The International Cricket Council has become the latest sports body to ban transgender players from the elite women’s game if they have gone through male puberty.

The ICC said it had taken the decision, following an extensive scientific review and nine-month consultation, to “protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players”.

It joins rugby union, swimming, cycling, athletics and rugby league, who have all gone down a similar path in recent years after citing concerns over fairness or safety.

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be clear, that wasn’t the argument that I was making. In my comment I was only pushing back on the common tendency in these discussions to talk about transgender women as if they were simply cisgender men. People say, uncritically, things like “oh it’s common sense to ban [transgender women] because we know that men on average are faster and stronger”. But transgender women on HRT are significantly different, biologically, to cisgender men.

    It’s perfectly fine to talk about advantages remaining after HRT is started, and for how long they remain. But that isn’t what is happening when people talk about transgender women as if they were cisgender men. That is completely ignoring the effects of HRT, making a proper discussion of the relevant facts impossible.

    It’s also worth pointing out that, transgender women make up 0.5-1% of all women. So it shouldn’t surprise us if transgender women make up 0.5-1% of top female athletes. That’s proportional.

    In reality transgender women are under-represented at the highest levels. While even singular examples of transgender athletes performing well are treated as obvious proof of advantage. That’s very lop-sided rhetoric.

    The discussion around this topic is terrible, with a lot of people being quite confidently incorrect about basic empirical facts, while arguing theory.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The discussion around this topic is terrible, with a lot of people being quite confidently incorrect about basic empirical facts, while arguing theory.

      Oh boy, here we go. He’s just upset we’re not treating his agenda as tried-and-true fact. Mad we’re having a discussion at all that doesn’t revolve around telling him he’s right and we know nothing.

      • seukari@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Boo! Stop being a douche and attack their arguments. Attacking them personally just makes you look petty.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s like you ignored everything else I wrote, to hyperfocus on one sentence, in order to take offense at something I didn’t say.

        Mad we’re having a discussion at all that doesn’t revolve around telling him he’s right and we know nothing.

        From my comment: “It’s perfectly fine to talk about advantages remaining after HRT is started, and for how long they remain. But that isn’t what is happening when people talk about transgender women as if they were cisgender men. That is completely ignoring the effects of HRT, making a proper discussion of the relevant facts impossible.”

        Please at least try reading.

        • seukari@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not the intended recipient but thanks for a considered response. Even if I can’t fully agree, it was a much better approach