't legally transitioned doesn't qualify under the protected status legislation. This throws a lot of people under the bus in order to screw over trans kids.

    The really worrying thing is the number of otherwise progressive inclusive people who will be totally on board with this. I notice she name-checks You Know Who

    I see - I hadn't fully appreciated the point.
    :disappointed:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    .
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    My worry is that the AG is expressing a legal view that the trans status of people who haven't legally transitioned doesn't qualify under the protected status legislation. This throws a lot of people under the bus in order to screw over trans kids.

    The really worrying thing is the number of otherwise progressive inclusive people who will be totally on board with this. I notice she name-checks You Know Who

    I see - I hadn't fully appreciated the point.
    :disappointed:

    I do but speculate, but that seemed the logical thrust.
  • Yes, understood.
  • Bringing the culture wars into schools? Good God.

    The "culture war" is already there. Schools already contain trans pupils, and pupils with different opinions on gender.

    And yes, like @KarlLB, the "you don't have a gender recognition certificate, so you're not a trans girl, you're a boy" thing rather leaped out at me.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Bringing the culture wars into schools? Good God.

    The "culture war" is already there. Schools already contain trans pupils, and pupils with different opinions on gender.

    I think there's a difference between the common occurrence of schools containing both a stigmatised group and those who stigmatise them and then that plus the extra layer of a government piggy-backing onto a frightening and powerful media-driven moral panic against that stigmatised group and reaching into schools to add heft to those who stigmatise them.

    I think it's a very sinister development and that this is not the only group something like this is happening to.
  • It's practically a state mandate against trans kids. Presumably, the Tories are failing in so many areas, they have the bright idea of attacking vulnerable children. Clause 28 redux?
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Horrifying

    Utterly no words
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited May 2022
    It does look like the Section 28 playbook again but also apparently a retread of a strategy that just failed in Australia

    https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/05/28/coalition-loss-the-transphobe-thing-was-absolute-disaster

    Australian posters will know more about this but a key quote from the article from a Liberal MP is quite salty about it!
    "We spent a full fucking week being transphobes in parliament & then we spent weeks during the campaign doing the exact same thing, and it was fucking insane. The transphobe thing was an absolute disaster."

    By the way, any guidelines they come up with will affect England only - Scotland and Wales are not on board with this sort of thing, and as Doublethink says this stuff is probably illegal anyway but it will still have bad effects in emboldening people to try to make schools more trans hostile and to stop people getting help.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    It is worrying that the AG apparently doesn't know the law. The Equality Act is extremely clear that trans people including trans children can use whatever toilet they feel is most appropriate for them, and it is simply not true that toilets are legally designated as a single-sex space - legally everyone can use the toilet that they wish to use, single-gender toilets are merely a cultural norm and not legally enforced in the UK. Trans people also only need to identify as trans to be legally protected under the Equality Act. The law is really clear about this! Also, a person's legal name in the UK is simply the name they are usually known by - a deed poll is an official statement that this is the name you go by, but in UK law there is no concept of an Official Government Name. The name on your birth certificate simply records the name you were given at birth but makes no impact on the name you go by in the future.

    There is no such thing as 'legally transitioned' because being recognised as trans doesn't require a single specific legal process - there are different legal processes for different things. A GRC essentially legally erases your previous identity and allows you to get a new birth certificate - it's not to affirm your current identity because that doesn't legally need affirming, legally you just need to....be a trans person to be recognised as trans. The law surrounding GRCs is all about who can know about your *past*. That's why self ID panic is so silly, because legally trans people can and do already do all the things TERFs warn about unravelling the space-time continuum. Trans people already do them with zero negative impact - self ID just simplifies the process of getting a GRC but doesn't change the content of a GRC. Many trans people don't even feel the need for one - mostly only if they want to get married (in England and Wales for non-Quakers anyway since legally wedding vows must be gender specific here - not the case in Scotland or if Quaker), or want to make sure their death certificate lists the gender they want. You only need a doctor's letter to change your passport's gender marker for instance.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    There have been a couple of cases in the law reports involving trans children. Ask around and you may be able to trace the solicitors or legal aid office involved.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I should clarify - officially the point of a GRC (which trans kids can't obtain anyway so is a moot point re schools) is that it means you can then have all your documentation in your gender and also a new birth certificate written with your new name if that has changed. It means that you do not have to disclose your trans status if you do not want to, and it is also illegal for organisations to ask for your previous documentation as that person now legally does not exist. However in practice, for most ID situations people use their passport or driving license anyway, neither of which needs a GRC to have name or gender changed. So then you really only need a GRC if you really need a changed birth/marriage/death certificate.

