His views have “evolved”
Sean Ingle notes that the discussion has changed.
The Guardian has obtained a letter, written in 2003 by Dr Richard Budgett, in which he discusses the consequences of trans women competing in women’s sport. Responding to a government inquiry, Budgett, then at the British Olympic Association, states: “The effect of allowing male transsexuals to compete as women would be to make competition unfair and potentially dangerous in some sports and would undermine women’s sports.”
Ya think? It’s still weird that anyone would have to say that, let alone that he would “evolve” to stop saying it.
Society has shifted. Language has changed. Budgett is now medical and scientific director at the International Olympic Committee. And his views, according to IOC sources, have evolved – particularly when it comes to finding ways to balance the need for inclusion and fairness in sport.
There is no “need for inclusion” in sport of the “men can compete against women” type. Inclusion in sport should mean making sure disadvantaged people get more opportunities and help; it should not mean making sure men replace some women in women’s sport.
A controversial new IOC framework, drawn up in part by Budgett, adopts a strikingly different stance. While stressing that men’s and women’s competition should be “fair and safe”, it also tells sports that, “until evidence determines otherwise”, trans athletes “should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage”.
As I pointed out the other day, that’s a sneaky evasive cowardly way of putting it, because the issue isn’t “trans athletes” but men. Men have an unfair and disproportionate competitive advantage over women. Everybody knows that, but way too many people are determined to cover it up.
This is something being done to women, and there is no equivalent being done to men. Wouldn’t you think that should be enough to alert people to how fucked up it is? There can’t be any equivalent, ever, because men are bigger and stronger than women, end of story. The equivalent being done to men would have to be allowing adult male gorillas to compete against men. I don’t see any plans to do that currently.
No magic bullet, no one-size-fits-all policy can satisfy all sides. The issue involves competing rights and strong emotions. Worryingly a recent UK Sports Councils Equality Group report also found that women in sport were told to keep quiet by their national governing bodies and feared abuse on social media if they voiced their opinions.
The issue does not involve “competing rights.” There is no “right” for men to compete against women and shatter all their records, while the women are told to shut up. That’s not a right, it’s a fucking insult.
Yet perhaps times are changing. At the Sport Resolutions dispute resolution service last week several experts were able to discuss openly and courteously what sports should do next. It made for fascinating listening. For David Grevemberg, of the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, inclusion mattered most. And if sport had to radically change, then it should. “Are there ways, that are not infringing on human rights, to create a level playing field?” he asked. “Are there other conditions that we can create – for example staggered starts in the 100m? Or delayed starts?”
No. Just no. Stop. Leave the women alone. Letting men compete against women creates a very tilted playing field indeed.
What f*ing “inclusion”? The men who love competing are still fully “included” in the men’s division. The absence of any need to “transition” in any way puts the men-who-call-themselves-women in exactly the same position in the men’s division as they were before they decided to call themselves women. “Inclusivity” my left foot. Men-who-call-themselves-women are still fully included in sport, in the division for their sex. Who is not being included? Women whose places in their own sports are usurped by men. F*ing liars. “Inclusion” or “inclusivity” has precisely zero to do with what is happening. It’s opposite-day nonsense. The “inclusion” they talk about means exclusion of women. It’s criminal and cruel.
If they identify as human males, surely they should be allowed.
I am actually encouraged by the shift. Attempting to quantify what the advantage actually is one helluva a lot better than the rote assertion that it doesn’t exist and is transphobic to even talk about. Which is why TRAs are still so adamantly against it. Once they concede the point, they have given up the ship. No one is ever going to accept things like transwomen starting 9 meters further back in a 100 meter sprint, etc. The ‘accommodations’ destroy the sport.
Case in point – you CANNOT have full-contact, 15-a-side rugby with normal scrum and ruck rules. Even among males, the power gap is simply too large for one of the backs (smaller, faster) to play with the forward pack, and that starts before adult play. Referees order scrums to be uncontested for purposes of safety, and we have already seen that referees dealing with trans players in women’s rugby are doing so Part of the game is being taken out for all women, in order to include trans players.
