Gender instead of Sex references
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In reorganised rulebook, there are references to Gender rather than Sex.
Gender is not a biological reference, it is a social/personal one. It is not a reason for separating males/females in sporting endeavour. Sex is separated because recognise that males have physiological advantage over females in most types of competition.
I think we need to specify how we regulate this.
The IOC guideline make senses to me, so I propose we adopt this approach:
- The athlete declares his/her gender identity. This cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for 4yrs
- Female to male transition are allowed to compete in the male category without restriction
- male to female transition requires requires testosterone levels below 10nMol/L for at least 12 months prior to competition, and to remain below this for the duration of competition.
There are some issues (eg physiological advantage is not solely hormone dependent), but I think it is a pragmatic and workable guideline:
http://tinyurl.com/hkzhyax
Comment
R.e. make to female guidelines. Is there any point implementing a rule we have no means of testing. We don't even have means to drug test how are we going to monitor sex transitions
Comment
We don't have means to monitor it, but it gives people clarity as to what it means for competition.
By referring to 'gender' instead of 'sex', we are no longer using a biological reference.
Therefore, the reason for separating male/female competition no longer applies...because we are not categorising by biological advantage.
Comment
Sorry there was a typo in my last response.
Why would we put this in our rulebook
"male to female transition requires requires testosterone levels below 10nMol/L for at least 12 months prior to competition, and to remain below this for the duration of competition."
If we have no means to test it.
I don't care if we use gender OR sex in our rulebook to distinguish but I do believe that we are way too small to be taking into account perceived genders and transitioning athletes.
We have no feasible way to test these things and therefore putting it into our rulebook is a complete waste of time.
It's as useless as putting in a complete WADA profile with amounts that each person needs to be under. Why bother if we have zero means of testing it.
Comment
Again I'm quite happy to use "sex" instead of "gender" but believe everything else should be left alone currently
Comment
As to how to determine M or F: we can go by a passport or other official document that a competitor has. I don't think passports allow an indication like 'mixed' or 'transitioning' gender, so this would provide the clarity we need.
Whether we call this Sex or Gender in our rulebook is not so important to me.
Let's not go into hormone level definitions.
Comment
I think the current gender rule is just fine.
The IOC has been heavily criticized for it's arbitrary definitions of male and female, like with the case of Caster Semenya. Top notch athlete refused to compete because she looked different. It's actually extremely difficult to scientifically define a male and a female. "Biological definitions" are not easy, if even possible. From what I understand, sex lies on a continuum. For example, a male can have female characteristics and vice versa. Chromosomes are pretty accurate but some XX are males and XY are females. Be XX and have a penis. It get's very messy quickly and the IUF has no business in the privacy (and underwear) of its unicyclists. Hormone levels, again, are not 100% accurate. World level Athletes are often genetic freaks anyway, trying to assign sex can be really really time consuming and in the end... pointless. They are top notch for a reason.
Passports are reflections of one's gender anyway. So making the competition based off their passport seems fine to me to prevent people from flip flopping from competition to competition and going in places they shouldn't be. It also doesn't discriminate against people who are "genetically" different or get the IUF involved in something that is way bigger than them and doesn't really concern them.
I will vote against
Comment
No one checks the karyotype or phenotype of every single Olympic athlete either....it would be a horrendously difficult and expensive task. This is simply a framework for understanding what it means when you start using the term 'Gender' instead of 'Sex' in sport. The use of the term 'Gender' nullifies the need for separate 'male' and 'female' competition if there are no rules around this.
For instance, if I decide to compete in the 'female gender' road race by saying I identify as female 'gender', I have every right to do so under the IUF rulebook. Clearly, unless I undergo feminisation therapy, I have a distinct advantage over phenotypical females.
The use of the term 'gender' instead of 'sex' is to prevent discrimination on the basis of social identity, but it doesn't take into account to physiological advantage, which is why these categories exist.
