The @dailymaverick asked me to do a piece on the trans woman in sport issue. It’s necessarily short and high level, but here it is. Writing it made me realize there are some key questions everyone who wades into the debate upfront should answer. Wanted to share them here (1/_)

The first question, before any other “shots are fired”, should be:

“If there is ZERO evidence for what happens to performance and/or biology in trans women undergoing treatment, what should happen for sport? Would you allow inclusion, or would you exclude until it exists?” (2/)

This is so important because it reveals a “value system” and understanding of women’s sport. If you believe in inclusion in the absence of evidence, you’re saying that women’s sport should be OPEN to self-ID, and then evidence must be provided to prove unfairness or risk. (3/)

On the other hand, if you say exclusion until evidence exists, you’re stating that women’s sport should remain CLOSED unless evidence can be provided to assure its participants that it is fair and safe to open it to athletes who have benefited from T during development (4/)

Once you’ve answered this first question, then you move to number 2, which is:

“The current policies for inclusion require suppression of T for 12 months, in order to allow participation without unfairness or harm. How strong is the evidence that this is actually achieved?” (5/)

New study on transgender & performance. The paper’s title could've been “Significant endurance & strength-endurance advantages are retained for up to 2 years despite T reduction in TW: Implications for the assumptions of fairness in current policies”. Some thoughts to follow

First, remind ourselves of the principle and why the results matter. Sports policies have allowed inclusion of TW who lower T for 12 months on the assumption that this removes the male physiological advantages sufficiently to create fairness when women’s sport is “opened” up (2/)

The obvious (though amazingly unasked) question is “Is there evidence showing that this actually works? In other words, does T suppression remove the biological advantages that necessitate a separate women’s category in sport?" This is the question the study is trying to address:

The study includes 46 trans women (TW) and 29 trans men, all in the Airforce. It capitalises on the practice of physical fitness assessments every 12 months to track how performance in push-up, sit-ups and 1.5 mile run changes when T is either reduced (TW) or increased (TM) (4/)

The TW and TM results are, correctly, compared to ciswomen and cismen, respectively. They have data for over 2 million CM and 500,000 CW for these comparisons. So it’s about tracking the changes in performance with T alteration AND comparisons to the appropriate group (5/)

I also wrote an article for the @thetimes on the transgender controversy, explaining some key issues, from the meaning of sport to biological advantages (it’s not like height!), and why a “T fix” doesn’t work. Thanks @martynziegler for the invitation:
https://t.co/UCOG0nbSz7

I spoke to @KayBurley on @SkyNews this morning. It was a brief chat about the #transgender athletes in sport controversy. I’ve put a version of it up on IGTV at this link if interested: