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'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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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