    The thing about single-sex spaces is that some organisations are exempt from being prevented from knowing your trans status, which includes places like women's shelters - but also includes eg religions with all-male clergy. It's never been about 'protecting women' because it has never applied to only women's spaces, and toilets and changing rooms were never part of that because it's primarily concerning employment in a single-sex space more than anything else. Also afaik no UK women's shelter has chosen to exclude trans women - legally exempt single-sex spaces can choose to exclude trans people but do not have to, and women's shelters in the UK have chosen not to. The RCC in the UK however DOES enforce this and will not ordain trans men - so actually in practice it becomes about protecting cis men anyway. Self ID wouldn't change any of this since it doesn't change the content of a GRC, just the process of getting one.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    There have been a couple of cases in the law reports involving trans children. Ask around and you may be able to trace the solicitors or legal aid office involved.

    Thanks - good idea.

    I should say, perhaps, that I have no horse in this race personally, but, given the poverty of Our Place's parish, there may well be local families affected by this issue, who would be unable to afford legal advice. Many of them can't afford food...
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I know Jolyon Maugham and The Good Law Project are very active in this area in supporting trans people and the parents of trans kids.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I should say, perhaps, that I have no horse in this race personally, but, given the poverty of Our Place's parish, there may well be local families affected by this issue, who would be unable to afford legal advice. Many of them can't afford food...

    Do you not have a legal aid office where people can go for advice (and perhaps representation)?
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I should say, perhaps, that I have no horse in this race personally, but, given the poverty of Our Place's parish, there may well be local families affected by this issue, who would be unable to afford legal advice. Many of them can't afford food...

    Do you not have a legal aid office where people can go for advice (and perhaps representation)?

    Unfortunately successive Tory governments have slashed the legal aid budgets and have also changed the rules so many people no longer qualify. Certainly nothing like this would count, generally it's domestic abuse cases and a few others.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    .
    True, but there may well be some lawyers willing to give free (or cut-price!) legal advice to parents affected.

    I know - ever the Optimist, me...
    :disappointed:

    My worry is that the AG is expressing a legal view that the trans status of people who haven't legally transitioned doesn't qualify under the protected status legislation. This throws a lot of people under the bus in order to screw over trans kids.

    The really worrying thing is the number of otherwise progressive inclusive people who will be totally on board with this. I notice she name-checks You Know Who
    Gee D wrote: »
    I should say, perhaps, that I have no horse in this race personally, but, given the poverty of Our Place's parish, there may well be local families affected by this issue, who would be unable to afford legal advice. Many of them can't afford food...

    Do you not have a legal aid office where people can go for advice (and perhaps representation)?

    If you're really lucky you might find a pro bono legal clinic, but generally those are going to be run off their feet trying to stop people being illegally evicted and other immediate matters.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Oh! My State has had a salaried legal aid office since 1942 and salaried public defenders not long after, as well as government support for community legal centres since they started up in the 1960's.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    When we got stitched up by a rogue builder a few years ago we were very lucky that we had the access to funds to pursue him through the legal process. A lot of people would have been left with a hole in the ground and another in their bank balance. There's as much justice as you can afford in the UK
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And were you able to recover the award made in your favour? I can't speak of other States, but in NSW there is compulsory builders' insurance to cover such awards of damages. It's not unlimited of course but is there to assist homeowners who would otherwise be left in the lurch.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited June 2022
    Gee D wrote: »
    And were you able to recover the award made in your favour? I can't speak of other States, but in NSW there is compulsory builders' insurance to cover such awards of damages. It's not unlimited of course but is there to assist homeowners who would otherwise be left in the lurch.

    As far as I know any liability insurance is entirely between the insurers and the trader - it's not like third party motor liability insurance.

    People being in the position I describe is not unusual - a regular in the press. We were doubly lucky in that the guy who did us had just dissolved one company and was registering a new one but inadvertently contracted with us as a private individual. Dissolving companies and registering new ones is a common way these shysters avoid owing money to anyone.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    And we should probably get back to the topic.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Access to the law/legal aid might make an interesting subject for Purgatory?
    Cheers
    L
    Epiphanies Host
  • Following the new ban on trans women swimmers, I notice the rubric that anyone who has started male puberty, cannot compete in elite women's races. However, the right wing want to stop anyone taking blockers, to prevent puberty. This is a total trap, isn't it? Of course, the bigots on Twitter are in raptures.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Following the new ban on trans women swimmers, I notice the rubric that anyone who has started male puberty, cannot compete in elite women's races. However, the right wing want to stop anyone taking blockers, to prevent puberty. This is a total trap, isn't it? Of course, the bigots on Twitter are in raptures.

