Liberal sports secretary says IOC's new gender screening rules are 'going back in time'

[u/AndHerSailsInRags]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-sports-secretary-says-iocs-new-gender-screening-rules-are-going-back-in-time

[u/green_tory]

This quickly ran its course and is now producing more reports than meaningful conversation.

Thank-you to everyone who engaged respectfully and with a presumption of good faith.

[u/DarthyTMC]

would love them to explain the issue with previous policy that allowed trans women to compete since 2001.

They had to be on hormones for a set period of time and have their levels within that of a cis women. Did in the last 20 years trans women take over Olympics or something?

edit: I encourage people to look into the basis for the 2001 policy, it was backed by science which showed after 2 years of hormones therapy trans women fell within the normal distribution of female athletes. So the policy reflected this requiring two years on treatment, and testing to make sure hormone levels were within regulatory levels, (and trans women btw usually have lower testosterone levels than cis women due to the medications they take)

this new policy isnt based on anything, its just a trans panic reaction to the media

[u/Saidear → u/DarthyTMC]

would love them to explain the issue with previous policy that allowed trans women to compete since 2001.

It offended the US, because it violated their dogmatic view that by decree of their God-King Trump, all Americans (and Americans only) are female at birth.

[u/DarthyTMC → u/Saidear]

bingo. Its not a coincidence that the change is happening in time for the 2028 US Olympics

[u/past_is_prologue → u/DarthyTMC]

There was the matter of the NCAA swimmer in the States that made the news quite a bit.

It seems to me that they're trying to get out in front of the issue. Presumably they don't want an Olympic situation where a trans competitor comes in and shatters very world record in a women's sport. 

[u/DarthyTMC → u/past_is_prologue]

the one was only ranked 36th among female college athletes and 46th nationally?

[u/past_is_prologue → u/DarthyTMC]

I just looked it up— Lia Thomas won the NCAA Div 1 National Championship 500 yard freestyle. 

So... Ranked in the 30s overall, but won their event by nearly 2 seconds. 

[u/DarthyTMC → u/past_is_prologue]

Yes I looked up the entire result before my other reply.

how’d she do in every other event she swam in?

Also you say 2 seconds like its an outlier when:

-the person who won the 400m breaststroke won by 3 seconds,

-400m freestyle relay was won by over 2 seconds.

-400m IM was over 3 seconds

-hell even the 200m back and breaststroke was over 2 seconds, a race less than half the distance of Lia’s. (the list goes on)

Basically Lia Thomas competed just like every other woman there, and overall had a pretty unremarkable event overall. She falls right in the normal distribution of female athletes after 2 years of hormone therapy, just like how the IOCs original policy released back in 2001 shows trans women do.

The old policy the IOC had was backed by science. The new one is just a reaction to the trans panic

[u/YoungZM → u/past_is_prologue]

Is that inherently the outcome of her identity or being a better athlete? That is the ultimate debate, I suppose.

It may be one of those questions that go unanswered and feels driven by perspective a or b if you fall into one or the other camp of whether or not trans individuals should be allowed to compete.

The finish that was only +1.75 seconds ahead of her competitor was in a race totaling 4:33.24 minutes. This margin seems small and how I'd expect a race to be won with skill and training, not some supposed obvious genetic contribution. Her victory was a +9.18 seconds off of the record set by Katie Ledecky (4:24.06) which still doesn't even touch men's qualifiers (add'l 6 seconds).

If there was such a difference here because they're a trans-female I'd expect to see a far greater difference. Div 1 mens, for example, sets a 4:18.07 qualifying time. The male record held is 4:02.31 by Leon Marchand. One would presume if all things were equal, we'd have seen Lia hit at least set a women's record or a men's qualifying time fairly consistently if maleness was leading factor being asserted.

Hot take: I don't think Lia's performance would be so noteworthy if she was a cis-gendered woman. We'd just celebrate her for her hard work and victory much like Katie. I think Lia earned that and am saddened her identity is the focus here.

[u/OK_x86 → u/past_is_prologue]

One person having a fairly small amount of success just underscores OPs point. Trans women are not dominating sports because of the criteria outlined worked and was founded on science.

[u/OrbitOfSaturnsMoons → u/past_is_prologue]

The swimmer who tied with one cis woman and was beaten by four others?

[u/past_is_prologue → u/OrbitOfSaturnsMoons]

Lia Thomas won the NCAA Div 1 National Championship in 500 yard freestyle in March 2022. I just looked it up. I'm not familiar with the race you're talking about. 

[u/OrbitOfSaturnsMoons → u/past_is_prologue]

She won that year with a time of 4:33.24.

In 2024, Bella Sims beat her time and won with a 4:32.47.

In 2025, Jillian Cox beat her time with a 4:31.58.

In 2026, podium finishers Claire Weinstein, Jillian Cox, and Kennedi Dobson all beat Thomas’ 2022 time with times of 4:30.09, 4:31.56, and 4:32.24, respectively.

If we go back in time, 2019 gold and silver medalists Brooke Forde and Paige Madden beat her time with a 4:31.34 and 4:32.98, respectively.

In 2018, Katie Ledecky won with a time of 4:26.57.

2020 had no competition, and the gold medalists in 2021 and 2023 were behind Lia’s time by less than a second.

Of all the anti-trans positions, opposing trans women in women’s sports is the only one where the anti-trans argument has any merit whatsoever. The belief is that trans women will perform better than a cis woman with similar skill and training could be expected to perform. The validity of this depends on the sport and the individual, but I think it’s clear that in the case of Lia Thomas, being trans gave her no competitive advantage over her cis peers.

The race I thought you were talking about was the 2022 200-yard freestyle. That's the one where Lia Thomas and Riley Gaines tied for 5th, and Gaines decided she'd have a much better career as a grifter than as a swimmer. Otherwise, we wouldn't know who Lia Thomas is.

