Talk:Transgender people in sports

Use better, less impartial source and quotation for UK "post-secondary education" section

Under "Post-secondary education", the section on the UK is incorrect and solely refers to one lawyer's opinion. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission disagrees with this assessment. The text currently says: "Under the Equality Act 2010, discrimination based on sex or gender reassignment is illegal, but certain sporting activities are exempt if transgender athletes competing would put non-transgender athletes at an unfair disadvantage. It does not apply to those who consider themselves trans or non-binary, but have not undergone gender reassignment officially.[180]"

The EHRC is a QUANGO which says, "In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex.

"To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.

"You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the document that confirms the change of a person's legal sex."

Therefore, the claim that you have to "[undergo] gender reassignment officially" seems to be a misleading interpretation, as: i) there is no "official" way to undergo gender reassignment; ii) even if there were, you don't need to have "undergone" (past tense) the process for the law to apply. You merely need to "propose" to undergo or have begun to undergo such a process.

I think we should remove this link and use the EHRC one instead. Moreover, the current source uses several anti-trans dogwhistles like "natal" instead "cis" and "trans-women" instead of "trans women", suggesting this is a "gender critical" lawyer.

Testosterone and athletic ability

I have again removed an argument that was logically incorrect (it was a straw man). Logically fallacious statements are incorrect, no matter who they are stated by, citation or no citation. Thus I feel that such arguments have no place in a section that is meant to be about the objective effect of testosterone and athletic ability. Furthermore, the following paragraph made the same point that the quote was trying to make, but was objective about it and did not make a straw-man argument in the process. Feel free to undo the revision, but if you do, please link me somewhere that says a statement being incorrect is not grounds for removal. Notsononymous (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The study in the BMJ that is cited is hugely problematic in its conclusion, as it ignored the fact that the trans women it measured were 11 percent faster than the average *men* in their age cohort, and then were 12 percent faster than the average *women* in their age cohort afterwards. They went from 55th percentile among men (age/sex ranked cohort) to 56th percentile (age/sex ranked) among women, showing they ended up in the same percentile of performance after transition, which should ideally be the whole point. Conversely, the trans women lost all sit-up and pull-up advantages, and this did match the female cohort. The conclusion is objectively biased toward finding *some* retained advantage, because a neutral comparison would find all *sex-linked* differences were lost. 216.152.184.30 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

With only a 5% muscle decrease, men who transition to women do have an advantage a year later. A year is not enough time to preserve the fairness of the sport between the two genders. The study is linked here https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/105/3/e805/5651219 Contrarian13 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The study you linked does not make that claim. In fact it explicitly makes the point that more data is necessary to draw any conclusions about possible advantages.

“We acknowledge that this study was conducted with untrained individuals and not transgender athletes. Thus, while this gave us the important opportunity to study the effect of the cross-hormone treatment alone, and as such the study adds important data to the field, it is still uncertain how the findings would translate to transgender athletes undergoing advanced training regimens during the gender-affirming intervention. It is also important to recognize that we only assessed proxies for athletic performance, such as muscle mass and strength. Future studies are needed to examine a more comprehensive battery of performance outcomes in transgender athletes.” MarcoBarroca (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The arguments you removed seem to be back in the page without the context you provided. Have a look Bangbangles (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Lia Thomas case

Add the recent controversy with transgender athlete Lia Thomas smashing several women swimming records. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-transgender-swimmer-from-penn-swims-fastest-times-in-nation-controversy-brewing/ https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/more-fury-as-transgender-swimmer-keeps-smashing-records/news-story/c42bb72808d9011f99f872f3a2fddceb https://people.com/sports/nfl-suspends-antonio-brown-and-2-others-for-misrepresenting-covid-vaccination-status/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lia-thomas-transgender-swimmer-penn_n_61af3421e4b02df7c6ac270b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:6BA0:4845:6BAF:58DC (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I thought that Wikipedia would have a specific article dedicated to Lia Thomas. I don't see one. Somehow, I was directed to this page. This article itself has no mention of Lia Thomas. What gives? Seems odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a paragraph. Topjur01 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I created a "redirect" from Lia Thomas to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Lia Thomas, six paragraphs for one person is very WP:Undue. Can we reduce the size of that section?-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