    Unfortunately yes. Some MP (forget who) was advocating that people have to be 18 to access puberty blockers, which is obviously effectively banning them because they simply delay puberty starting rather than reverse puberty that has already started. That's the whole point of them.

    I hope there will be legal action taken because the sports associations go against all the scientifically accepted data on trans people taking cross-sex hormones, and against the IOC's guidelines. Trans people on HRT have been competing against cis people of their gender for years, and nobody cared before trans people became a weapon in the culture wars after the right realised it had lost the gay marriage argument. If trans women had a significant advantage over cis women, they would already be dominating basically all sports where strength and speed matter (so like...every sport aside from equestrian and motor sports I guess?). I wonder if it could be fought on the grounds of sex discrimination, ironically, given that they are only targeting trans women and not trans men.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    I wonder if it could be fought on the grounds of sex discrimination, ironically, given that they are only targeting trans women and not trans men.

    The crux of such a claim would centre on whether it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I think so long as you have sports divided into men's and women's events you are going to have to decide how to define the categories. I suspect, however, if one were to get into that in detail you would find that many apparently cis-female athletes actually have a mix of typically female and typically male characteristics (which is why sporting bodies gave up on chromosome testing, because it turned out a great many swimmers in particular had a Y chromosome).
  • Well, they seem to keep moving the goalposts. There was a focus on testosterone, so trans women complied, now that is gone. The authorities keep citing "the science", but how much is determined politically, and at the moment the vocal anti-trans lobby. The celebrations by various right wing groups are gruesome, and leave you in no doubt that there is a vicious campaign against trans people.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Following the new ban on trans women swimmers, I notice the rubric that anyone who has started male puberty, cannot compete in elite women's races. However, the right wing want to stop anyone taking blockers, to prevent puberty. This is a total trap, isn't it? Of course, the bigots on Twitter are in raptures.

    Unfortunately yes. Some MP (forget who) was advocating that people have to be 18 to access puberty blockers, which is obviously effectively banning them because they simply delay puberty starting rather than reverse puberty that has already started. That's the whole point of them.

    I hope there will be legal action taken because the sports associations go against all the scientifically accepted data on trans people taking cross-sex hormones, and against the IOC's guidelines. Trans people on HRT have been competing against cis people of their gender for years, and nobody cared before trans people became a weapon in the culture wars after the right realised it had lost the gay marriage argument. If trans women had a significant advantage over cis women, they would already be dominating basically all sports where strength and speed matter (so like...every sport aside from equestrian and motor sports I guess?). I wonder if it could be fought on the grounds of sex discrimination, ironically, given that they are only targeting trans women and not trans men.

    Well this is where it gets funny. They've talked about creating a category for trans competitors - which implies that their solution to their perceived unfairness of people who've been through male puberty having an advantage over those who haven't isn't a problem if the people who haven't are trans men.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    I wonder if it could be fought on the grounds of sex discrimination, ironically, given that they are only targeting trans women and not trans men.

    The crux of such a claim would centre on whether it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I think so long as you have sports divided into men's and women's events you are going to have to decide how to define the categories. I suspect, however, if one were to get into that in detail you would find that many apparently cis-female athletes actually have a mix of typically female and typically male characteristics (which is why sporting bodies gave up on chromosome testing, because it turned out a great many swimmers in particular had a Y chromosome).

    I read that sports are usually divided into women's and *open* events. The exceptions are usually the few sports remaining that only women compete in.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Well, they seem to keep moving the goalposts. There was a focus on testosterone, so trans women complied, now that is gone. The authorities keep citing "the science", but how much is determined politically, and at the moment the vocal anti-trans lobby. The celebrations by various right wing groups are gruesome, and leave you in no doubt that there is a vicious campaign against trans people.

    Ironically the focus on testosterone ends up hurting cis women like Caster Semenya* who have naturally high testosterone - Semenya is forced to take HRT in order to compete. In reality, many athletes have a natural advantage because at the elite level most athletes are physically unusual compared to the norm. Nobody made Michael Phelps take hormones to get rid of his lack of lactic acid production. Nobody banned Usain Bolt for running too fast. It's all just misogyny punishing women - cis and trans - for being too talented. You can see the ways Black women athletes are particularly targeted, such as Semenya and the Williams sisters (cf the appalling misogynoir accusing them of being 'manly' and that horrible racist newspaper cartoon).

