British Cycling launch consultation on transgender policy

Just to say - this comment thread has a strikingly considerate, nuanced,  and respectful nature. Mostly, discussion of these subjects descends to carnage, even in lefty-world. Great to read. Well done everyone. As you were

There have been many debates over this tricky subject over the past umpteen years. I, as a district chair, found myself in the middle of such a debate a few years ago, as we had such an issue in the district that had been smouldering for many years (since the mid 1970's) and never did get resolved.

The motion put to the then RTTC, was simple, you can only compete under the gender on your birth certificate. The debate opened up on the forums and it seemed straight forward. There was the usual debate about men being stronger and testoterone etc etc. Claire Ashton, very bravely came into the arena, for it was she who the complaint was about and how this motion came to be, and pointed out some of the facts... for instance that the medication to stay female involved massive muscle wastage and suppression of all testorone production. Then someone asked the question as to how many people this would affect. Members of those forums went away and checked. We were all surprised at how many reported that the gender that they beleived they were was different to that on their birth certificate. 

It seems that gender reassignment at birth was more common than most people realised. 

Then when the subject came up about men being stronger than women...Beryl was mentioned and the argument started to weaken. 

My own view is that drugs should not be used to either increase or decrease performance. Seb Coe says that he against athletes taking drugs, that is unless they are a very strong female athlete. Should there be an upper limit for the amount of testorone a person can have to call themselves a female athlete? Not girly enough??

Lets not forget that this doesn't affect the elite sportsmen and women, it will affect a lot of people at lower levels, the club riders, the beginners, those who just want to have a go to see if they like the sport, people like you and me.

We need to have an alternative to Male and Female genders, I don't know that it is, but it needs to fair and to be able to include anyone who wants to take part. Perhaps just base it on ability.

Womens results and times are improving more rapidly than the men, this is due to better training, nutrition and more importantly tougher competition.

Besides, the only reason we have male and female catagories is because of prudish victorian values that kept the sexes seperate (unless you were married) and could be used to surpress unladylike behavior. (and cut prize money)

I hope that BC can find a solution. The current situation and the misery it causes has gone on far too long.

It strikes me as strange that despite the concept of gender evolving rapidly over recent years we still seem to have a binary gender based distinction when it comes to sport.

In its bid to be more inclusive British Cycling is still excluding many by persevering with binary gender categories.

Far better, and fairer, would be to remove gender from the categories altogether and simply have 2 categories based on hormone exposure.

If you have ever been exposed to high levels of testosterone you can compete in the 'High T' category, if you have not you can compete in the 'Low T' category.

If research demonstrates that the performance benefit of high testosterone exposure is lost after a certain number of years of low testosterone levels then the criteria can be modified accordingly.

It's a far more inclusive system as all genders and identities are catered for.

It's a fairer system as you will be competing against others with similar physical attributes.

As the father of 2 girls I'd hate for them to work hard at a sport only for their efforts to come to nothing if a transgender sportsperson beat them.

But, then again, the same could be done by a CIS female who's taking PEDs. 

It isn't clear from the article, but the policy does state that men wishing to compete in the female category are required to reduce their testosterone levels and to provide medical evidence of that. 
 

This kind of bullshit will destroy women's sport if we're not careful, but to be fair to British Cycling there does still seem to be a fig-leaf of science in the policy.
 

Nothing to stop me saying I'm a woman though, and hulking along to as many woman-only leisure events as I want for the next four years. 

If people born male are allowed to compete in the female category then women's competitive cycling disappears. Someone who recently announced they are transgender holds a male 25 mile TT record; if they now compete in the female category, as the BC proposals could permit then female TTing has little chance for the women.
I think sport should be inclusive and open to all. It also needs to be fair. Women shouldn't be faced with unfair competition from male bodies.

By adopting the language of "gender assigned at birth" BC accept gender as something which can be assigned, and therefore most likely reassigned. Does this make it a sensible proxy for sex in separating the field of competition? Or is it the case that the field of competition should not be divided along those lines, and that women should compete against men on somehow equal terms?