On a separate thought, I don’t think the link Lia Thomas should redirect here. She is a person, not just a controversy. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well she is at the core of the global discussion about transgender persons in sports. She has become a matter of scholarly research and studies. We should either leave six paragraphs here or make a separate page about her. Maybe it is best to wait for a few weeks to see whether the story will develop further and then decide? Topjur01 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think, at this point, Lia Thomas merits a separate article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally, I started the Lia Thomas article. Topjur01 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete paragraph about Joanna Harper

i.e. delete this whole paragraph: ″Joanna Harper is a competitive runner, scientist, transgender woman and medical physicist at the Providence Portland Medical Center who advised the IOC.[45] She argues that the use of estrogen supplements and testosterone blockers (or physical castration via sex reassignment surgery) cause a decrease in muscle mass and oxygen-carrying red blood cells, and that this leads to a decrease in strength, speed, and endurance.[46] According to Harper, every athlete has advantages and disadvantages. The greater height that a transgender woman may have gained before transitioning may be an advantage on the basketball court but it is likely to be disadvantageous to a gymnast.[47]″

• It's UNDUE to have a whole paragraph about a single person, especially as all the references are not particularly high quality:

Nero Calatrava (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It seems her opinion is likely due, as she was an advisor to the IOC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It should at least be revised. Her views are quite a bit more nuanced than the text presents. Recently, she has stated that "the suggestion that there should be no presumed advantages, it just doesn't hold water...Transgender women are on average, taller, bigger and stronger than (non-trans) cisgender women and those are advantages in many sports." [1][2] The current text implies that she believes the opposite. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel knowledgeable enough to make this change but rather than "cisgender" can I suggest using "natal women" or perhaps "biologically female women". Or some other more appropriate term. "cisgender" is making a massive assumption that non-transgender women are ALL comfortable in self-identifying in a traditional female way which I think is very unlikely. 80.193.244.222 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The world “cisgender” is a common term used to simply describe someone who does not identify as transgender. It doesn’t mean anything further than that. Nicko367 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with ref number 49

The ref in question is a paper called: "Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage" and I have many problems with it being placed on Wikipedia.

• It's not clear if this literature review is unbiased or not. Finding a literature review is only one part of the scientific process: when an expert in the field finds a literature reivew, they also need to assess their trust in the review, for example by checking if the content is representative of what they have seen in their scientific community. Apparently, so far, this review is not badly received in its scientific community, but it is still too early to tell.
• this paper is a bit strange because it is both a literature review not doing any new experiment, but it is also providing new conclusions that none of the reviewed papers are claiming. The logic seems to be A) some papers show difference in performances between cis-men and cis-women, B) one working hypothesis is that it is due to factors X, Y or Z, C) some papers show that factors X, Y or Z seems to be similar between cis-men and trans-women. The paper therefore makes a prediction (as trans-women keep the factor X, Y or Z similar to cis-men and cis-men have an advantage w.r.t. cis-women, then, trans-women have an advantage too), not yet confirmed by any experiments, but presents it as a conclusion. One can think that the logic is reasonnable, but the problem is that we still don't have proof that it is indeed the case (it's still not a scientific conclusion, just a prediction), and, worse, it relies on hypotheses that may be challenged, as noticed in the discussion about the fact that hemoglobin levels can play a role and that hemoglobin levels are apparently different between cis-men and trans-women
• Even if the paper is perfectly fine, it may be unwise to just add it without a clear context (as given in example, without context, it can be misleading when it concerns non-elite levels). And with clear context, the interest of the paper to the global discussion may just be too small and it will just muddy the water for the discussion.