Referring to Daniel's statement:
"Top notch athlete refused to compete because she looked different. It's actually extremely difficult to scientifically define a male and a female. "Biological definitions" are not easy, if even possible. From what I understand, sex lies on a continuum."
The karyotype is NOT on a continuum, unless you make a case for (the rare exception of) sex chromosome mosaicism. In sex chromosome aneuploidy (eg XO and XXY), people generally have a phenotypic female/male appearance, but again, the actual karyotype is NOT on a continuum.
The part that is on a continuum is the phenotype, but ONLY in a VERY small number of natural cases (eg androgen insensitivity syndromes), and in the process of surgical/hormonal reassignment.
This is where it becomes difficult for the Olympic committee as they have to determine which phenotype category to place the athlete in, and what the markers for male advantages are. Clearly, someone with male karyotype (XY) and complete androgen insensitivity is at a significant disadvantage when competing against phenotypically male athletes, but do they retain some male advantage, which may not be evident on outward appearance?
Overall, however, the gender rules are based on the phenotype rather than karyotype, because it is thought the former better reflects physiological advantage.
If we revert the rulebook to using the word 'male' and 'female' sex, and then make case-by-case exception for gender identity, that could simplify things. The sex and gender are the same 99.9% of the time.
We could use the birth certificate definition because there is no such thing as gender at birth, only sex (generally based on the phenotype). Then add in an extra sentence to include gender identity.
How about:
All references in the rulebook to 'male gender' and 'female gender' are replaced with 'male' and 'female' as defined in section 1D.1
In Section 1D.1 Definitions:
Male and Female- Athletes may compete in 'male' and 'female' categories based on the sex as defined on their birth certificate. Transgender athletes may compete in a category based on the principles outlined in the IOC consensus meeting for sex reassignment and hyperandrogenism 2015.
Comment
Birth certificates assign sex by a genital inspection, which is not a reliable way of proving sex. If this is the case, then it is a gender assignment not a sex assignment.
Also, birth certificates can be changed at any time by request to suit gender identity.
Seems like we've gotten nowhere from the original "gender" rule.
Comment
What do you mean by 'proving sex'? Are you now referring to the karyotype?
Sex is generally determined at birth. Genital inspection (the phenotype) almost always correlates with the karyotype. It is highly reliable.
In rare syndromes where there are ambiguous genitalia, there is a whole process and tests in order to assign a 'gender'.
Comment
Sorry for not being clear. Let me restate my argument. If the IUF were to use birth certificates as validation of sex, it would not be an accurate tool for two reasons.
Firstly, when healthcare professionals fill out birth certificates, they assign sex without having definitive proof (based on a genital inspection) that is not 100% accurate. Sex ambiguity and assigning the wrong sex happens more often than you expect. 1 in 1500 babies are suspected to be sexually ambiguous (source http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency). That's a lot of people worldwide. A small percentage still translates to many people who are sexually ambiguous globally. Moreso with top level athletes - they are gifted genetically in the first place and push what is "normal". The IOC ran into this problem, and felt the need for further tests and to create sex definitions on hormone levels and other performance improving "male" characteristics (criticized heavily for it: Criticism of sex testing). We don't have the ability to test sex related performance traits, and birth certificates are not definitive PROOF of sex. Hopefully that was more clear.
Secondly, a birth certificate can be changed at any time by request of the individual to match their gender identity anyway. Same with a passport and all other forms of ID. We are back to where we started then.
How would the current rules benefit from a switch of the term gender to sex when we can't prove anything and when individuals can change their documents to suit their gender identity? I''m curious, how many unicons have passed without a male fraudulently impersonating a female to win on purpose? Is it really a big deal that we let competitors choose their own gender and compete in the category they feel they belong in? Especially when we have ZERO way of enforcing it? I hope the IUF won't force women to mutilate their genitals and take hormones to treat their "abnormalities" in the name of sport like the IOC (read the above article of this doesn't make sense).
Comment
In Section 1D.1 Definitions:
Male and Female- Athletes may compete in 'male' and 'female' categories based on the sex as defined on their birth certificate. Transgender athletes may compete in a category based on the principles outlined in the IOC consensus meeting for sex reassignment and hyperandrogenism 2015.
