The double Olympic champion Katie Archibald has sharply criticised the transgender policies of the International Olympic Committee and other sports bodies – saying they have not only let down female cyclists by underplaying biology but left trans women, such as Emily Bridges, facing intense scrutiny.
Maybe, but the intense scrutiny on Bridges is his fault as well as that of sports bodies. He should have been sharply aware all along that he should never compete against women, end of story.
Archibald, who won the second of her cycling gold medals in Tokyo last year alongside Dame Laura Kenny in the Madison, said it was wrong for governing bodies to ignore the science that shows trans women who have gone through male puberty have a retained advantage in strength, stamina and physique.
However, she also expressed deep sympathy for Bridges, who broke the junior men’s 25-mile record before transitioning in 2020, saying she was only following the rules of cycling’s governing body, the UCI, before it decided to block her racing as a woman last month.
Not “only.” Not really. Yes cycling’s governing body is at fault but Bridges’s conscience was AWOL. It’s an unfair advantage, it’s obvious that the advantage is unfair, and people should just stop.
“It is my opinion that the international governing bodies of several sports have let down transgender athletes, in particular transgender women, with their inclusion policies,” Archibald said in a statement.
“These policies have put the athletes, their involvement in sport, and their personal lives under intense scrutiny when all the athletes have done is follow the rules and enter a category they were encouraged to enter.”
But they shouldn’t have. Archibald is being generous, but too much generosity is how we got here in the first place, and I think we need to shelve it. The athletes all know it’s unfair, and they do it anyway. I’m way more interested in the unfairness to women than I am in the unfairness to men who are trans.
Comments
6 responses to “Only following the rules”
It would be nice if Bridges et al would think, “This competition is for women, there are reasons for that, and I’m not actually a woman, so I should stay out, even if I’m allowed to enter, whether or not I have a competitive advantage”. But of course the whole point is to be deemed indistinguishable from women, and to wrest all the accolades and prizes from the grasp of women.
The tide is turning.
‘Letting trans athletes compete in female sport is a slap in the face to women’.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/letting-trans-athletes-compete-in-female-sport-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-women/news-story/31651c0ae15faf3ded6ceb45198095f1
Aussie swimming ace Emma McKeon makes defiant stand against transgender athletes competing in women’s sport.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/olympics/transgender-sport-emma-mckeon-laurel-hubbard-lia-thomas-katherine-deves-liberal-candidate-swimming/8e4dda67-6ec9-443d-8d3c-23a05f441c36
It could also be a tactical decision. Given the fact that sport-governing bodies have cared fuck all about unfairness for women, there’s no reason to believe that they would suddenly show concern now. By “center” the “unfairness” to TiMs, that may be a better attention getter, and perhaps blunt blanket accusations of transphobia. Of course the blatant unfairness to women and girls should be more than enough to spark concern and get authorities thinking, but up until now, it hasn’t.
It’s like a policeman standing outside a store after hours telling some guy who’s been staring through the window that it’s okay to go in and take what they want. In fact the officer will help them enter the store, and assist them in carrying off whatever merchandise they want. The officer says it’s all fine and dandy, go right ahead. No harm, no foul. The absent store owner has no say, and is not allowed to press charges, or even complain. She’s threatened by the police, and villified for even thinking about prosecuting the guy whom the police helped in stealing from her. What can she do?
I don’t want to be inclusive, not if that means including men in the category women. Fuck inclusiveness. They took a concept that was appropriate in its initial manifestation, including BIPOC women, disabled women, etc, in feminism (there were always women fighting for that, and doing that – we don’t need men telling us who to include). They have perverted it into a grotesque lampoon – inclusive now means including men in feminism while excluding most women.
I don’t know about governing bodies, but sports teams are all about winning. If they have any pull with the governing bodies, coaches are going to do what they can to have TiMs on their team. Of course, the problem they face is once they have men on their team, the rules will allow those competing against them to have men, too. If they are the first to add a man, they will break records, banks, and women’s bodies – a win-win-win – but if they aren’t first, their men will have to compete against other men, and then it becomes…men’s sports.
Zactly, That’s the thing about cheating – it’s an advantage only if no one else does it.
I just think that we don’t even need science to follow. We know that women had to fight for their own sports for a purpose. Women had to fight for funding and sponsors, inclusion in amateur unions, elevation from intramural games to interscholastic sports, etc.
It’s because women’s sports have never been valued by society in the same way that men’s always have been. However you wrap it, allowing men to join based on gender identity devalues women’s hard work in being included in elite sports.
As the Scots say “fewking story, aind of.”