Based on 1 and 2, I would say that there is currently no clear evidence and until then, it is better to, in a proper skeptic fashion, not to write text implying that science seems to conclude that trans-women have an advantage. I think this paper should be removed from the page. 2001:8003:6C22:F601:203B:629D:C0B6:AE1F (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

First off, it clearly meets the sourcing standard for this topic, which is found at WP:MEDRS. It is a literature review published in a prominent and reputable journal in its field. And its findings are in line with those of another review published around the same time, also in the article as reference number 50: [3]

Addressing your bullet points: (1) You are correct in the part where you said this review is not badly received in its scientific community. So there's no reason to question it. There has actually been more than enough time for it to be challenged if experts had reason to do so, as it was published well over a year ago, but that hasn't happened. (2) Yes, not performing a new experiment and drawing together existing research for new insights is entirely the purpose of any literature review. Unless you've read the papers they've reviewed, you don't know that those didn't also conclude the same things as the review authors did, anyway. It isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to second-guess conclusions in expert sources. And the review discusses things like muscle mass, strength, and skeletal parameters, for which it is proven (not merely a "working hypothesis") that these factors are behind the advantages that cis men have over cis women. (3) We already include their recommendation that each sport federation decide for themselves how to balance different goals in line with the needs of each sport. That's context.

The text based on this source attributes it to the source. As a high-quality source, it would be inappropriate and fail WP:NPOV to exclude it from Wikipedia as though it did not exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Note that sentence on the page about this paper of reference number 49 was saying "It said "the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected."", while the latest paper that you brought above says "In contrast, despite significant decreases in muscle cross-sectional area, lean body mass and strength after 12–36 months of hormone therapy, values remain higher than that in cisgender women". You were going to inform the readers a sentence that implies that there is basically no change and now you mention another article that says there is a significant change, this is a really good example of why I think your paper (or a paper that claim that there is no advantage, by the way) should not be used (even if it satisfies the criteria to be a source, even if this paper will, at the end, be the one being right, even if the authors are being perfectly honest and scientific): it is for me clear that claiming a specific conclusion is just too early. A normal skeptic with no ideological horse in this race would just say that it's just better to wait, or to state that "we don't know yet". Are you really convinced that the question is settled? How can you explain that there are so many other scientific papers (including the last one you mentioned) that seem to imply that the question is still not settled? 2001:8003:6C22:F601:7430:3860:26EA:9043 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The review which is currently ref 49 doesn't seem any more dogmatic than that of the other review or any other source. Every paper and every review reaches conclusions in academic and in science. That doesn't mean we exclude them unless they all agree. By this same logic, one could make an argument to exclude the second 2021 review instead. Of course, I would be against that also.

I strongly suggest you read the WP:NPOV policy. Describing high-quality sources which disagree with each other is normal and common on Wikipedia. For example: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zach arias 777 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sydcg.

dumpster fire

as a transgender woman looking to get more information on the status of transgender women in sport, this page is an absolute dumpster fire. 35.24.198.12 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not something we can do anything about unless you can you say what the problem is. Is it the article structure? Are we missing major content? Is it something else? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please ignore the IP and his comments. He is yet to give reasonable arguments for his belief. 148.252.133.26 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor specified her gender as a woman... please use the appropriate pronouns. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Being rude to other editors is hardly a way to get people on your side, m8. Please show some basic respect.

That being said, I'm a trans woman too, and I don't agree. The article seems fine. You want to give us some specifics on what you want changed? Keep in mind we can't read your mind, hun :p Nemo (talk) Nemo (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here

this is a link to a BBC sports news article published today. An interesting analysis that may be useful for editors here, and it includes a reading list of pertinant articles too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

this was just announced, regarding elite swimming competition. That report also contains links to other perhaps pertinant articles that may provide useful input for this article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Rugby league and Lord Coe, Chair of World Athletics. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

critique

This article does a great job of speaking in neutral point of view, and does so by listing moreso facts than opinions. Each fact is referenced appropiately, and every two to three setences a citation can be seen. I don't believe the article is either underrespresented or overrespresented as it does a great job of including information for an array of countreies. However, it doesn't hurt incorporating the information for many more countries and even individual states as they may have different policies and regulations in place. Looking at the recency of the facts, the most recent piece of information comes takes place in 2021. As we are in 2022, more information can be added in order to avoid being outdated or misinformed. Daniela.rojasg (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There are several references to 2022 events in this article; Timothy LeDuc and Lia Thomas for starters. Funcrunch (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Transgender women" vs. "cisgender women" too reductive/narrow?