I in no way will support writing into our rulebook that we plan to let transgender athletes compete in the category based on the principles outlined in IOC consensus. "The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition"
Reasons
- We are not going to uphold this.
- We will not be testing for this.
- It will only affect a current rider that people know who then transitions and not a rider who transitioned before anyone knew them.
If someone transitioned 4 years ago, has regular testosterone levels of 15nmol/L and then begins unicycling 2 years after transitioning (as a female) she will look female and compete as female. There will be no reason to suspect she has transitioned meaning she will not be asked to show that testosterone levels have been under the required level for the previous year.
Or are you proposing that every female who now competes will need to provide 1 years worth of testosterone results Ken?
Comment
Klaas Bil wrote:
> I don't think passports allow an indication like 'mixed' or 'transitioning' gender, so this would provide the clarity we need.
>
I know the UK had F, M and X passports before gender discrimination became the new ADHD.
Also AU has X passports:
https://www.passports.gov.au/passportsexplained/theapplicationprocess/eligibilityoverview/Pages/changeofsexdoborpob.aspx
I don't know, but think I prefer the word sex over the word gender, as IMHO the rulebook should be formal, not a hip and adopting to trending trannys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udI-Go8KK2Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHbaF8mdiHQ (warning: 20 minutes of your life, but maybe worth the watch)
But as women in CH (AKA Switzerland) only have the right to vote since 1971, I think this sex (or gender) discrimination "problem" can wait until Facebook and Instagram are the next MSN.
Steven Huges wrote:
> We are not going to uphold this.
> We will not be testing for this.
>
The word "we" is often meaning something different than "we"; I doubt you truly can talk on behalf of "we" premature.
Regardless, probably you are correct; I think the quoted IOC it's members are outsourcing these tasks also.
> "Sex is separated because recognise that males have physiological advantage over females in most types of competition."
>
In bicycling girls and boys (and those who identify as a fighter-helicopter) are mixed below 12 y/o.
> ...females in most types of competition."
>
Looking at freestyle I think the girls are ruling ATM. More than before.
So I actually don't see a reason to make any sex (or gender) distinct, and -if you truly care- it might be worth a proposal to not do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
I guess there may be a lengthy discussion of this hot topic ahead.
But is there anyone here who could indicate the size of this problem?
Is it (relative or absolute) much bigger than drugs abuse (in particular hormones - enhancing or not) among competitors?
In case this should become a rule, then I suggest to have just the very very last sentence of that IOC doc linked in OP.
Comment
There is a whole process of tests around what happens when we deliver a child with ambiguous genitalia. It does not apply to the vast majority.
In response to :
"Sex ambiguity and assigning the wrong sex happens more often than you expect. 1 in 1500 babies are suspected to be sexually ambiguous (source http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency)."
Having ambiguous or abnormal genitalia does not mean a child has no biological sex, or that a 'wrong' one is assigned.. There are only a few situations where it is difficult or impossible to determine biological sex- in a chimera where there are a mix of cells with XY and XX chromosomes, or in conditions where there is androgenic insensitivity, where there is subjectivity in what is more important- the biochemical vs genotypic sex.
Your web link attempts to include developmental abnormalities as a consideration of intersex.
For instance, it refers to hypospadias as a 'sex variation'. IT IS NOT. It is an developmental anomaly of the genitalia in a male child.
Likewise vaginal agenesis is a developmental anomaly in a female child. After all, we don't claim that babies born with oesophageal atresia aren't human beings because human beings do not have an oesophagus that comes to a dead end.
It would be as absurd as saying that you cannot determine the sex of a child after ritualistic circumcision, because their genitals have been mutilated. Or John Bobbitt would no longer be male if surgeons hadn't reattached his penis.
Babies with congenital adrenal hyperplasia also have a male/female sex. IF they happen to have abnormal genital development (generally in female CAH), the sex can be readily determined after further testing.
