I love a good portmanteau as much as any other linguaphile, but I don't think we need a new word. We need fairness. We need reality. We need common sense. And we need to keep men out of women's sports.
I'm 65 and remember well the fight to expand girls and women's access to sports. I was the rare female jogger in the early 70's, and my novelty used to get stares. Here we are again, fighting over female access to sports.
Fascinating and so, so disturbing. Manipulation, intimidation, attempts to overthrow the whole system so they get what they want… Wow. I hope female athletes find ways to resist this pressure and remain in the female category. For instance, by saying no.
As for labels… you’ve certainly made the point that open as a third category is untenable. However, I don’t think open as a second category, after female, is untenable. For one thing, that category might choose to accept women who have taken testosterone and thereby disqualified themselves from the women’s category.
It also generally accepts women who for any reason just feel like competing against men. There are women in golf, for instance, who choose to drive from the white tees rather than the red tees. No need to call them men’s tees, tho some people do.
In youth sports, the categories go like this: 10 and under, 12 and under, etc. This is because some nine-year-olds might choose to compete against the 12-year-olds, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t. I can’t think of parallel terminology for the two sexes. But women should be able to age-up, so to speak into the men’s category if they want to. There’s no reason to make it exclusively male.
Another example would be disability categories. If someone with a disability wants to compete in a general sports category, there’s no reason they shouldn’t, unless they use a wheelchair or some other implement that would give them an unfair advantage. Thoughts?
Like I suggested at the end, I think policy needs to be unequivocal at the policy level, with informed consent moderating exceptions at the implementation / individual athlete level.
Two analogies, perhaps.
One is prosecutorial discretion: yes, this person technically broke the law, but are the interests of justice really served by bringing them to trial? Is there a chance someone could narc because a girl is playing on a boys team, and everybody is cool with it except for that one person on a different team who holds a grudge from 4 years ago and ruin it for everybody? Sure, and we all know that kind of person, and there's always a risk of a heckler's veto, and that's why we can't have nice things :).
Second is how it took me a long time to recognize something one of my mentors always told me: the best contracts (in our case, team and event sponsorship contracts) are the ones you never sign. He headed up a major US marathon, and for a shockingly long time several of the title sponsor deals were essentially implicit—and he was a real estate lawyer by day!!!
With regards to para-athletics categories, as you nest eligibility categories, the restrictions go in only one direction. E.g., T-11 female is more restrictive than female. Go to para-masters, and you could have T-11 females age 50-54, which is more restrictive still.
I think its fair and apparent that you can always choose to go "up" the hierarchy into the less restrictive categories, but as you go "down" the hierarchy there are more wickets you have to satisfy.
I'm sure Jon Pike could give us technical language and concepts for this, but I'm thinking of those Russian matryoshka dolls. The biggest doll holds the most smaller dolls. Each one gets smaller so fewer (still smaller) dolls fit in as you go down. But you could put the smallest doll in the largest doll, if you wanted to, without all the mid-sized ones. The 51-year old female T-11 athlete could compete as an open female, if she wanted to, and there'd be no categorical restriction or discontent there.
I could be wrong but I think it’s going to turn out okay. Competitive level men are not going to play against women, not when you’re average high school boy can beat pro level women, you can’t brag to your buddies about mopping the floor with a team of women. This is not an insult against women it’s just that male bravado is a big part of professional and semipro sports. And while some women might try a game or two in the open category they won’t stay after a hit or two from a guy in a skort.
My guess is you’ll quickly get a few serious injuries or groping issues and the whole obtuseness of the category rules will change to something sane.
Liability though will be the main issue because only a woman who’s an idiot will sign an injury waiver in a full contact game against men. Any that do, well they deserve the inevitable injuries they receive.
Thank you! Rugby is a collision sport: crucial to separate sexes for safety. Initially seeing this story, assumed it would be two categories for men (elite team and less elite team) and a protected female category. But as Charles Arthur's X post sums up:
"To be precise, two teams have done this, but they've done it because US Rugby enables them to. It's a bit like a tennis club saying it's going to have Men's and Mixed teams for inter-club competit(i)on. But no Women's teams. Do you see the misogyny now?"
