Talk:Transgender people in sports/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eogle1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meza s1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amesss.b. Peer reviewers: Katieodin15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 9 September 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SCLogan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icedcoffee2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tloren5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019, between 28 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonahx11!. Peer reviewers: Anaber123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadenle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Possible addition: I would like to add the view and regulations that the NCAA has on this topic. I will be discussing the rules the student athletes have to abide by when transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eogle1 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits to make: Adding rules/regulations section, adding links to: many actual athletes, history and/or history of rules, an explanation of 'transgender' vs 'transsexual' and 'transgender' vs 'intersex', more explanation of estrogen's importance, young athletes, rules (high/middle school, etc), possibly add visual, otherwise adding links to related pages including: Olympics,; adding sources. Clarify "exemptions". Hormone.org link is broken. Define: natal sex, intersex. Maybe say something briefly about separation of hormonal/physical attributes and gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsoc (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: still need to flesh out all sections, add more See Alsos

Fix legal stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsoc (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not sure what is going on with the naming of this page, but Wikipedia policy is very clear in WP:TITLEFORMAT that sentence case should be used. The title should be reverted to Transgender people in sports. Trankuility (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Backwards?

This sentence in #Testing seems exactly backwards to me:

The intense scrutiny of transgender athletes has focused on trans men because it is generally assumed that transitioning from a man to a woman would not confer a competitive advantage.

Seems to me that should be, "trans woman" and "woman to a man". Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by IP in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Editing to article

I would like to add in a section about the Iron Ladies, a Thailand volleyball team because the article needs more examples of transgender people in sports outside the US. I also would like to expand on the United States section of secondary education. Each state; has made their own choices on regulations regarding transgender people in sports in lots of information about policy in secondary education (high schools in the US) because there was not much detail about policies per state, and how trans athletes were being included. My intended contributions are on my sandbox page. Icedcoffee2001 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggest adding section on records set by trans athletes

There have been several transgender women who have set records 21 Jan 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.252.33 (talk • contribs)

If there are sources about that, then sure. Got any? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What are transmen's opinions on transwomen's participation in women's sports?

Can the article please include their opinions? I don't know where to find them but i assume editors here can. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:49F1:133B:1B13:9B16 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

edits to trans athletes article

-edited summary to reflect that concerns about MtF athletes focus on height/weight and socialisation as well as testosterone levels

-removed biased sentence re: "percieved advantages" (in inverted commas) of trans athletes, and changed this to a straightforward, non-emotive description of the controversy at hand.

-Deleted whole section about broadly LGBT sports competitons because it was too far from the topic of the article, there are other articles about gay/lesbian sports which would be a much better fit for the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

- the template box at lead of article says it needs a less biased perspective but any attempt to provide this is immediately reversed. It is biased to remove a sentence that acknowledges biological sex and sex hormone controlled muscle and weight development. By reversing the edit User:Mathglot has maintained the bias in the article.SheWhoSees (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take it in multiple, smaller bites so that if there's some objection to a portion of it it can be handled more easily. If we are talking about the same section (hard to tell, from the big edit but I think so) then I would agree that that information would be more relevant elsewhere. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Coming back to this, is there any specific objections to the above points? AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please stand by, my plate is full but I'll get back to you. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see, you have made multiple separate edits; I haven't had a chance to look yet, but that's the way to go; will respond when I can. Thanks for your input, Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Only questionable thing for me is "testosterone levels among trans-identified males". It's unclear who this is referring to (trans men or trans women) and I'm concerned it's referring to trans women. If that's the case, the language needs to be fixed as they aren't "trans-identified males". EvergreenFir (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Many people who are not immersed in trans issues but want to read something like wikipedia do like to have phrases that continue to use language they understand. 'Trans identified male' is a phrase that ordinary people will understand when this may be the first article they read. SheWhoSees (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I study this and it's unclear to me. Trans woman is the standard language here. The previous language could easily have been read to mean trans men. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'here' User:EvergreenFir Do you mean that wikipedia does not use common language, so readers who are not already well informed, can still understand the article? Or do you mean pages on trans issues must use only particular words?SheWhoSees (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Sorry it took a while. To your early question, and going backwards from the top (most recent first; i.e., I won't even get to the edit you asked about earlier, this time, I'll have to split my response):