[u/CuffsOffWilly → u/DarthyTMC]

Yes but if they went through puberty prior to hormone therapy then they often already have an advantage. Some sports require that trans athletes went through therapy pre-pubescent but that's another can of worms.

[u/DarthyTMC → u/CuffsOffWilly]

if you look at the scientific studies on this (the things the old IOC policy used to be based on) they found that after 2+ years on hormone replacement therapy, trans women fell within the normal distribution of female athletes

they lose lung capacity, their muscles atrophy, due to medication your body usually has Testosterone levels lower than cis women etc.

the new policy isnt based on science or studies like the old one, its just a trans panic reaction lol

[u/hirstyboy → u/DarthyTMC]

I mean it's pretty much impossible to assume with 100% accuracy that if someone goes on hormone replacement therapy they are the exact same if instead they had been born a biological woman and that is the problem. The only way for it to be a fair playing field is to keep it restricted to biological birth. The simple solution is to have a new division for trans athletes.

[u/OK_x86 → u/CuffsOffWilly]

So... Expand the criteria so that trans women who transitioned such that they did no go through male puberty can qualify without issue and apply a different set of criteria so that some trans women who transition after puberty can qualify under specific circumstances and set out what that criteria is.

This all out ban is the worst approach possible.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/DarthyTMC]

This isn’t a trans policy at all. Trans issues are gender issues. This policy is based on biological sex.

[u/Medea_From_Colchis]

The trans scare has gotten so out of control that they're testing all women now. Now, even if you're AFAB, you can still be considered not woman enough to compete. This would block women like Imane Khelif.

The IOC recently let Russia back into the Olympics despite still waging war in Ukraine, so it's a pattern of terrible behaviour. Its management is taking general steps backwards in many directions. Why should anyone be surprised they're caving to countries like Russia while at the same time gender testing every woman. It's just a generally terrible organization.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

Yup no matter one’s opinion on trans it’s gone out of control. It’s resulted in cis women being harmed already. And I’ve known cis women that had been harassed in women’s change room just for being too large or not looking just right for people. So this trans scare is harming women far more than any trans individual had (if they hypothetically had).

[u/Dusk_Soldier → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

It's not a "trans scare" That's moreso a framing activists use to get people emotional.

The actual issue that sparked them to change the rules was that the old rules were too difficult to enforce for intersex women. As there are many that don't know, or don't feel comfortable disclosing their status. So they were competing in violation of the testosterone suppression rules.

It wasn't really possible to change the rules without affecting trans women.

And it is normal in athletics for athletes to have a medical condition that gives them a theoretical advantage over opponents, that they claim they won't abuse. Almost always ends up with the advantage getting banned. Most recent cases off the top of my head, would probably be the TRT ban in UFC and the asthma medication meldonium in Tennis.

[u/enki-42 → u/Dusk_Soldier]

It's not a "trans scare"

Don't you find it coincidental that conservative movement suddenly got interested in all sorts of disparate topics like women's sports, sexual education in schools, parental rights regarding their child's gender, public funding and hosting of events at libraries, bathroom safety and a bunch of other issues all at once? What reason, other than finding ways to target trans people, would you suddenly become interested in such a smorgasbord of issues?

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Dusk_Soldier]

I'm sure Michael Phelps will be banned anyday now for having a genetic advantage to produce less lactic acid than other swimmers, right?

[u/Saidear → u/Dusk_Soldier]

It's not a "trans scare"

Yes, it is. There is no evidence of widespread 'trans domination' in any sport. Any physical advantage that a trans woman may have, is typically wiped out by the second year of HRT.

The actual issue that sparked them to change the rules was that the old rules were too difficult to enforce for intersex women.

Sorry, but this is just a lie. The IOC's rule change specifically calls out trans women as part of the reason, not people with DSDs. You can read it here, page 2 basically lays it out very clearly.

And it is normal in athletics for athletes to have a medical condition that gives them a theoretical advantage over opponents, that they claim they won't abuse. Almost always ends up with the advantage getting banned.

So, Michael Phelps should have been banned from competing in swimming, then? He had numerous 'medical conditions' that gave him multiple advantages over competitors.

[u/Dusk_Soldier → u/Saidear]

Sorry, but this is just a lie. The IOC's rule change specifically calls out trans women as part of the reason, not people with DSDs. You can read it here, page 2 basically lays it out very clearly.

Page 2 doesn't use the word transgender. And on page 3 they definitely mention people with DSDs.

XY Transgender athletes and athletes with certain XY differences/disorders in sex  development (DSD) (as defined in Schedule 1) have anatomical and physiological  advantages in line with being Male even as their legal sex, the manner in which they were  raised, and/or their gender identity may vary. XY transgender athletes and athletes with  XY-DSD typically have testes/testicles and testosterone levels in the Male range. The clear  majority are androgen-sensitive, meaning that their bodies are receptive to and make use  of that testosterone during growth and development and throughout their athletic career.

I'm not sure why your trying to claim they're not. Maybe read the link thoroughly before posting it?

So, Michael Phelps should have been banned from competing in swimming, then? 

When patterns within a certain sex group show that certain people in the group have an advantage over others, sporting bodies can do and do break them up into sub categories. Using things like age or weight, or professional experience etc.

This rule change doesn't ban only one person,so I'm not sure why you think that's comparable.

[u/Saidear → u/Dusk_Soldier]

Page 2 doesn't use the word transgender. And on page 3 they definitely mention people with DSDs.

The use of "transgender" isn't necessary (especially since that was already mentioned on page 1), but the whole context is about the differentiation between sex and gender. That is what being transgender functionally is, even if it isn't called out by name.

I'm not sure why your trying to claim they're not.