The lede starts by explaining that the controversy exists because competitive sports is "a traditionally sex-segregated institution", but then we switch from sex to gender identity and see the terms "cisgender women" and "transgender women" used to explain the "unfair advantage" controversy.

Shouldn't we continue speaking in terms of sex, rather than gender? If someone designated male at birth is transgender, but doesn't identify as a woman, this person is excluded in the wording used for this article. But wouldn't such a person be just as controversial as a transgender woman, due to (as the article describes), "sex differences in human physiology", which has nothing to do with gender identity? Where do MTNB (male-to-non binary) people and FTNB (female-to-non binary) people fit in here? And if we do plan on sticking with the idea that only "transgender women in women's sports" are specifically controversial and are the subject of this article, shouldn't the article be retitled Transgender women in women's sports? — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, trans women aren't men, but we're not women either. We're trans women. Due to hormone therapy, we don't fit into either camp. As such, switching from "cis and trans women" to "males and females" would expand the topic to groups who weren't part of it to begin with. Cisgender and transgender are the most specific words we can use to cover the right people without being too vague or all encompassing. You do remember that hormone therapy is a thing, right? Nemo (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment:Understanding, leading and managing diversity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2022 and 31 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emba2024, 21revr (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 21avb8.

— Assignment last updated by 21avb8 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Our team sandbox is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emba2024/Transgender_people_in_sports. The content we would like the editors to consider posting is in the sandbox and pasted below Emba2024 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Permission to Edit Requested

Hi. I would like to edit this page as part of an MBA program at Queen's university. The page is locked. We propose to add country-specific content for four commonwealth countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Essentially, we want to include the state of the discussion and current approaches in each of these countries. How do I gain edit access? Emba2024 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the template, This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. In other words, we don't really grant access ahead of time; rather, you would type up what you want to add, and then submit it here on this talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Start on Help:introduction. The following, WP:ECP, explains the current state of protection for this article. Alternatively, you could follow the instructions in the template you placed and request an edit, per Crossroads. -Roxy the English speaking dog 05:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors: please consider adding this content, from a group of MBA students

Our content is saved in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emba2024/Transgender_people_in_sports. We have specifically stated what should be added to specific locations on the page. Please consider adding it. Emba2024 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks pretty good, thank you. It'll be added by somebody before long. One thing that stands out is that it does need work to comply with the external link guideline, which says, "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." Linking those various bodies within the citation notes is sufficient. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I made some changes to comply with the external link guideline, let me know what you think. Thewsomeguy (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! This is exciting.Emba2024 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ENDANGER

“Opponents argue that transgender women have an unfair advantage over, and may ***endanger***, cisgender women in competitive sports”

Endanger? Wtf 2600:1010:B064:4529:18FA:18E2:2EC2:D24C (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the closest thing to a valid example they offer is rugby injuries but even in rugby this is a bit of a stretch. It's not like cis women rugby players are tiny and delicate or like injuries are uncommon in rugby even when everybody involved is cis. In most sports it is even more silly but if that is their claim, and the relevant organisations insist on taking it seriously, then we have to document that.

This is covered in the Testosterone, athletic ability and injury risks section, which explains the claims and counter-claims in more detail. The last sentence is just perfect, btw. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please replace the following citations so that they are no longer bare.

Please replace the last citation following "The new guidelines have been described as loosening rules that impede transgender and intersex athlete's participation in Olympic sports, with enforcement of sport-specific rules governing inclusion." with

Please replace citation following "University and Tertiary Sport New Zealand (UTSNZ) has its own inclusion policy covering transgender and gender diverse athletes in sport." with

References

Of course, please modify these citations if it is necessary.

