Originally Posted by
Hank
I’m not sure it’s that black and white in terms of it being right or “wrong” as she’s a woman who competed in women’s races. You could argue she had an advantage as her sex at birth was male, and you could argue that advantage is unfair, and I guess that’s the nub of the OP’s question.
It’s such a complex discussion as it mixes sport, science, fairness, identity politics, gender issues, socio-cultural issues, traditions, minorities, ethics…
Some (possibly not totally coherent) thoughts:
1) There’s lots of discussion at the moment around women and performance in marathon (and longer) distance events i.e. they may be more physiologically suited to these than men. So the reason the top men are quicker than the top women right now might not be down to their physical characteristics, rather socio-cultural factors that mean women are not as far along the curve of their potential as men. It could be the case that a cisgender woman is at a physical advantage over a woman whose sex at birth was male, and indeed a cisgender male. This might be the case for other sports too. As others have said, this matter should be considered on a sport by sport basis, and backed up scientific studies that can accurately describe any differences.
2) Over the years we’ll increasingly see trans athletes who made their transition before puberty and therefore, in the case of male transitioning to female, won’t have developed the physical characteristics that some would claim give them an advantage.
3) My guess is that in 10, 20, 30, however many years time gender fluidity will be such that the traditional ‘mens’ and ‘womens’ categorisation of sports will go and be replaced with more nuanced ways of organising fair competition. As WP says, there’s no easy answer, and I don’t think there ever will be if we stick with simple labels that are probably no longer fit for purpose.