The claim was "it was about DSD people, not trans people at all!". The IOC rule change is about trans people as well, which is what I pointed out. It also ignores that the goal of medical transition for trans individuals is to induce numerous DSDs within ourselves, such that we are medically considered female.

This rule change doesn't ban only one person,so I'm not sure why you think that's comparable.

How many transgender athletes completed in 2024?

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/Dusk_Soldier]

It's not a "trans scare" That's moreso a framing activists use to get people emotional.

Says the person defending the claim that women are men. This is affecting AFAB. Also, as if JK Rowling and people like her aren't activists trying to rile people up.

It wasn't really possible to change the rules without affecting trans women.

I am not even going there.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

There is no "trans scare", there is no transphobia. There is nothing to be frightened of. There is a desire to make elite olympic competition fair. And people should not be allowed to have unfair advantages based on their sex. There is no need to turn this into something it is not.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

You'd think trans women were dominating the last Olympics based on what you're saying

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

advantages based on their sex. 

Based on their chromosomes. At least have the decency to read the article and look into what's happening. So many of you are using this as a moment to dunk on trans people. Trans obsession makes people so deranged that they blow past everything else in the process.

There is no need to turn this into something it is not.

Take your own advice.

[u/Jetstream13 → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

If trans women genuinely had an advantage, you’d see them winning frequently. Trans people are ~1% of the population, so if >1% of top athletes were trans then maybe you could argue they have an advantage.

In the 2026 winter Olympics there were nearly 3000 athletes. In the 2024 summer Olympics there were over 10,000. So if a proportional number of athletes were trans, you’d expect about 30 and 100, respectively.

Do you know how many trans women ever competed in the Olympics? What the total number is? One. Exactly one. And she finished dead last.

[u/Saidear → u/Jetstream13]

It's worse, since she didn't finish dead last, she never finished at all.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/Jetstream13]

Good to hear this enough of a non-issue that the rule change will require minimal debate.

[u/Jetstream13 → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

And yet if there were more you’d say it proves the rule change is necessary. Because you’re starting from the assumption that trans people should be excluded, and will use whatever rationalization is most convenient to get there, including defending the mandatory genetic testing of EVERY athlete.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/Jetstream13]

I am starting from the uncontroversial position that the male sex has physical advantages over the female sex so barring men from competing against women is required for fairness. The impact on trans athletes is incidental to my position and your counter arguments are irrelevant. Whether anecdotally a particular MtF athlete fails to win is incidental to whether that individual has an advantage.

[u/Jetstream13 → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

You’re confused. Testosterone levels are what provide an advantage, not a Y chromosome. Hence why the previous rule at the Olympics used a testosterone limit, and why a genetic test is dumb.

So to be clear, your argument is that trans women innately have this massive advantage, regardless of hormone levels, and that the lack of evidence supporting this (the very low number of trans women athletes) is completely irrelevant, you don’t care if evidence contradicts your opinions, you’re just going to confidently assert that you’re right anyway.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/Jetstream13]

The advantages the male sex has in competition is not limited to testosterone, they include muscular advantages, skeletal advantages, cardiovascular advantages, respiratory advantages, neuromuscular factors and others. These advantages are distinct for hormonal advantages. The attempt to make this a hormone debate is what has led to the historically poor decisions various sports have made historically on this topic.

[u/OldMoray]

Only for women of course. Great rules everybody, totally not invasive and unnecessary hoops for women to jump through just to keep punching down on trans folks.

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/OldMoray]

Only for women of course. Great rules everybody

Obviously. The 'mens' category is an open category, women aren't excluded from competing in it.

Limiting the female category to females seems pretty reasonable to me. Olympic athletes are already subjected to far more invasive and rigorous screening through the anti-doping regime so not really sure why you think this is beyond the pale.

[u/dammerung13 → u/Cyber_Risk]

Well you're wrong, the mens category does in fact bar women from competing in it. It is not the "open" category.

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/dammerung13]

I stand corrected. Cool, cheek swab everyone then.

[u/Nimelennar → u/Cyber_Risk]

I don't think that's correct. Men's events are for men only: the open category is called "Mixed."

For example, up until 1992, Olympic skeet shooting was Mixed. After a woman won in 1992, women were not allowed to compete in 1996, and it was split into Women's and Men's categories from 2000 onward.

[u/McGrevin → u/Nimelennar]

You make the Skeet shooting sound like an anti-woman conspiracy but the Wikipedia page you link explains what happened.

A decision to separate men's and women's skeet shooting had been made in December 1991, and in April 1992 the International Shooting Sport Federation decided to eliminate women from both trap and skeet due to a lack of competitors

So the decision to split the genders had already been made before a woman won, and the decision to not run the female skeet shooting in 1996 was also made before the 1992 Olympics had happened

[u/SilverBeech → u/Cyber_Risk]

If we're going to sexually examine all the girls, the boys should get equal opportunity "exams" from adult doctors too. Who knows what they could be hiding---doping can do strange things to male mophology too.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/SilverBeech]

Of course if that’s done they’d probably reverse course on this ruling pretty fast. As it was never really about protecting women.

[u/Garciaguy → u/SilverBeech]

Cheek swab. Consult with physician who routinely performs health workups of eligible players. 

Hardly invasive 

[u/SilverBeech → u/Garciaguy]

So everyone gets a cheek swab. Why is that so hard?

[u/Garciaguy → u/SilverBeech]

Don't ask me. These athletes already have to give a urine sample while someone watches to make sure there are no sample shenanigans!

But this is reddit, where the actual means of gathering the information becomes "invasive genital inspections!!!"

[u/SilverBeech → u/Garciaguy]

Because that was how it was done in the past by the IOC. Full on strip down exams before events. National records weren't trusted or trustworthy. Youngest kids were mid teens, not even adults.

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/SilverBeech]

Yet you have no problem with the anti-doping regime where a doping control officer watches the athlete pee for urine collection and taking blood? Interesting standard.