ConstantlyConfused (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. It's rare to see such an impeccably crafted edit request. Thanks a lot! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! ConstantlyConfused (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical error in first paragraph

The sentence that currently reads "Supporters of transgender athletes argue that medically prescribed puberty blockers and estrogen suppresses testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass of transgender women, reducing possible competitive advantages." should read "Supporters of transgender athletes argue that medically prescribed puberty blockers and estrogen suppress testosterone levels and reduce muscle mass of transgender women, reducing possible competitive advantages." Because 'puberty blockers' and 'estrogen' act together as the grammatical subject of the sentence, the active verbs must be conjugated in the plural. 2601:80:C87C:1060:A998:849:672D:29E1 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done This has been updated. When I see a section heading about grammar on a page like this I expect it to be somebody kvetching about pronouns so it was nice to see that it was a valid request instead. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference [80] looks questionable

There’s been a systematic review published in this link (https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf) by the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sports that calls into question the findings from reference 80.

On page 54 they claim the paper does not review current literature properly, contests their methodology and accuse them of committing errors and omitting data from its references in order to strengthen their argument.

The fact that their findings are being contested to this extent should be enough reason to not cite or use any information from that study. MarcoBarroca (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that there was already a previous discussion about removing this source. I think it’s prudent to take a look at it again now that that there is a publication contesting their work.

The publication in question is “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage” MarcoBarroca (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not a systematic review that has been peer-reviewed in a proper WP:MEDRS journal; rather it was made by an activist group. The paper complains about almost all existing research on the topic, leading one to wonder just what evidence they would actually admit. It engages in false equivalence between biomedical science and fringe speculations about sex differences in even cisgender people as being sociocultural in origin, bizarrely discusses the gender identities of study authors, and revealingly concludes with "Sport organizers need better education, dedicated resources, and high-quality research to confront, disrupt or transform gendered systems." Crossroads ^-talk- 18:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite not being published in a peer reviewed medical journal the document was authored by researchers with experience in the field:

https://ealliance.ca/about-us/who-we-are

while they make complaints about pretty much every paper some of them are pretty benign and mostly irrelevant.

This paper though is the one to receive most of the criticism and they are quite clear on the accusations that they either omit or distort data from their own cited references. These claims are also very easy to verify by cross checking the information.

I want to add that the original reference states that there are no conflicts of interest and does not mention that the author Emma Hilton is not only part of a lobbying group against trans rights https://sex-matters.org/ but is listed as a co-founder.

Their website explicitly states that she officially joined the group in January 2021. A month after the publication was first released online.

She is also vocal on her social media about the topic. If activism is an issue then that affects both sides.

I’d argue that the concerns raised by this publication are enough to at the very least warrant a stricter check into the original work before citing it. 2804:D41:A803:C300:3853:8414:9F52:83A2 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hilton is just one author. And we generally treat reliability as conferred by peer review and publishing in an academic journal. Any possible problems with a paper are their responsibility to handle; if they have not retracted or forced revisions then that's that. The paper does not argue to ban trans women from women's sports but instead that each individual sport federation decide how to "balance between inclusion, safety and fairness". Authors of sources that argue in favor of trans women in female sports also often have their history of advocacy for their side. In itself, this is not disqualifying. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Usage of the term "transgender people" in article's title

The term "transgender people" should not be used in this article's title as this topic involves non-transgender people as well, most notably intersex people, which do not fall under the transgender umbrella. Perhaps this article should be moved to "Transgender and intersex people in sports"? – Treetoes023 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What about "Gender variant people in sports"? I think that's a neutral and widely encompassing term, but I'm not intersex so I can't comment there. Nemo (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, if others feel this change is needed. Lewisguile (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Any name change must comply with Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. The current title does a better job at that than "Gender variant people in sports", IMHO. Definately before the title is changed, there must be consensus. Masterhatch (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Women and Sport advertisement

I find this sentence troubling:

"Canadian Women and Sport, a leading voice for the advancement of women and girls in sport,..."