Appreciate Cathy Devine's reasoning referenced here: recent X thread goes through her arguments against an Open category.
George, thank you. Another great column. Can I interest you in the new USRowing policy? Men's, Women's, Open, Mixed. I do not anticipate that open will be embraced as we are seeing in the rugby community. At least I hope not. For the women's category it is female sex assigned at birth: "The determination of whether the athlete was assigned as female sex at birth may be established through the person’s original birth certificate or other reliable facts." My question is: how can an NGB be certain that a submitted birth certificate is the original when so many states permit birth certificates to be altered (with no indication that it was altered)?
Why not just give anyone -especially at the elite level, and more especially in contact sports from soccer to MMA- wanting to compete in the female category the SRY swab once?
Then once the athletes are sorted by sex the divisions can be broken down further as needed by the specific sport. Trans identifying females would likely have to be tested for testosterone if they wanted to compete in the female category. Tran identifying males can compete in the male division or an open division if a sport or organization can field such a division.
Sometimes orgs just wont be able to do that. And those athletes with out a division can choose whether to take the medal for their division (if they were the only person in a weight or age or skill class) or they can opt to try their luck in a different division of their sex category that the governing body for that sport as established as a fair option if such an option exists.
As a guy that played rugby for about 25 years, and a big fan of the US Women's team at the last Olympics this piece caught my eye. While I can see where this type of piece is always inflammatory, I honestly though don't think this as grim as most commenters seem to think.
First a bit of understanding of what USA Rugby does It is the governing body of rugby in the US as it sets at a high level rules and governance of the sport, is involved in national tournaments, is involved in the selection of the US national team, including involved in selecting the US Olympic teams. However, club rugby, the unions (leagues) of which clubs are part of, is governed by USA Club Rugby. People that pay rugby in the US are going to be playing in a club that is part of a union.
Unions are not obligated to have an open division. The comments mention tow clubs (Charlotte Royals and Atlanta Mother Ruckers). So just those two, and they are not in the same union. So at this point they have only each other to play.
And in the case of both teams, the women that are part of those teams have plenty of other teams they can go to in their union woman that is serious about the game likely would, as they would probably be interested i winning the union championship and getting a chance to play in territorial and national championships. Certainly any woman that was talented and had aspirations of making the Eagles would go to a women's team (international only has men and women, no open). And even an avid player that just likes fair play has options.
And, there is a certain amount of politics in clubs, So if a club jumps ship to open, and half the members don't like it, they can just start their own club.
So a few clubs may go the open route, but I don't think its going to be a groundswell. Women that want to play on women's teams are still going to have ample opportunity, and players like Illona Maher and Kayla Canett will still get developed and show the flag internationally. And they will be role models for women that want to pursue rugby.
And the open division will provide a venue for trans, NB and the C side of the Royals to recreate.
As was discussed, the Open category is being corrupted by nominally women's clubs who for whatever unknowable reason are rabidly TWAW. They are pressuring other women's clubs to register as Open, thus starving the Female division until it ceases to exist. This is apparently their aim. So, while what you lay out was the perhaps naive intent of USA Rugby, that's not how it will play out
I love a good portmanteau as much as any other linguaphile, but I don't think we need a new word. We need fairness. We need reality. We need common sense. And we need to keep men out of women's sports.
Men. Women. Male. Female.
That's enough.
The harms of estrogen on male bodies. https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/what-the-fda-still-doesnt-know-about?r=2zg1dj&utm_medium=ios
It is important to send in comments to the FDA on getting long-term data on the safety or lack thereof of giving males large doses of estrogen long-term before the comment window closes in June. Use this link to do so! https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/what-the-fda-still-doesnt-know-about
I'm 65 and remember well the fight to expand girls and women's access to sports. I was the rare female jogger in the early 70's, and my novelty used to get stares. Here we are again, fighting over female access to sports.