    *cis means that somebody's gender is the same as the gender assigned to them at birth - Caster Semenya is intersex, but was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman and therefore is both cis and intersex
  • What is fairness anyway? I was an ace sprinter at school, but there was a giant in another class, so I was no 2 in the athletics team. Not fair! I get that women need their own competitons, but are trans women a huge threat? As Pomona said, they don't dominate the Olympics, etc.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    If trans women had a significant advantage over cis women, they would already be dominating basically all sports where strength and speed matter (so like...every sport aside from equestrian and motor sports I guess?).

    Trans people are a small minority, and obviously nobody transitions because they want a shot at winning a sporting medal. Elite athletes are also a very small minority of the human race - the number of people who are both trans and elite athletes is rather small.

    US swimmer Lia Thomas has been making headlines recently. She swam, as a man, in high school and at the start of her college career, and performed on a par with a fairly ordinary US college male swimmer. She transitioned during the pandemic, and returned to competition as a woman.

    Several things are true:

    1. She reduced her testosterone level to well under the threshold set by the sporting authorities (as is normal for trans women taking hormone therapy)
    2. She swam slower after the hormone treatment than she had swum before she started the hormones
    3. Competing as a man, she was nothing particularly special. Competing as a woman, she won a NCAA Division I championship. I think it's clear that her performance relative to the ensemble of women college swimmers was much better than her performance had been when she was competing in the men's competition.

    The evidence is clear - she has an advantage over her hypothetical cis-female twin sister.

    What is not clear is what we should do with that information.

    Is dividing sporting competition on gender lines the "correct" division? Maybe, maybe not, but it's the one we've had. And sure - there might be a time where a trans woman is dominating some particular sport, but it that really different from being, say, a cis female tennis player during the heyday of the Williams sisters, or Martina Navratilova? (All cis women, all significantly better than their closest competition.)

    Are the ensemble of trans women athletes different enough from the ensemble of cis women athletes to make it silly including them in the same competition (in the way that having men sprint against women would be silly?) I don't think the answer is obvious. There aren't many trans athletes, and trying to draw statistical conclusions based on the performance of a handful of people is "difficult".



  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @Leorning Cniht there can't possibly be evidence that she has an advantage (an advantage in what area, precisely?) over her *hypothetical* cis twin sister, because that cis twin sister doesn't exist and you can't get data about a person who doesn't exist. Individual cis women with a 'natural advantage' in terms of speed, strength etc over an individual trans woman exist! Being trans is not in itself an advantage, and such a hypothetical twin sister could well have some other advantage eg a Phelpsian lactic acid condition. Trans women have been competing against cis women in the Olympics and have been losing. That seems like an actual concrete thing we can use as evidence, not hypotheticals about someone who doesn't exist.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    What is fairness anyway? I was an ace sprinter at school, but there was a giant in another class, so I was no 2 in the athletics team. Not fair! I get that women need their own competitons, but are trans women a huge threat? As Pomona said, they don't dominate the Olympics, etc.

    I actually don't think that women need their own competitions given that the existence of women's categories is purely down to sexism anyway. They only exist because men wouldn't let women compete with them. It should be based on weight, strength etc categories where those things matter, and open where those things don't matter. Also the sports that only let women compete (synchronised swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, and I think netball?) should be open to everyone.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    What is fairness anyway? I was an ace sprinter at school, but there was a giant in another class, so I was no 2 in the athletics team. Not fair! I get that women need their own competitons, but are trans women a huge threat? As Pomona said, they don't dominate the Olympics, etc.

    I actually don't think that women need their own competitions given that the existence of women's categories is purely down to sexism anyway. They only exist because men wouldn't let women compete with them. It should be based on weight, strength etc categories where those things matter, and open where those things don't matter. Also the sports that only let women compete (synchronised swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, and I think netball?) should be open to everyone.

    It's usually said that a woman playing football or other contact sport with men, will get crunched, because of weight, strength, muscular, advantages. But I don't know what happens if you equalize things more. If a 15 stone woman bashed into a 15 st man, does she get crushed?