Where is the source that cites the Canadian Women and Sport organization is a "leading voice". You can't just read that on their own website and assume that it is true. I would delete the second clause entirely as it reads like advertising and stick to the facts, that it is a lobby group. "Leading voice" implies that the group is respected, or indeed, known, more than it might actually be. You would need to prove notability by reference to independent, reliable sources.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:B58B:DC00:699C:262E (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Leading" is definitely not great. What would be a more neutral description? What type of body are they? Their website says that they are funded by the Canadian government but they don't seem to be part of Sport Canada. I've changed it in quite a vague way to "Canadian Women and Sport, a group advocating for the advancement of women and girls in sport..." I think that is better but maybe "group" could be changed to something more specific? DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

In the Testing section, change "visual genital inspections were used to confirm gender" to "visual genital inspections were used to confirm sex". Trecarden (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done request cannot be executed because no reasoning is provided and the change is not an objective copyedit Dronebogus (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and Dronebogus: This does actually seem like a correct change to me. Gender is (without doing any real research aside from visiting that link) the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity, whereas sex is (again, just looking at that article) the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes, which appears to be more appropriate in the context where it appears. The only potential concern I can identify is that the reference provided in that sentence uses the word gender in the sentence I assume was used as the source material. I've not made the change as it appears there might not be consensus, but just throwing it out there. Tollens (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It also appears the rest of this article uses 'gender' and 'sex' in the way those articles describe the terms as well. Tollens (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: AFAIK, the two terms are used interchangeably and given the contentious topic, I wouldn't feel comfortable overriding what the source says. That said, I have no objections to your proposal. M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Split the US stuff into its own article

Today I posted a {{Globalize}} template on the article as I am concerned that there tends to be too much of a focus on the US in the article; heck the title image is a map of US states. While the dispute of transgender people in sports seems to be mostly in the US, there are other countries in which they exist. Ultimately, it may be best to follow the model on how the topic of Arbitration is treated on Wikipedia; given that it has become a bit of a political matter in the United States, the article Arbitration in the United States exists. Similarly, Transgender people in sports and Transgender Americans in sports may need to happen. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article already covers other regions of the globe, so I don't know if the template is entirely necessary. The title graphic definitely belongs in a subsection belonging to the United States, though. Is there a graphic that encapsulates the entire world, or is that unreasonable given the disparity among localities?

Additionally, I'm not convinced there's enough here to split the article (yet). Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article needs a large reorganization and expansion as it is heavily US-centric but I do not see any reason for a split yet. -UtoD 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I also don't think a split is warranted, but the US map can be moved down, for sure. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Map has been moved to appropriate section.

Also: For {{globalize}}: (as with almost everything else…) we are severely lacking coverage and perspective of this topic outside "the West", from the Global South, from cultures with notions of third genders, etc. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Specify map is of USA

Page is about the issue generally, but the picture as captioned indicates it is only related (or primarily related) to the USA. Please change caption to “ Map of state laws in the United States of America which ban transgender athletes from participating in the sport of their gender identity, as of September 2022:” or similar… Cbe46 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cbe46 – This has now been moved from lede to more appropriate §United States. Thank you -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does World Athletics have its own section? Why not one section for major sport governing bodies?

There is a section here for World Athletics rules. If we are going to include heading for the policies of one major sports governing body, why not others? World Rugby, FINA, and the UCI have recently released guidelines, these are referenced in the article but scattered about.

IMO we should change the World Athletics section to a Sports Governing Bodies section, and consolidate all of those paragraphs there. Socksage (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have collated paragraphs for other sports governing bodies' policies that were mentioned in the article under the re-purposed World Athletics section. Hopefully future editors will add different rules of sports governing bodies under that heading, and hopefully it will not get too crowded. Socksage (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Also worth considering whether we should create a "Sports Governing Body Policies" major heading, similar to the existing "National Approaches" major heading. Right now they are all included under "History".