Fascinating and so, so disturbing. Manipulation, intimidation, attempts to overthrow the whole system so they get what they want… Wow. I hope female athletes find ways to resist this pressure and remain in the female category. For instance, by saying no.
As for labels… you’ve certainly made the point that open as a third category is untenable. However, I don’t think open as a second category, after female, is untenable. For one thing, that category might choose to accept women who have taken testosterone and thereby disqualified themselves from the women’s category.
It also generally accepts women who for any reason just feel like competing against men. There are women in golf, for instance, who choose to drive from the white tees rather than the red tees. No need to call them men’s tees, tho some people do.
In youth sports, the categories go like this: 10 and under, 12 and under, etc. This is because some nine-year-olds might choose to compete against the 12-year-olds, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t. I can’t think of parallel terminology for the two sexes. But women should be able to age-up, so to speak into the men’s category if they want to. There’s no reason to make it exclusively male.
Another example would be disability categories. If someone with a disability wants to compete in a general sports category, there’s no reason they shouldn’t, unless they use a wheelchair or some other implement that would give them an unfair advantage. Thoughts?
Like I suggested at the end, I think policy needs to be unequivocal at the policy level, with informed consent moderating exceptions at the implementation / individual athlete level.
Two analogies, perhaps.
One is prosecutorial discretion: yes, this person technically broke the law, but are the interests of justice really served by bringing them to trial? Is there a chance someone could narc because a girl is playing on a boys team, and everybody is cool with it except for that one person on a different team who holds a grudge from 4 years ago and ruin it for everybody? Sure, and we all know that kind of person, and there's always a risk of a heckler's veto, and that's why we can't have nice things :).
Second is how it took me a long time to recognize something one of my mentors always told me: the best contracts (in our case, team and event sponsorship contracts) are the ones you never sign. He headed up a major US marathon, and for a shockingly long time several of the title sponsor deals were essentially implicit—and he was a real estate lawyer by day!!!
With regards to para-athletics categories, as you nest eligibility categories, the restrictions go in only one direction. E.g., T-11 female is more restrictive than female. Go to para-masters, and you could have T-11 females age 50-54, which is more restrictive still.
I think its fair and apparent that you can always choose to go "up" the hierarchy into the less restrictive categories, but as you go "down" the hierarchy there are more wickets you have to satisfy.
I'm sure Jon Pike could give us technical language and concepts for this, but I'm thinking of those Russian matryoshka dolls. The biggest doll holds the most smaller dolls. Each one gets smaller so fewer (still smaller) dolls fit in as you go down. But you could put the smallest doll in the largest doll, if you wanted to, without all the mid-sized ones. The 51-year old female T-11 athlete could compete as an open female, if she wanted to, and there'd be no categorical restriction or discontent there.
OK. Sounds like we basically agree. Thank you, George.
I could be wrong but I think it’s going to turn out okay. Competitive level men are not going to play against women, not when you’re average high school boy can beat pro level women, you can’t brag to your buddies about mopping the floor with a team of women. This is not an insult against women it’s just that male bravado is a big part of professional and semipro sports. And while some women might try a game or two in the open category they won’t stay after a hit or two from a guy in a skort.
My guess is you’ll quickly get a few serious injuries or groping issues and the whole obtuseness of the category rules will change to something sane.
Liability though will be the main issue because only a woman who’s an idiot will sign an injury waiver in a full contact game against men. Any that do, well they deserve the inevitable injuries they receive.
There's no such thing as "assigned at birth".
Everybody who wants to compete in girls' or women's sports after the age of 13 needs to get a cheek swab. Only Xs will be allowed in.
Thank you! Rugby is a collision sport: crucial to separate sexes for safety. Initially seeing this story, assumed it would be two categories for men (elite team and less elite team) and a protected female category. But as Charles Arthur's X post sums up:
"To be precise, two teams have done this, but they've done it because US Rugby enables them to. It's a bit like a tennis club saying it's going to have Men's and Mixed teams for inter-club competit(i)on. But no Women's teams. Do you see the misogyny now?"