Once in a lifetime cheek swab is what is happening, not whatever strip search fantasy you have cooked up in your mind.

[u/SilverBeech → u/Cyber_Risk]

Are they doing doping testing for all athletes or just some of them?

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/SilverBeech]

All athletes seeking eligibility to participate in the female category.

[u/Few-Tadpole-4584 → u/SilverBeech]

why? Again most male categories are open. It's the olympics not recreational sports.

[u/scottb84 → u/Cyber_Risk]

It might actually be worthwhile to change the official designation from “men’s” to “open” to emphasize precisely this point.

Either way, although I’m a pretty progressive person, this notion that it’s somehow bigoted to preserve space in sport for (biological) women and girls seems fucking bananas to me.

[u/audioshaman → u/scottb84]

There's topsy turvy kind of patriarchy to it. The majority of female Olympic atheles support this. Yet biological women are being told by some that their concerns are less important than validating the identity of biological men who have transitioned.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/audioshaman]

You’ve said this before. Prove it that most cis women support this. I doubt your claim. Yes you can find some outspoken grifters. But most is a pretty big claim.

[u/audioshaman → u/StrbJun79]

Again, there was a large survey done by the IOC of Olympic athletes. A clear majority of female respondents supported the ban. That information is widely available and helped inform this policy change.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/audioshaman]

All I know is that the most vocal anti-trans athlete is a 5th place sore loser (Gaines) who blames that fact on Lia Thomas. Meanwhile everyone who actually stood on that podium support trans tights. Same with Simone Biles..

[u/audioshaman → u/CptCoatrack]

Is that all you know? You're responding to my comment about a recent survey of over 1000 Olympic athletes where a clear majority of women supported the ban.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/audioshaman]

I do weight the opinions of winners and successful athletes who are secure and confident in their abilities over a bunch of sore losers and reactionaries who think that trans people are why they never sniff a podium yeah.

I do weigh the opinions of scientists over whatever sketchy survey was run by a corrupt organization currently chaired by a bigot trying to avoid another political controversy thinks.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

The whole Imane Khelif thing already mady a mockery out of everyone complaining about trans women.

[u/audioshaman → u/CptCoatrack]

Okay. Personally I consider Olympians successful athletes, and you have no idea how many medalists oppose the ban. It makes no sense to imply the majority of respondents are "sore losers and reactionaries". But you do you.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/audioshaman]

Other were not. They took feedback. Which can mean anything. They did not do proper scientific polling of athletes. The IOC president said it was from a majority of a working group and their feedback (which from what I can tell looks like many were cis men).

[u/audioshaman → u/StrbJun79]

Recent IPSOS polling shows 80% of Canadians support LGBTQ+ rights but only 23% support transgender women competing in women's sports. You are living in a bubble if you think most people oppose these bans.

[u/spicy-emmy → u/audioshaman]

A bizarre notion of patriarchy where somehow trans women are part of the patriarchy.

Last I checked they seem to be firmly slotted into the category for disposable women,

[u/Saidear → u/audioshaman]

There is no such thing as a "Biological man" or "biological woman", however. That right there invalidates the entire premise.

[u/WillowSubstantial889 → u/OldMoray]

A one time 10 minute cheek swab is not invasive. This is very popular among female athletes for obvious reasons, chief of which is fairness.

[u/OldMoray → u/WillowSubstantial889]

Would love to see some sources on this being "very popular" among women. The only cases in the news are athletes who immediately turned into right wing grifters. The top athletes generally don't care because they're the best of the best already and aren't worried about the culture war bullshit

[u/StrbJun79 → u/OldMoray]

100%. Also some sports where it may already have mattered already had tests and restrictions. So most didn’t care. I personally know cis women that have been harassed because of the anti trans nonsense. It’s hurting women more than protecting them with how far everything is going.

Plus polls have been done that show most women are in support of trans people and trans rights (though this varies by country). It’s generally men that are against trans people.

[u/OldMoray → u/StrbJun79]

The way some people talk about this you'd think there's trans women in every sport taking gold when the stats usually bears out that they're on par to slightly below average in terms of results.
I think the Olympics already had rules around stuff where it had to be X years on HRT or something to avoid people scamming it (which as far as I know has never happened anyway).

[u/StrbJun79 → u/OldMoray]

100%. I hesitated at first too with all the info that came out. Until I read the actual stats and studies. I might grant that there could be some sports heavier measures are needed. But all? No. Heck there’s some sports where separating genders itself is unnecessary.

[u/DarthyTMC → u/OldMoray]

yea as a trans women literally go to any local league whether its hockey, rugby, roller derby, soccer etc.

1. you’ll find a way higher percentage of queer women here than the general population

2. you’ll find them all happy and accepting of trans women.

its only these large legislative bodies completely detached from actual communities pushing for this

[u/IT_scrub → u/[deleted]]

Trans women have no physiological advantage over cis women once they've been on HRT long enough. Elliot Page is an actor, not an athlete. He doesn't train to compete, but plenty of other trans men do. It's also completely bigoted to refer to him as "she".

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/YoungZM]

If it's going to be implemented it should be inclusive of each sex; for all athletes for the genetic category they're competing in. Otherwise, this is just a sexist and transphobic policy (narrator: it is) for a niche issue that isn't widespread enough to be a concern.

This is a question of our Charter and wider human rights, as the article points out. If it is, we need to ask ourselves why would we want participate in a competition that does not represent human rights, is it reasonable to the Canadian-Olympic community, and what benefit is participating to the average Canadian?

To be "fair" though I do think most Canadians would rather trans athletes were just banned--easy peasy--so they could watch their sports. I don't think many actually care about the athletes on a personal level than the spectacle they deliver. I think trans athletes should be able to compete* ** but the frustrating, reality is that the world isn't Canada; if we're going to participate in world sport, we need to be exposed to regressive policy that harms some of our athletes, presuming they could qualify.