I will not personally make this change but it might help with the overall article structure. Socksage (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Add public opinion in the lead

The fact that polls all around the world show that majority of people oppose this must be added to the lead. It is clearly notable and will make the lead more accurate 2001:569:7E26:6E00:B02A:E944:F419:7E34 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The US, Australia and Canada is not the "the world", and we cannot use such polls to extend this to "the world". All you could definitively say in the lede, if it should be included at all, is that inclusion is generally opposed by Americans, Australians and Canadians, according to certain polls. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be too much detail for the lede and it might encourage people to add further examples and counterexamples making it even worse. It is enough to say "is a controversial issue". DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not for adding it at all. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

Please change the following:

United Kingdom

Under the Equality Act 2010, discrimination based on sex or gender reassignment is illegal, but certain sporting activities are exempt if transgender athletes competing would put non-transgender athletes at an unfair disadvantage. It does not apply to those who consider themselves trans or non-binary, but have not undergone gender reassignment officially.

In April 2022, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he believed that transgender women should not compete in women's sport.

To:

United Kingdom

Under the Equality Act 2010, discrimination based on sex or gender reassignment is illegal, but certain sporting activities may be exempt if transgender athletes competing would put cisgender athletes at an unfair disadvantage or be unsafe to others. The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission cautions that "limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present will be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether or not the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate."

Rationale: The previous link used was potentially biased, of low authority, used anti-trans dogwhistles ("natal", "trans-women"), and was a single lawyer's opinion (which seems to conflict with the EHRC one). Using the EHRC website is much more useful, since it already refers specifically to trans people in sports, and provides a more authoritative source. The claim of the article cited originally, that equality legislation "does not apply to those who consider themselves trans or non-binary, but have not undergone gender reassignment officially", directly contradicts the claim of the EHRC, which says that you can be undergoing, or intending to undergo, gender reassignment, do not need to undergo any particular surgery or treatment, and do not need a gender recognition certificate. I.e., there is no "official" way to undergo gender reassignment, and the use of past-tense only is misleading (it can be a future or ongoing process).

Additionally, I suggest swapping the "non-transgender" wording here to "cisgender" to match the rest of the article (23 instances of cis; this is the only one for non-trans), and to use less clunky, more inclusive language.

As a technical thing, I also think we should move the line that follows this paragraph, about Boris Johnson, to the section on "Public opinion" (or delete it outright), since it's irrelevant opinion if he didn't actually change the law (and isn't actually in government anymore). Johnson is not the "public". Lewisguile (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done I agree with your view on a single law firm vs. EHRC, and the stylistic point RE: cis/non-trans. I've moved the Boris Johnson quote to the "national approaches" section, where it seems to fit better alongside a similar one from Nadine Dorries. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you! Lewisguile (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Is chess a sport? Should the FIDE policy be included here?

Genuine question. This page is specific to "sports" and many would classify chess as a "game" rather than a sport.

Indeed, the article for chess exclusively refers to the activity as a "game" throughout the body of the article, though it is also referred to as a "mind sport" once in the info box.

This may be seen as splitting hairs, but explicitly defining the scope of what is included under "sports" will have implications for other games/activities that may be included in this article in the future. Socksage (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards including so-called "mind sports" within the scope of this article, but I can see how it can be argued in both directions. Socksage (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See Sports, eg chess is recognised as an Olympic sport. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but even if it wasn't, coverage of the Chess ban is clearly on-topic here as the the exact same issues were argued in support of a ban as for all the other sports. It is the same topic, just even sillier. --DanielRigal (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

Change the chess section from

In August 2023, the International Chess Federation, or FIDE, implemented a ban on trans women from playing chess in women's tournaments. Additionally, they implemented rules stripping trans men of any titles they might have earned while competing as women.

To

In August 2023, the International Chess Federation, or FIDE, implemented a ban on trans women from playing chess in official FIDE women's tournaments as well as tournaments providing qualification spots to the Women's Chess World Cup. Additionally, they implemented rules stripping trans men of any women's titles they might have earned while competing as women.

Reasons

1. Clarifying the scope of the ban for trans women and the title removal for trans men (according to the sourced regulations
2. Adding as source the FIDE handbook page that does not need download and an archive link Konstantina07 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Already done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: it was done on FIDE page, not here Konstantina07 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done myself as I am extended autoconfirmed now --Konstantina07 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)