What part makes no sense?That makes no sense.
If they were good enough they'd be in the competitions is what the other poster is saying.What part makes no sense?
It's the same in open seater racing. Same in esports. If they didnt create female only competitions you would never see a female competitor. The theory being if women cant see women being successful in these sports it discourages participation.
Of course this is the reason, but cant say that in this day and age. Any gaps in ability have to be caused by systemic barriers.If they were good enough they'd be in the competitions is what the other poster is saying.
There's wont be separate category because of lack of numbers, rather its because there's lack of female competitors good enough to compete with their male counterparts.
In chess I read about it also being a psychological thing, like men would be more stubborn and would try harder if they know they're against a woman, whereas a woman would perform worse if she knows she's playing against a man.I wonder if in chess and esports as you have mentioned a factor would be that much more men take part in those things which leads to better performances
There's nothing stopping women competing. A woman has just as much chance as winning as a man in chess, unless you think they're less intelligent?What part makes no sense?
It's the same in open seater racing. Same in esports. If they didnt create female only competitions you would never see a female competitor. The theory being if women cant see women being successful in these sports it discourages participation.
So why not just scrap women's football, demand any woman who wants to play should be able to compete with the men and call anyone who calls that argument disingenuous bullshit, patronising?There's nothing stopping women competing. A woman has just as much chance as winning as a man in chess, unless you think they're less intelligent?
If there are less women competing in the sport then there should be less women winning. What's wrong with that?
If women can't see other women being successful it discourages them?! I don't think women are quite that pathetic and stupid. That sounds like patronising rubbish.
Chess and football are entirely different. One is physical one is intelligenceSo why not just scrap women's football, demand any woman who wants to play should be able to compete with the men and call anyone who calls that argument disingenuous bullshit, patronising?
Political party drives to increase racial representation scrapped as patronising rubbish too you'd want?
Let's just accept white men domination all areas of culture and public life. Anything else sounds like patronising rubbish to you. Next they'll be putting garlic in bread.
There's nothing stopping women competing. A woman has just as much chance as winning as a man in chess, unless you think they're less intelligent?
If there are less women competing in the sport then there should be less women winning. What's wrong with that?
If women can't see other women being successful it discourages them?! I don't think women are quite that pathetic and stupid. That sounds like patronising rubbish.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-athletes-cancelled-after-no-entries-receivedWorld Aquatics’ plans to debut an open category for transgender athletes at the World Cup in Berlin this week have been cancelled after no entries were received.
“Following the close of registration for the open category competitions at the World Aquatics Swimming World Cup – Berlin 2023 meet scheduled for 6-8 October, World Aquatics can confirm that no entries have been received for the open category events,” it said.
Let me ask you this, do you think the concept of a role model is real?There's nothing stopping women competing. A woman has just as much chance as winning as a man in chess, unless you think they're less intelligent?
If there are less women competing in the sport then there should be less women winning. What's wrong with that?
If women can't see other women being successful it discourages them?! I don't think women are quite that pathetic and stupid. That sounds like patronising rubbish.
Swimming World Cup category for transgender athletes cancelled after no entries received
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-athletes-cancelled-after-no-entries-received
This isn't a comment on whether or not a ban is legitimate, just that an own category for trans people is functionally equal to a ban and should be spoken of as such.An open category and non-participitation is the same option. There aren't even close to enough trans people for any sport beyond a pure hobby basis, so any open category or a category for only trans people is just a creation made for people who want to exclude trans women from women's sport but for some reason aren't comfortable with calling it a ban.
Pretty old fashioned sexist opinion to suggest you can only have a roll model of the same sex.Let me ask you this, do you think the concept of a role model is real?
Do you think voting matters? Do you think voting matters? A lot of people don't vote because they don't see their vote having an affect. A lot of women don't bother with getting to the top of chess or activities of equal to men because they don't want to bother being barraded by sexism all the time. The women grandmasters who beat the greats at chess, were they lauded? No, not as much as excuses were made for why the great men lost.
Another angle. Why should parents encourage their daughter to take up chess when there isn't an obvious path for the future. If it's only men then that leads to the thinking that women can't do it. The fact of the matter is the sexism in our history which allowed boys the freedom to practice what they want, be encouraged to do what they want whilst girls were encouraged to do things that mainly dads didn't want to do. Then those boys become dads and repeat the cycle.
Women's only leagues and tournaments are steps towards breaking these cycles. These institutionalized biases. It's not enough to tear down the wall, hand them a chess board and say off you go now.
It's not a ban, just not an instant win.This isn't a comment on whether or not a ban is legitimate, just that an own category for trans people is functionally equal to a ban and should be spoken of as such.
That’s a massive stretch in logic. Actually it’s a gap in logic.This isn't a comment on whether or not a ban is legitimate, just that an own category for trans people is functionally equal to a ban and should be spoken of as such.
Absolute nonsenseThis isn't a comment on whether or not a ban is legitimate, just that an own category for trans people is functionally equal to a ban and should be spoken of as such.
If there isn't enough people to make up a catagory and it never runs, how does that give an opportunity to someone to play in it?Absolute nonsense
They said they received no applicants at all. This isn't a case of scrapping it because they only had one or two and decided it wasn't worth the effort.If there isn't enough people to make up a catagory and it never runs, how does that give an opportunity to someone to play in it?
Because there are very few and most players give up their sport when they transition due to various reasonsI'd be interested to know from the transgender athletes why they did not apply.
You'd assume that and also that they want to compete in the women or men categories rather than an open category but I'd still be interested to hear why. In all of this it feels like trans athletes haven't been consulted or spoke with at all and it's just been decided there will be an open category and they should be happy with that.Because there are very few and most players give up their sport when they transition due to various reasons
It is (was?) an attempt at creating a fair platform for trans athletes to compete at elite level.What is the point of an open category if there aren't enough trans athletes?