    But my point is that sport is meant be unfair. Usain Bolt had advantages over other runners, so he won. The giant at my school ran past me.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    @Leorning Cniht there can't possibly be evidence that she has an advantage (an advantage in what area, precisely?) over her *hypothetical* cis twin sister, because that cis twin sister doesn't exist and you can't get data about a person who doesn't exist.

    We know how she was performing pre-transition when competing against the men. We know how she has performed since she transitioned.

    She slowed down, when compared to her pre-transition self, but shot up the rankings when compared to the ensemble of women swimmers rather than the ensemble of men swimmers.

    That contains all the information you need.

    And an advantage in the area of swimming faster, for longer. Which is what we're talking about.

    Pomona wrote: »
    I actually don't think that women need their own competitions given that the existence of women's categories is purely down to sexism anyway. They only exist because men wouldn't let women compete with them. It should be based on weight, strength etc categories where those things matter, and open where those things don't matter.

    I suspect that your opinion is not shared by most women involved in high level competitive sport.

    I suspect that defining what things "matter" is much more difficult than you're suggesting here. It is easy to identify which people run faster than which other people, or play tennis better than which other people, and so on - you have a load of competitions and see who wins. It is very much harder to generate a priori rank categories based on size, strength and so on, and have them be at all meaningful.

    They do, of course, form (fairly coarse) categories like this for the Paralympics, with plenty of arguments about whether a particular athlete is impaired enough to compete in a particular category.

    Consider, for example, the Williams sisters, who have been a dominant force in women's tennis for two decades. The challenge you pose here is how to generate a mixed sex field that would have provided good competition for them at their peak, and you're wanting to do it based on some sort of physical measurements of the players rather than on their ranking at tennis.

    So which measurements matter? Height? Taller players have a longer reach, which is an advantage. Sprint speed? That matters, but it's not a physical measurement. Arm / shoulder strength feeds in to serve speed, which clearly matters - do you allocate each player a score according to how much they can bench press?

    So once you have generated a suitable field for the Williams sisters to compete in, which would probably have a few other world-leading women, plus a bunch of second-rate men, would anyone ever care who won?




  • Pomona wrote: »
    @Leorning Cniht there can't possibly be evidence that she has an advantage (an advantage in what area, precisely?) over her *hypothetical* cis twin sister, because that cis twin sister doesn't exist and you can't get data about a person who doesn't exist.

    We know how she was performing pre-transition when competing against the men. We know how she has performed since she transitioned.

    She slowed down, when compared to her pre-transition self, but shot up the rankings when compared to the ensemble of women swimmers rather than the ensemble of men swimmers.

    That contains all the information you need.

    And an advantage in the area of swimming faster, for longer. Which is what we're talking about.

    Pomona wrote: »
    I actually don't think that women need their own competitions given that the existence of women's categories is purely down to sexism anyway. They only exist because men wouldn't let women compete with them. It should be based on weight, strength etc categories where those things matter, and open where those things don't matter.

    I suspect that your opinion is not shared by most women involved in high level competitive sport.

    I suspect that defining what things "matter" is much more difficult than you're suggesting here. It is easy to identify which people run faster than which other people, or play tennis better than which other people, and so on - you have a load of competitions and see who wins. It is very much harder to generate a priori rank categories based on size, strength and so on, and have them be at all meaningful.

    They do, of course, form (fairly coarse) categories like this for the Paralympics, with plenty of arguments about whether a particular athlete is impaired enough to compete in a particular category.

    Consider, for example, the Williams sisters, who have been a dominant force in women's tennis for two decades. The challenge you pose here is how to generate a mixed sex field that would have provided good competition for them at their peak, and you're wanting to do it based on some sort of physical measurements of the players rather than on their ranking at tennis.

    So which measurements matter? Height? Taller players have a longer reach, which is an advantage. Sprint speed? That matters, but it's not a physical measurement. Arm / shoulder strength feeds in to serve speed, which clearly matters - do you allocate each player a score according to how much they can bench press?

    So once you have generated a suitable field for the Williams sisters to compete in, which would probably have a few other world-leading women, plus a bunch of second-rate men, would anyone ever care who won?

    I think a comparison with boxing might be instructive. I think it's reasonably clear that the headline boxers are those in the super heavyweight category, but that doesn't mean folk with an interest in the sport don't care about who wins the light welterweight title.

    I'm also not sure you can compare pre- and post- transition performance on an equal basis. Top level sport is psychological as well as physical. For all we know the relief of transitioning may be a far bigger effect than any physiological differences as a result of male puberty.
Sign In or Register to comment.