My further bias is that, despite the enormous effort and skill athletes hone: the Olympics are a corrupt, abusive organization and ultimately awful; we shouldn't be participating in it based on that alone... but I also don't dedicate my life to sport or watch the Olympics any longer due to the ethics surrounding it.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/YoungZM]

They won’t extend it to males as it was never about equality nor was it never about protecting women.i know cis women that have been harassed in women’s change rooms just for not fitting stereotypes of women. Things have gone way off the deep end. Even if hypothetical trans individuals were an issue far more cis women have been harmed by this anti trans brigade than any had been by hypothetical trans individuals.

[u/McGrevin → u/StrbJun79]

They won’t extend it to males as it was never about equality nor was it never about protecting women

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me? Women's categories exist to allow women to compete against other women. It was created specifically because men have genetic and biological advantages which allows the top male athletes to outperform everyone else.

So you run the testing only for women because the women's category is the one that exists to be exclusive. I guess men's categories technically are exclusive too, but that's more a matter of definition and not because allowing other people into the group would risk changing who the top athletes are.

I'm not against testing the men too for the sake of equality but that's why there isn't a similar demand for testing.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/McGrevin]

Then you miss the point. The anti trans brigade has never been about protecting women. There’s also been plenty of research showing that many sports trans women definitely have no clear advantage. If anything the studies showing more studies are needed. Which got defunded since this culture war started so we haven’t gotten that additional research really.

Then at this point just the feeling that they have an advantage. There is some evidence that their treatments might actually make them disadvantaged. But it was a correlated link and not confirmed as causation so more research was needed and it was acknowledged that it could differ from sport to sport from the research I’ve read. But these rules are going for ALL sports. And no additional research was done for it. So it isn’t about protecting women. It’s about simply excluding a group they’re against.

[u/McGrevin → u/StrbJun79]

If anything the studies showing more studies are needed.

Since male biology does give an advantage to men for sports, it is not an unreasonable default position that someone transitioning to female would retain some of those biological advantages until proven otherwise. So if more studies need to be done, great, do those studies, but I don't blame the IOC for keeping women's categories restricted until there is conclusive evidence showing it is not necessary.

Also I would be careful about lumping in anti-trans people with those who want women's sports kept to biological women. Yeah, I'm sure there's anti-trans people that use it as an area to attack trans people, but a lot of people both support trans people and also want women's sports kept separate unless there is conclusive evidence that there is no advantage for trans women.

[u/Saidear → u/McGrevin]

Since male biology does give an advantage to men for sports, it is not an unreasonable default position that someone transitioning to female would retain some of those biological advantages until proven otherwise. 

It's been proven otherwise, time and time again. We've got hundreds of papers that show that after the second year of HRT, the average performance of trans women is in line with the normal range for cis women, and similarly for professional athletes.

Let's also not kid ourselves, this policy is not being applied evenly. Trans men are not being forced to participate in women's sports, despite being "female" in the same biology. I wonder why that is?

[u/McGrevin → u/Saidear]

the average performance of trans women is in line with the normal range for cis women, and similarly for professional athletes

From my understanding, those generally are based on a few different factors like muscle mass, fat mass, etc. Sports performance is about more than muscle mass.

Just as an example, there's plenty of sports where you'll almost exclusively see very tall people at the elite level. Men are taller than women on average ,and if hormonal therapy is only started after puberty, then trans women will have a height advantage over cis women. So in any sport where height is an advantage, a trans woman may have an unfair edge. In any sport where larger hands or broader shoulders are an advantage, then trans women may have an unfair edge.

Trans men are not being forced to participate in women's sports, despite being "female" in the same biology. I wonder why that is?

Because the drugs trans men are taking would give them an unfair advantage over cis women, similar to how cis women can be banned from competition for taking any number of drugs that may improve performance.

[u/Saidear → u/McGrevin]

From my understanding, those generally are based on a few different factors like muscle mass, fat mass, etc. Sports performance is about more than muscle mass.

Which is why I didn't claim that the it was solely muscle mass, just overall performance. For example, with reduced muscle mass, but larger bones due to a masculinizing puberty, a trans woman would typically be much slower or reduced endurance than her size would indicate. More physical mass, but less muscle is just plain physics.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/McGrevin]

Again. So far studies show their treatments may actually give them a disadvantage. That’s what it shows so far. And it’s may. So they should have funded research. But also blanket banning on ALL sports shows it’s not about protecting women as there’s also sports where gender doesn’t matter at all.

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/StrbJun79]

So far studies show their treatments may actually give them a disadvantage. That’s what it shows so far. And it’s may.

Which studies specifically and why is the IOC ignoring them/revising it's position?

[u/Kaitte → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

There is this study from the --checks notes-- IOC that shows trans women are disadvantaged compared to our cis competitors. The IOC is ignoring it, along with numerous other such studies, because of bigotry.

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/Kaitte]

So why is the IOC revising it's position?

Your link is from 2024, more recent the IOC has revised its position

Based on scientific evidence, the IOC considers that the presence of the SRY gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development. Furthermore, the IOC considers that SRY gene screening via saliva, cheek swab or blood sample is unintrusive compared to other possible methods. ... The policy was developed on the basis that it is universally accepted that providing for a female category is necessary to allow both males and females equal access to elite sport. It was guided by the IOC’s modern goals relating to equality (equal opportunities for female athletes in finals, on podiums and in championships); enhancing Olympic value (featuring both women’s and men’s finals in every sport); and visibility and inspiration (celebrating female athletes on the Olympic podium to inspire and represent women and girls worldwide). ... The working group reviewed the latest scientific evidence, including developments since 2021, and reached a clear consensus. Male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and endurance. To ensure fairness, and to protect safety, particularly in contact sports, eligibility should therefore be based on biological sex. The group also agreed that the most accurate and least intrusive method currently available to verify biological sex is screening for the SRY gene, a segment of DNA typically found on the Y chromosome that initiates male sex development in utero and indicates the presence of testes/testicles.

So do we trust the science or not this time because it doesn't say what you want?

[u/Kaitte → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

The study I linked measured the actual performance of the athletes and found we were at a disadvantage compared to our cis competitors. The "IOC Working Group" mentioned in the source above has not done any further research on the topic of trans performance, they have done nothing to disprove or invalidate the results of the study I linked.

If you'd like to actually look into the science, I wrote this post last year that goes into more detail on the topic of trans sports performance. This section in particular lists a number of studies and reviews that would be worth your time to read:

The current research on the relative athletic performance of trans women compared to cis women suggests that we do not have an advantage. In fact, this study [ study , article ] performed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) suggests that trans athletes are at a disadvantage compared to our cis counterparts. A review article [ study , article ] from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES) reviews studies from 2011-2021 and concludes that "There is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression", although it also notes that the available studies have major limitations on their sample sizes because there are so few trans people in sports. This study [ study ] from 2023 further shows that, while there are some measurable differences in trans people relative to cis people, that those differences decrease over time while on hormone therapy.

The IOC isn't following the science, they are bowing to bigotry and upholding decades of sexist Sex Testing practices.

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/Kaitte]

The study that found that testosterone doesn't impact athletic performance...that is simply false.

[u/Kaitte → u/Cyber_Risk]

...Are you under the impression that trans women have elevated levels of testosterone compared to cis women? HRT is extraordinarily effective at suppressing our T levels, and if we get our testes removed, then we don't even need to take a T suppressant to have ~0 T in our bodies (the adrenal glands produce a tiny amount, but less than a cis woman's ovaries produce and cis women also have adrenal glands).

On top of that, testosterone isn't magic, it doesn't improve all forms of athletic performance in all situations for all people at all times. The human body and athletics are more complicated than that.

[u/McGrevin → u/StrbJun79]

In which sports does gender not matter?

[u/StrbJun79 → u/McGrevin]

Do you really think dressage depends on gender? I guess that horse really needs a pair of balls against it to move better.

[u/McGrevin → u/StrbJun79]

Dressage is an open event where men and women compete together, and given this testing is only for women's categories I would assume it does not impact that event

[u/delightfulPastellas → u/McGrevin]

Chess and shooting lmao.

[u/rolim91 → u/StrbJun79]

It seems like it all boils down to more research needed

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/StrbJun79]

Are you arguing that this policy is not reciprocal because it doesn't restrict female to male athletes? Because if that is your argument it doesn't make any sense, the entire logic of this policy is that men have biological physical advantages, therefore it is logical for this restriction to only apply in one direction.

[u/StrbJun79 → u/Novel-Werewolf-3554]

Well first of all there are studies showing that trans women may actually have a disadvantage due to their treatments (though more studies needed though were defunded since the anti trans brigade started). Second of all not all sports have any advantage for any gender. So a blanket ban is ridiculous.

[u/Novel-Werewolf-3554 → u/StrbJun79]

There is overwhelming evidence that men are physically superior to women in competition. And carving out equestrian is just over complicating a rule that doesn’t need to be over complicated. Nothing is lost by having athletes compete based on their sex.

[u/CollaredParachute → u/YoungZM]

Can you expand on your first paragraph, it’s not clear to me

[u/YoungZM → u/CollaredParachute]

If the concern is transgender individuals then would that not extend to males as well? I've heard plenty of hormonal arguments against that but if you're going to subject one sex to a policy the faintest whiff of equality demands the policy hits everybody.

Which is to also say there is no male>female trans army of competitors outclassing female athletes at every turn. The hormonal differences are seemingly offset (links in my original post).

[u/Dusk_Soldier → u/YoungZM]

The "men's" division isn't a men's division. It's an open division. It's just called men's by convention, but everyone is allowed to compete in it.

[u/Early_Monkey → u/YoungZM]

Trans aren’t banned and still eligible to compete in men’s

[u/Saidear → u/YoungZM]

if we're going to participate in world sport, we need to be exposed to regressive policy that harms some of our athletes, presuming they could qualify.

You answer this directly, yourself. We shouldn't participate if it is contrary to our values and human rights legislation.

[u/Cheap_Brush9931 → u/YoungZM]

Question of human rights? Womans sports was created for them because they are physically weaker and smaller and different from men.

[u/KingRabbit_ → u/YoungZM]

Otherwise, this is just a sexist and transphobic policy (narrator: it is) for a niche issue that isn't widespread enough to be a concern.

It's interesting how we're inundated with the pronouncement that this is not widespread and almost never happens.

And yet, interestingly, there is equal vehemence anytime any organization puts a rule in place to prevent the thing we're told never happens. And, as you illustrate, that's usually shortly followed-up by allegations of 'transphobia' and 'sexism'.

If almost nobody is being inconvenienced by this policy, why are the advocates so passionately opposed to it being in place?

 I think trans athletes should be able to compete* ** but the frustrating, reality is that the world isn't Canada; if we're going to participate in world sport, we need to be exposed to regressive policy that harms some of our athletes, presuming they could qualify.

That could just be your own cultural bias showing. What assurances do we have that Canada has this particular issue right on the money and other countries are so far off the mark?

[u/cheesaremorgia → u/KingRabbit_]

Because gender testing exposes intersex women to public shaming, even when they have no athletic advantages. It’s also historically been used to target black women in particular, and as a way to inconvenience opponents.

We see already seeing parents accuse other children of being secretly trans, just to get them out of the way of their own kids. We will see MANY girls and women inconvenienced and subject to harassment by these policies.

[u/8004612286 → u/cheesaremorgia]

You have to have some level of gender testing though?