I take your point about birth certificates- I wasn't aware how readily they can be altered.
Either way, if the opinion of the rulebook committee that sexual physiological advantages do not matter, then we should abolish both male and female competition categories. It would be like having prizes for the top three competitors with blue eyes and top three competitors with brown eyes. And everything in between.
Comment
It is not that sexual advantages do not matter. It is that it is useless putting things into the rule book that unicycling competitions do not have the means to test or police.
Again how to do you propose to deal with
If someone transitioned from male to female at the age of 22 and then begins unicycling at 24 (as a female) and competes at UNICON at 26 yr old (as a female) all while having testosterone levels of 15nmol/L.
She looks female and enters as a a female. There is no reason to suspect she has transitioned from a male to female meaning she will not be asked to show that testosterone levels have been under the required level for the previous year.
The IUF doesn't test unicycle athletes, unless she opted to tell people she had transitioned from male to female how would we deal with this? Your suggestion for the rule book will ONLY work for people that are current known unicyclists who decide to transition not for any rider who learnt post transition. Unless you are proposing that every female who now competes will need to provide 1 years worth of testosterone results.
How would this admission to the rule book help (or be policed)
Comment
> "...more often than you expect. 1 in 1500 babies are suspected..." (super-reliable source)
>
That's having a flexible variable on both sides of the comparison.
If the ratio 1:1500 becomes "accepted science" -like global warming 97% consensus- then we're talking about less than 0.45 UNICON participant (disregarding that this isn't a problem at Hockey and Basketball).
So, is the problem truly significant enough to justify creating bigger complications?
> then we should abolish both male and female competition categories.
>
In all honestly I think that would be no problem in for exmple expert freestyle (except that it's painful there's less medals to divide). Same for slow-racing, and there even including ages!
Also it's not a problem in pairs. But in flatland, trial and racing, yes, that would not go that well.
Comment
Interesting discussion. I mainly agree to Steve that we are light years away from being able to test this. We had those Doping discussions in the past and figured out that we are far away form beeing able to follow the doping rules as there is no know how about it and also it would be very expensive for the riders. As long as Unicycling is not a professional sport (which means for me a Sport where you get payed for doing it), we shouldnt start implementing stuff we can't handle. The IOC is maybe the worst sample for a sport Federation, you see in IOC / UCI / IAAF / FIFA... that all of them have those rules while they are not able to follow them / don't like to take them serious... Their Sports follow the rules on money business, our Sport not.
If the original Rulebook used the word SEX anywhere and we now use the word Gender anywhere, it had to be changed back anyway as the original wording is the right wording.
Comment
Ok, fair enough.
It was more to say we have guideline to allow fair competition, whilst avoiding discrimination based on gender identity. I thought it was worth having even if it cannot (or will rarely) be enforced.
As it stands, if there is conflict because someone has a physiological advantage due to gender transition/issues, we will have to deal with it then.
I agree with Olaf's statement:
"If the original Rulebook used the word SEX anywhere and we now use the word Gender anywhere, it had to be changed back anyway as the original wording is the right wording."
If we remove all references of 'gender' and 'sex' and simply use 'male' and 'female' in the rulebook, as previously, then it avoids further discussion. We can keep our fingers crossed that we never have to arbitrate on this.
Comment
Leave gender identity alone and use male or female is fine with me.
Comment
I agree. If we settle on this, will someone (Olaf?) make sure that this (removing "sex" and "gender" and use only "male" and "female") is implemented throughout the rulebook?
Comment
I agree.
Comment
Good idea, We should do a simple proposal to make sure that it will be done, I will do that right now.
Comment
I have seen the proposal but there are several issues with it.
The link to "associated discussion" should go here, but it goes to an unrelated discussion.
The proposal says OLD RULE does not exist. This is not true, there are two occurrences of "sex" and seven occurrences of "gender". (Easy to find them in the pdf by using CTRL+F.) It is not obvious how each of them should be reworded, simply replacing by "male / female" is not good enough. I think a native speaker should look into rewording each one of them.