Appreciate Cathy Devine's reasoning referenced here: recent X thread goes through her arguments against an Open category.
https://x.com/cathydevine56/status/2029635006205772179
Charlotte Royals and Mother Ruckers are the teams who have already abolished the female category:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-15616919/usa-rugby-women-teams-open-division-trans.html
I also appreciated Cathy Devine's criticism of Open and Female, ie that it ends up being Sports and Women's Sports. Something lesser than
George, thank you. Another great column. Can I interest you in the new USRowing policy? Men's, Women's, Open, Mixed. I do not anticipate that open will be embraced as we are seeing in the rugby community. At least I hope not. For the women's category it is female sex assigned at birth: "The determination of whether the athlete was assigned as female sex at birth may be established through the person’s original birth certificate or other reliable facts." My question is: how can an NGB be certain that a submitted birth certificate is the original when so many states permit birth certificates to be altered (with no indication that it was altered)?
Why not just give anyone -especially at the elite level, and more especially in contact sports from soccer to MMA- wanting to compete in the female category the SRY swab once?
Then once the athletes are sorted by sex the divisions can be broken down further as needed by the specific sport. Trans identifying females would likely have to be tested for testosterone if they wanted to compete in the female category. Tran identifying males can compete in the male division or an open division if a sport or organization can field such a division.
Sometimes orgs just wont be able to do that. And those athletes with out a division can choose whether to take the medal for their division (if they were the only person in a weight or age or skill class) or they can opt to try their luck in a different division of their sex category that the governing body for that sport as established as a fair option if such an option exists.
Why shouldn’t sport be organized like that?
As a guy that played rugby for about 25 years, and a big fan of the US Women's team at the last Olympics this piece caught my eye. While I can see where this type of piece is always inflammatory, I honestly though don't think this as grim as most commenters seem to think.
First a bit of understanding of what USA Rugby does It is the governing body of rugby in the US as it sets at a high level rules and governance of the sport, is involved in national tournaments, is involved in the selection of the US national team, including involved in selecting the US Olympic teams. However, club rugby, the unions (leagues) of which clubs are part of, is governed by USA Club Rugby. People that pay rugby in the US are going to be playing in a club that is part of a union.
Unions are not obligated to have an open division. The comments mention tow clubs (Charlotte Royals and Atlanta Mother Ruckers). So just those two, and they are not in the same union. So at this point they have only each other to play.
And in the case of both teams, the women that are part of those teams have plenty of other teams they can go to in their union woman that is serious about the game likely would, as they would probably be interested i winning the union championship and getting a chance to play in territorial and national championships. Certainly any woman that was talented and had aspirations of making the Eagles would go to a women's team (international only has men and women, no open). And even an avid player that just likes fair play has options.
And, there is a certain amount of politics in clubs, So if a club jumps ship to open, and half the members don't like it, they can just start their own club.
So a few clubs may go the open route, but I don't think its going to be a groundswell. Women that want to play on women's teams are still going to have ample opportunity, and players like Illona Maher and Kayla Canett will still get developed and show the flag internationally. And they will be role models for women that want to pursue rugby.
And the open division will provide a venue for trans, NB and the C side of the Royals to recreate.
Logically we can have 3 sexed categories of rough/contact sports
1) men only, no doping
2) women only, no doping
3) mixed sex, with necessary rules to make safe, social, often men holding back.
For Noncontact sports
1) open - men, top women, doped women on T
2) women, no doping
3) mixed sex, with necessary rules to make safe, social, often men holding back.
As was discussed, the Open category is being corrupted by nominally women's clubs who for whatever unknowable reason are rabidly TWAW. They are pressuring other women's clubs to register as Open, thus starving the Female division until it ceases to exist. This is apparently their aim. So, while what you lay out was the perhaps naive intent of USA Rugby, that's not how it will play out
Example A: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/charlotte-royals-move-from-women-s-rugby-to-open-division-following-usa-rugby-transgender-policy-update/ar-AA1XCa6x?cvid=69ab4149e47b44dfaefc1a94adcea8f9&ocid=emmx