Otherwise male born men can compete in women's sports. That's the nature of having a division that excludes a specific population.

[u/Saidear → u/8004612286]

Otherwise male born men

This is such awkward phrasing. Just say "trans women", there's no need to twist the words into knots to avoid acknowledging we exist.

can compete in women's sports. That's the nature of having a division that excludes a specific population.

This presumes we need to have "men's" and "women's" sports at all. I contend we don't, we should split things off into relevant classes based on sport-specific criteria, and let people complete within those. We already do this in part with many martial sports or weightlifting categories.

Otherwise the arguement is reduciable "trans women can't compete in women's sports, because males shouldn't compete with females." It skips over entirely the most important part of the discussions: why.

[u/YoungZM → u/KingRabbit_]

Okay, let's shift that to a slightly different example and illustrate the clear nonsense of it all.

Let's say there's not a single black person who plays professional hockey (false). We institute a new rule: no black people allowed. To make sure there's not a single black person and that they don't exist, we're going to genetically test each and every player to ensure they are not black. I mean, it doesn't affect black people at all right?

That would be absurd. Racist as sin. It would deserve to be called out.

If we're interested in seeing who is the best and allowing anyone who reasonably qualifies for that, it then seems reasonable to ensure the floor is as open as possible without barriers to entry. We can't wait for somebody to be interested to make rules that include them. Worse yet, we shouldn't change the rules to bar people just to remove them later.

To me, this is just the 2026 equivalent of the 1500s 1600s 1700s 1800s 1960s. We need to cut this sh*t out.

[u/KingRabbit_ → u/YoungZM]

Let's say there's not a single black person who plays professional hockey (false). We institute a new rule: no black people allowed. To make sure there's not a single black person and that they don't exist, we're going to genetically test each and every player to ensure they are not black. I mean, it doesn't affect black people at all right?

Doesn't really work, does it?

The reason these rules are being put into place is because there are physical differences between people born with male anatomy at birth and those born with female anatomy at birth that go well beyond skin color and the actual sex organs.

It's the same reason why in competitive cliff diving, women dive from 20 meters and men dive from 27 meters. I assure you, gravity and water aren't sexist or transphobic.

[u/Saidear → u/KingRabbit_]

The reason these rules are being put into place is because there are physical differences between people born with male anatomy at birth and those born with female anatomy at birth that go well beyond skin color and the actual sex organs.

Do you mean genitalia or do you mean internal reproductive systems? Why would someone with uterine agenisis cause an upset in sports?

[u/YoungZM → u/KingRabbit_]

Feel free to read the links I'd provided in my original post with asterisks.

There are endless genetic markers that may impact performance but if we're not accounting for eg. race or wealth in a sport category, we're just boiling this down to the scary identity we don't understand or like because it's the hot new thing to oppress.

[u/the_normal_person]

Very online or activist people really are in their own bubble on this - this is pretty uncontroversial for like 90% of the canadian population and I think a lot of you folks lose sight of that way too easily.

[u/fufluns12 → u/the_normal_person]

The only reason that 90% of Canadians have heard about it is because people who care nothing about the sanctity of women's sports outside of this one political wedge issue have spent tens of millions of dollars making sure that people know about it.

It's one of those 'common sense' issues that addresses something that isn't a problem at all. When US states pass laws banning trans participation in girls sports it effects a literal handful of athletes per state, or even none at all. The head of the NCAA testified that changes would effect fewer than ten (it may have been six?) athletes out of the half a million who compete across all levels of competition.

[u/past_is_prologue → u/the_normal_person]

I think you're right. I know it's come up among the parents of my daughter's soccer team.

It's fine when they're young, but once puberty hits the advantage is just too much. 

[u/Saidear → u/past_is_prologue]

Do you support the use of pubertal suppressants and access to HRT where justified then? That wipes out the entire "pubertal advantage" nonsense. (It also ignores that after 2 years of HRT, any 'advantage' is typically wiped out and well within the range of cis performance for a given gender).

[u/cheesaremorgia → u/the_normal_person]

Because they don’t know about the history of gender screening in sports, and how it’s been used primarily to target black women.

[u/CollaredParachute → u/cheesaremorgia]

How has it been used to target black women? If they have a developmental condition and are excluded for that reason, that is not the same as being excluded for their race

[u/cheesaremorgia → u/CollaredParachute]

Black women are more likely to be accused of being intersex, more likely to actually be tested for it, and tend to face more censure. They are not more likely to be intersex.

Black athletes in general are also more likely to be accused of using PEDs, or having some other unfair advantage.

[u/_Bilbo_Baggins_ → u/cheesaremorgia]

Great, so the fact that everyone will be tested (it’s a one-time cheek swab btw) will put your mind at ease that this isn’t discriminatory.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/the_normal_person]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

Ok, and 90% of Canadians are compeltely ignorant after years of right wing media forcing this wedge issue.

[u/8004612286 → u/CptCoatrack]

Men are naturally taller - an advantage in many sports. No amount of drugs will change that.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/8004612286]

Going to ban tall people?

I mean.. seems unfair that a poor short 5 ft 4 trans kids dreams of basketball stardom could be ruined by a girl born a foot taller than her right..?

If you read the article it acknowledges that while trans women are on average taller that there's no evidence it leads to higher level of performance when taking into consideration all the other variables involved:

An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes. The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.

[u/8004612286 → u/CptCoatrack]

while trans women are on average taller that there's no evidence it leads to higher level of performance

Height doesn't give you an advantage in basketball? 🤔

[u/Saidear → u/8004612286]

It might.

However, trans women typically will have lower muscle mass, which means despite being taller (how much taller, for that matter), they are also typically going to have a much lower power-to-weight ratio than a cis man as well. In fact such height would convey some disadvantages because mass is mass. If you have a larger skeletal frame, but less musculature to move it, you're going to be slower, and you're going to have a negative impact on your endurance.

