The Canadian Powerlifting Union asked trans advocates if they should continue to let "trans women" compete in the women's category

Gosh I wonder what their answer was?

I wish I was making that up. Unfortunately, that’s how the vast majority of transgender inclusion guidelines are made—by asking a trans advocacy group, and purposely not consulting or suppressing the views of female athletes whose safety, fairness, and inclusion will be most affected by the decision. “They never do because they know what athletes will say,” that from insider Linda Blade, women’s sports advocate, nine-year president of Athletics Alberta, and co-author of Unsporting.

As you can see by the headline, this is Part Two (see previous post) of Canadian powerlifter April Hutchinson’s efforts to compete only against other biological women. Recall that April’s all up in arms about this partly because of the yawning strength differential between men and women. Here’s a glimpse at that:

Squats = 54.5 percent male advantage

Bench Press = 65.3 percent male advantage

Deadlift = 54.9 percent male advantage. (Keys 2022)

As it stands now, in Canada, any trans identified male can rock up to a competition, declare that on that day he identifies as female (no need for consistency—his identity can change from day to day), or if he chooses, not disclose any trans identity or history of trans identity, and he’s free to compete in the female category. No need to reduce testosterone, no surgery, full on physiological male. One more kick in the teeth to female athletes in their own category—if doping control shows that a contestant who has not disclosed his male sex really is male (via levels of endogenous testosterone), officials cannot reveal that this person is trans. If a female has even one drop of exogenous (injected) testosterone, she’ll get a lengthy ban.

April and I ended our conversation on a hopeful note because the Canadian Powerlifting Union had been reviewing their transgender guidelines and were about to announce the results.

They decided to keep it exactly the same. In all its unfair glory.

How can that be, you ask? Well, there are a bunch of organizations with confusing acronyms meeting behind closed doors. That’s done purposely so the average person and even concerned athletes don’t know of the bias and political associations of the policy makers.

“The CPU consulted with Sport Law,” Blade said. “Sport Law wrote the trans guidelines for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES) back in 2016.”

A little background. CCES, prior to 2016, was about doping control, but suddenly, surprisingly, they decided to turn their attention to how to include males in women’s sports. Yes you understand that correctly—an organization whose sole duty was to keep drug cheats out of sport, people who, for example, were doping with testosterone, this org turned all its efforts to advocating for inclusion of biological males, essentially doped with T from birth, into the female category. And helping the CCES draft that policy so it looked legal was Sport Law, another ideologically captured organization.

“In consulting with Sport Law, the CPU essentially asked a trans lobby group what their trans policy should be,” Blade said. And what you get is a policy that makes it very easy for a man who identifies as a woman on that day to compete unfairly against women.

What about all that science that shows what an advantage biological males have? How can that be ignored? “It’s about where your focus is,” said Blade. “If you want to make a transgender policy, you’ll only talk to transgender people, or those who advocate for transgender people. I don’t think any organization should have a stand-alone trans policy. We don’t need it. Every sport has a code of conduct that says an athlete cannot misrepresent himself. A trans policy can be worked into the code of conduct as an appendix.”

The CPU responded to April words to the effect that they have to retain their current trans policy to be in alignment with Canadian law as interpreted by Sport Law. Which is not true. “They’re not being being made to do it. Sport Law has no authority to compel anyone to do anything,” Blade said.

BUT, the CPU is betting that April won’t sue them for discrimination. Which is not a good bet. Here’s why.

The Canadian Powerlifting Union’s transgender policy is not in alignment with the International Powerlifting Federation’s. Though it’s far from fair to women, the IPF policy states that trans competitors must consistently and persistently declare their gender identity for four years prior to competition and have a passport that matches that identity. Trans identified men must also have testosterone levels at 2.4 nmol/liter (the high end for women) for a year prior and throughout their eligibility. Recall that according to CPU’s policy, a trans competitor’s gender identity could change day to day, and there was no requirement to reduce testosterone.

“If April ends up suing, the CPU is hanging in the wind,” Blade said. “All she’s looking for is for the CPU policy to align with the international federation’s. She could sue for discrimination, and she’d win. It’s a first step.”

Would April sue her federation? We are where we are because sports organizations have been more afraid that “trans women” will sue. They’re betting that women will simply acquiesce. Blade hints: “All I can say is she’s actively exploring it.”