Comment
EDIT: the link to "associated discussion" seems to work correctly now. Maybe this was only a one-off quirk.
Comment
I update the proposal and list all Chapters I found (don't be confused that there is one chapter less then Klaas count, the wording appears two times in one chapter). I also add the need of a native speaker to do this change.
Comment
I agree to this principe. Just wondering if we should vote about actual rulebook text rather than about the mere idea that this will be changed 'behind the scenes'.
Comment
Wow! a lot of energy was expended to talk about a subject that is hopfully irrelevant for us for a long time... knock wood.
By talking about it, we may have invited our first competitor of a non-standard gender/sex!
Comment
By talking about it? Since these discussions are not publicly accessible, he/she/it must be in our midst... :spies around:
Comment
Is this considered ready to vote? I don't think so. We have no actual text to vote on, just the intention that it will be changed without us seeing the actual changes. This will propably end up in a Disagree from me.
Can we enlist a native English speaker to make the changes so that we can see them and perhaps comment on them, before we vote?
Comment
This is Ken Looi's baby I am sure he is happy to make the changes
Comment
I'm not so sure that Ken is happy with what has become of his baby.
Comment
Haha well he is quite adamant that we need to use the term sex not gender and I think very few of us are even concerned with that so the alternative is that not even that part will change.
Using word "gender" or "sex" is not important for where our sport is currently (and I think most of us know that). We will play the waiting game. If someone feels strongly enough about it they can go through the rulebook and make the changes, at the moment I am guessing Ken is the only one though.
Comment
It was Ken who agree to idea and wrote: "If we remove all references of 'gender' and 'sex' and simply use 'male' and 'female' in the rulebook, as previously, then it avoids further discussion. We can keep our fingers crossed that we never have to arbitrate on this."
So the proposal do exactly this. If a native speaker can do all changes right now, Im fine to wait but I see no reason to do it now as the proposal is pretty clear and simple and the changed rulebook will be forwarded to any committee member before it becomes final so everybody can check the changes and complain if there is a change in what a rule mean. In this case here I think it is a pure change of words and grammer. So please comment a short "vote" or "first do all changes" to give me an idea if I should start the voting or wait for whoom ever to do all changes right now.
Comment
Beside all that I think Ken is 100% right in his main idea, we just all agree that we are not at a point to follow this detailed path and also Ken agree that it is to early.
Comment
OK, I somehow missed Ken's approval.
Olaf wrote: So please comment a short "vote" or "first do all changes"
I vote "first do all changes" so that we can vote for actual text and not just a principle. If there are nine occurrences and it's merely a pure change of words and grammar, Ken (?) should be able to do it in 15 minutes.
Comment
I was about to do a proposal, but Olaf had kindly already done one. We were camping in Australia with limited internet.
I am in agreement with the proposal as written by Olaf.
If we are not ready to define what it means to have 'gender' and 'sex' based competition, then all references to this needs to be removed from the rulebook.
We simply use 'male and 'female' instead of 'male gender' and 'female gender'.
Comment
Simple fix. Also agree with Olaf's proposal.
Comment
Also agree with Olaf's proposal.
Comment
Klaas, I have now "done all changes". Everyone, please check over my edits and comment as necessary. Especially for 4D.6.
Comment
Thank you Scott. I appreciate that we can discuss actual text.
I like what you wrote. But indeed, 4D.6 is not very clear, and especially with the 'and/or' it can be misinterpreted. What about this alternative:
At Unicon, if there are five or more geared male riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest three ungeared male riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event.
Similarly, if there are five or more geared female riders in an Unlimited event at Unicon, the fastest three ungeared female riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event.
It's wordier, but also clearer in my opinion.
Comment
Klaas, it's very unfortunately wordier, but certainly makes it clear. I have revised the proposal and will keep it so unless someone suggests a better edit.
Comment
Thanks Scott! Seems now everybody / most people here agree and so I can start the voting process.