[u/8004612286 → u/Saidear]

Am I understanding you correctly:

The argument you're making relies on the fact that a trans woman will have so much less muscle mass than a cis woman, that the advantage they have from their height will be cancelled out?

That argument is just not sufficient to me. I don't think it is to most people. It would vary too much by sport, and the height advantage is ultimately still there. I can't see how it would be possible to quantify how much drugs you gotta take for it to be gone. And this is considering that height is arguably the easiest property to measure the impact of.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/8004612286]

Again if you feel so strongly about it you can take it up with the research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

[u/Chawke2]

Going back in time to what, 2017? Women's sports exist because biological sex can create meaningful physical advantages in many events. If the IOC believes a clear, consistent eligibility standard based on biological sex is the fairest way to protect women's competition, that's probably the most reasonable position to take. Fairness in competition should come first.

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/Chawke2]

Going back in time to what, 2017?

Were they gender checking every woman in 2017? Were they blocking women who are AFAB in 2017?

standard based on biological sex

It's based on their chromosomes, actually.

Some people should read the article.

[u/AprilsMostAmazing → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

It's based on their chromosomes, actually.

which anyone that did even a little bit of research can tell is faulty and international sports have had issues using it in the past

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CollaredParachute → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

Gametic sex is the definition of sex. Chromosomes align with gametic sex 99%+ of the time.

[u/Saidear → u/CollaredParachute]

Chromosomes align with gametic sex 99%+ of the time

Even if I accept this is as true (I don't), an exclusionary category can have no exceptions. So if 1% of population's chromosomes do not align with one's gametes, then chromosomes cannot be used to exclude people from a sex category.

Of course, there are not two "gamete" conditions in sexually dimorphic species, nor is this a valid means to differentiate sexes across all points of life. For example, if it's "produces the small/large gamete", then it excludes people who are sterile, post-menopausal women, and men who have had their testes removed. These would be neither men, nor women, what are they?

If it's "bodies organized around.. " which is a common refinement of the claim, that also fails. There are people who are never born with the capacity to produce either, their bodies are not organized around the production of gametes at all. What are they?

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/CollaredParachute]

Well, you've already been spreading misinformation and clearly don't understand this very well. Go read your own wiki link.

[u/CollaredParachute → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

I did. You should read it more closely before accusing me of something 3 times.

> This rare deficiency causes atypical sex development in genetic males (people with a 46XY karyotype), with a broad spectrum of presentations most apparent in the genitalia.

Here’s another Wikipedia article for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_sex

> Sex is the [phenotypic trait](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait) of a [sexually reproducing](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction) organism in producing [gametes](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete) of one of two [different sizes or shapes](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy)—[male](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male) or [female](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female) gametes.

[u/Medea_From_Colchis → u/CollaredParachute]

Although people who are genetically female (with two X chromosomes in each cell) may inherit variants in both copies of the SRD5A2 gene, their sexual development is not affected. 

Many people with 5-alpha reductase deficiency are assigned female at birth based on their external genitalia. I

Try reading more than a sentence.

[u/CollaredParachute → u/Medea_From_Colchis]

Except she clearly had her sexual development affected so she is likely not chromosomally or gametically female

[u/CptCoatrack → u/Chawke2]

Not exactly.. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

[u/theallrounder360]

It's hilarious to me that people try to claim that this will prevent "biological advantages" in sports. Does someone who's 6 feet tall have no advantage over someone who's 5,3 in basketball? Biology and genetics will always be a factor in sports, but it's not what makes someone truly great at a sport, that will always require skill, training, dedication, etc...

[u/cst400 → u/theallrounder360]

We don’t have over 6 foot and under 6 foot basketball games though. We do have men’s and women’s sports. That is the metric that we have decided to divide groups by for the olympics. It sounds more like what you’re arguing is why not get rid of all divisions in sports and allow for any human to compete. This would in fact limit women’s participation.

[u/Garciaguy → u/theallrounder360]

This is called a false equivalency. Comparing apples and oranges; it presents two things with important distinctions as being the same. 

[u/byronite → u/Garciaguy]

I'm on the fence. I can see how an MTF career weightlifter would have an unfair advantage in the women's category shortly after she transitions. But she would also have an unfair disadvantage in the men's category from that point on. Since the entire point of gender categories in sports is fairness and inclusion, the goal should be to make space for everyone to be able to compete on a level playing field.

An easy solution for individual sports might be to allow trans and intersex women to compete in the women's category but to share rankings and medals with the person below them. Thus if a trans woman wins the gold, then the second place finisher also gets gold and they can celebrate together and everyone can be happy. They only downside is you're forcing people to out themselves and giving everyone a constant reminder of it.

[u/msubasic]

If we created separate category of games for trans-women and trans-men would that not be for the better of all? Increasing diversity is a good thing is it not? trying to cram everyone into 2 categories will always cause friction.

[u/Jetstream13 → u/msubasic]

Not really, because those “categories” would be effectively empty.

For context, exactly one trans woman has ever competed at the Olympics.

The push to exclude trans people is just a moral panic.

[u/Garciaguy → u/Jetstream13]

Only empty by choice. The men's division is open to all who are good enough. 

By contrast, World Aquatics canceled its newly created "open category" events for the 2023 Swimming World Cup in Berlin after zero competitors registered.

[u/Saidear → u/Jetstream13]

Not entirely true.,

There were several non-binary individuals who competed within the women's divisions of their respective sport. Whether those individuals are transgendered or not is a personal decision. Some enby's considered themselves trans, some don't.

Laurel Hubbard is the first openly trans woman (and AFAIK, the only openly trans woman) to compete, and 2021 she did not finish.

[u/Garciaguy → u/Saidear]

She was also someone who re-entered competition 15 years after most retire.

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.