The consultation with trans athletes has suggested that they should be allowed to compete in female categories despite the massive inherent advantages they face, which is why sporting bodies have decided to include an open category as it retains the integrity of female sport, and literally doesn’t exclude anyone else from competing. The fact that no trans athlete applied to it isn’t a failing of the sporting body being inclusive.You'd assume that and also that they want to compete in the women or men categories rather than an open category but I'd still be interested to hear why. In all of this it feels like trans athletes haven't been consulted or spoke with at all and it's just been decided there will be an open category and they should be happy with that.
Of course, no trans athletes have been consulted with and don't have a voice in anything.You'd assume that and also that they want to compete in the women or men categories rather than an open category but I'd still be interested to hear why. In all of this it feels like trans athletes haven't been consulted or spoke with at all and it's just been decided there will be an open category and they should be happy with that.
In this "open" catagory it's literally not allowing cis females in a lot of casesThe consultation with trans athletes has suggested that they should be allowed to compete in female categories despite the massive inherent advantages they face, which is why sporting bodies have decided to include an open category as it retains the integrity of female sport, and literally doesn’t exclude anyone else from competing. The fact that no trans athlete applied to it isn’t a failing of the sporting body being inclusive.
Yes because they have a female category?In this "open" catagory it's literally not allowing cis females in a lot of cases
I could hazard a guess.I'd be interested to know from the transgender athletes why they did not apply.
It is a failing if you've consulted them and received no positive communication or any consultation about them competing in an open category if they create one. By creating one and then cancelling it because there are no entries does more harm than good.The consultation with trans athletes has suggested that they should be allowed to compete in female categories despite the massive inherent advantages they face, which is why sporting bodies have decided to include an open category as it retains the integrity of female sport, and literally doesn’t exclude anyone else from competing. The fact that no trans athlete applied to it isn’t a failing of the sporting body being inclusive.
If the open category is closed to people by what definition is it an open category? Also, isn't it a bit weird that women aren't allowed to compete in an open category if they want to? I certainly understand enforced segregation in boxing. Not really getting it in swimming.Yes because they have a female category?
Come off it - how does it do more harm then good? That's just hyperbole.It is a failing if you've consulted them and received no positive communication or any consultation about them competing in an open category if they create one. By creating one and then cancelling it because there are no entries does more harm than good.
That's my point - to date, or up until very recently, there hasn't been a distinction made between trans athletes and female athletes in the female category which has resulted in:In this thread previously I made a post about an open category being an avenue that could be a first step in bridging the divide between people who don't agree with trans women competing in women categories in sport vs those who think they should be able to but you need to do it through consultation and dialogue rather than just creating this open category and saying here you go which this example appears to be a case of. I find it hard to believe that there was any dialogue due to the 0 entries.
Let's be honest. It isn't open is it. It's closed to those born female.Wouldn’t it be called “open” because it’s available to both ftm and mtf trans athletes and it’s an already commonly used term in athletic events?
To be honest, I haven't read any examples of any women wishing to compete in an open category, nor any examples of women being barred from doing so. @Ajr - do you know any?If the open category is closed to people by what definition is it an open category? Also, isn't it a bit weird that women aren't allowed to compete in an open category if they want to? I certainly understand enforced segregation in boxing. Not really getting it in swimming.
Because you're giving an excuse that you created an open category and an opportunity for them to compete in. Once you've done that and there is complaints that people aren't able to compete you can say "oh but we have you this" despite it being fairly unclear if there was even dialogue and consultation with trans athletes. Again, I find it very hard to believe they'd have had dialogue with trans athletes about this for then 0 entries to happen.Come off it - how does it do more harm then good? That's just hyperbole.
That's my point - to date, or up until very recently, there hasn't been a distinction made between trans athletes and female athletes in the female category which has resulted in:
1) Trans athletes breaking long held female athlete records
2) Non participation of female athletes in female sports
3) General erasure/removal of female women gaining scholarships / spaces on teams due to trans participation
which undoubtedly affects sporting integrity and fairness. It's why sporting bodies have gone down the route of an open category.
And what about consulting female athletes? Say for example they wish for their to be an open category for trans athletes to fall into to protect the integrity of female sports? Shouldn't their wishes to be taken into consideration? Because that's the overriding message coming out from female athletes, specifically, individual sports and competitions.
Swimming seems to be one: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1135534/swim-england-transgender-policyTo be honest, I haven't read any examples of any women wishing to compete in an open category, nor any examples of women being barred from doing so. @Ajr - do you know any?
I can't think of a good reason why you would actively exclude those born female from being able to participate, even if it turns out nobody takes up the offer.An open category has been created for athletes with a birth sex of male, trans or non-binary competitors and any other competitor not eligible for the female category.
I disagree - the reason an open category happened in the first place was to arrest the erasure of female athlete records, spaces and integrity. If an open category didn't happen, should we just expect all female athletes to happily watch their sporting achievements diminish?Because you're giving an excuse that you created an open category and an opportunity for them to compete in. Once you've done that and there is complaints that people aren't able to compete you can say "oh but we have you this" despite it being fairly unclear if there was even dialogue and consultation with trans athletes. Again, I find it very hard to believe they'd have had dialogue with trans athletes about this for then 0 entries to happen.
Never said their wishes shouldn't be but to me this looks like a situation which wasn't planned well at all and one in which nobody wins or looks good and is another step back.
So are there examples of women applying to an open category? In any sport?Swimming seems to be one: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1135534/swim-england-transgender-policy
I can't think of a good reason why you would actively exclude those born female from being able to participate, even if it turns out nobody takes up the offer.