I have a bullet. It’s not really magic, but it should be used. Trans ID athletes continue to compete in their sex’s competitions.
Do you remember when an athlete could be disqualified for using a diet supplement to enhance their performance? Do they even do drug tests any more? Yes? Because a tiny advantage in the Olympics can mean the difference between a gold medal and 4th place. And no one gives endorsement contracts to 4th place finishers.
But men in women’s sport? That’s not really an advantage, is it?
maddog @ 1 –
See what they really mean by “inclusion” is including men in the category women, which is something they have no right to request however gently and politely, let alone rudely and furiously with bullying and punishment. “Inclusion” in women’s sports is just a single branch of that, but it’s popular because it’s so obviously and grossly unfair to women.
The only barrier to the inclusion of trans women in female sports is that they are not female, so I wonder if the good doctor would like to share with us the data which convinced him that trans women are female. Something beyond a mindless mantra would be my preference.
Re #6, that’s the whole thing, right there. If TWAW is rejected, the house of cards tumbles. If there is no difference between Lia Thomas and Michael Phelps regarding who is allowed to swim in women’s events, then both will be barred or there will not be women’s events.
I think there’s a confusion of rights and fairness. Trying as best I can to see things from the opposing perspective, the actual locus of concern is in the idea that someone loses the ability to compete at a level he–now she–previously reached due to a medical/psychological condition outside his (now her) control. This, it is posited, is not fair and therefore unfair. Therefore, something ought be done for him (her) as recompense.
Now, that’s a shitty bit of reasoning, but it appears to be the best representation of trans sympathetic thought possible. In any case, it is not rights that are in tension, but instead the fairness of women’s sport vs. the “fairness” of pity/charity for the unfortunate. Opposing bedressed men in women’s sport is, under this interpretation, little different from opposing a cancer patient’s ability to play.
Sure, Nullius, but of course that argument falls apart the minute you offer them a league of their own, a place where TiMs can play against other TiMs. That would engender fairness, because it would give them an opportunity to play the sport, perhaps at least at the same elite level as women (though not reaching the prestige of men) without depriving women. But that doesn’t “validate” their fantasy.
And to demand that sports be fair…that would be like my fifth grade teacher requiring one of the dodge ball teams to select me even though I am shitty at sports. It’s one thing in fifth grade PE class to require that all be allowed to play, and that it be “fair”, but in elite sports? They are by definition exclusive. I will never play elite sports any more than I will ever give a piano concert in any setting, let alone an elite one. To modify your body to the extent that you can no longer play on men’s teams is not a reason for women to step aside for you. To make that out as some sort of disability requiring fairness is not a reasonable argument, since people who are disabled in a way that prevents them from reaching the top categories of accomplishment will also not make the teams. There are special leagues for them.
There is no good argument that I have seen yet for allowing male-bodied individuals to play on female teams. And when you take away the need for any medical or physical changes to the body, even the lousy arguments fade away because you now have biologically intact males with normal levels of testosterone competing against females. And the fact that the IOC thinks there is no inherent disadvantage to females in this situation shows just how far over the precipice they are willing to jump.
That relies on some equivocation or vagueness in the terms though. Someone doesn’t actually lose the ability, he relinquishes it in exchange for a slightly less masculine appearance. And the level at which he previously competed in the cases we’ve been seeing has been pretty low or average. And nobody has any way of knowing that he has a medical/psychological condition of gender dysphoria (or whatever one wants to call it) at all – he could be just claiming to, for the sake of breaking records and winning gold medals. Ditto for knowing how outside his control it is.
Anyway from what we’ve seen that isn’t the locus of concern: it’s “inclusion” that is. The purported locus of concern is the tragedy of women trapped in men’s bodies being “excluded” from women’s sports. That’s the rhetoric at least.
@Nullius #8
Men lose that ability all the time, from age, injury, or other causes. The new IOC “guidance” doesn’t require men to do anything to themselves other than declare themselves to be women. There’s no loss of ability except the natural ones that all male athletes are subject to. It’s like the women’s division is now the “senior men’s” division.
Let WilLia(m) Thomas continue to compete in the same men’s division he competed in for 3 years, and see where his times take him.