• 15:01 12/21 (clarify better): agreed.
• 15:05, 12/21 (not just excluding from all sports): That seems reasonable, and probably true, but as the lead needs to summarize the body, and the body is not clear about this, can you put this information clearly in the body of the article, first, and source it? Once there, the lead can reflect that content. Can you point to where the body already does say this? If not, I would revert it.
• 14:54, 12/21 (Grammar change): yes.
• 09:57, 12/19 (Why link to doping?) agreed.
• 09:56, 12/19 (Mentioned in article now) agreed.
• 09:55, 12/19 ( Reorganise slightly. Make Olympics a subheading...) Generally like this. It sort of begs for another subhead higher up, to balance the Olympics one; "Intro" seems kind of meaningless, as there seem to be several topics there. But there's actually a bigger problem here, although I realize it isn't connected with this (or any) change of yours, namely the section heading 'History of transgender athletes in competition'. If you look at what's in that section, it looks more like the History of challenges to transgender atheletes in women's competition'. (The same could be said for the article title.) Is there any such thing as transmen trying to compete in men's events? I suspect not, but the article doesn't say. Are there transgender athletes who have competed and not been challenged, either won, lost, or whatever, in the way that any other athlete does, without going through all this? We don't know that, either. So I see room for more reorg, and some section renames, or new sections, here.
• 09:50, 12/19 Thanks for fixing the editors and other detail in that ref.

More later, thanks for all your work on this! Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@SheWhoSees:, Regarding your terminology question: I agree with EvergreenFir that the term is very problematic in that sentence and must be changed. I have learned the term "trans identified male" fairly recently, and I don't believe its use is standardized, yet. I strongly reject the comment that ordinary people will understand what this means; I suspect they will either draw a blank or be completely confused by it on the one hand, or else they will understand precisely the opposite of what it means (in the sense that I see developing). By this reckoning, the term "trans identified male" identifies a minuscule percentage of all trans people, and is defined as an individual assigned male at birth who affirms a gender identity of "transgender" (who may decline to identify as trans woman although they superficially resemble a trans woman), and affirms a sex of "male." The trans identified male presents as a woman (dress, deportment, look), uses feminine identifiers (given name, pronouns), and denies being motivated by entertainment or professional reasons (not a drag queen, impersonator, or hustler). They may express essentialist views of gender, and may be viewed as a transphobic trans person (or as a cisgender transvestic fetishist) by some trans women. I'd love to know where you saw this phrase, and what your understanding of it is.

This is clearly not what is meant in the sentence about testosterone levels, although I wouldn't hazard a guess about what is meant by it, which is a good enough reason right there to change it to something unambiguous. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Will get back to this. I have ot consider how to answer your position on interpreted meanings User:MAthglot I can see that since two of you agree, I am outnumbered.SheWhoSees (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot is correct. And to answer your questions, neither. By "here" I was referring to the text that was previously on this article. It was unclear what "trans identified male" meant. It appeared to be a clumsy way of saying "trans woman", a term whose definition is rather set (we have an article about it after all). Or perhaps it was meant as a slight to trans women by calling them "males". Either way, it was ambiguous and rightfully corrected. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

SWS, I wouldn't worry so much about a 2::1 "outnumbering," as consensus (which is what we are after, here, right?) doesn't come from sheer numbers (which is why they call it a NOTVOTE) but from the reasoning behind it. Plus, who knows, the next ten opinions may all agree with yours. (I don't think so, but you never know. ) I'm interested in what you think, regardless of numbers. Do you recall where you saw it, and how you interpreted the meaning?

EvergreenFir's conjecture of "trans identified male" being either an innocent mistake by someone naive about the topic, or an insult makes sense to me. In the latter case, I wonder if it could be a purposeful misgendering by someone knowledgeable about the topic at the expense of someone who did not self-identify that way, with the intent either to insult them, or perhaps with the primary intent to express or trumpet their own group identity to other clan members by "performing essentialness," at the cost of a callous disregard of someone else's feelings. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would consider the additions I made to the history section as a start and nowhere near broad coverage yet. It may need rearranging as I (or anyone else) adds information. I would think that the Olympics is a big enough part of this to justify a sub heading in either case. Most of the sources and controversy seems to surround transwomen competing in womens sports so the article will probably be dominated by that aspect, but we should try and include mentions of the reverse. I would also guess the trans athletes that don't get challenged generally don't make the news so it can be harder to find info on them. At the end of the day we can only include what has already been recorded. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathglot how will consensus work when two of you are agreeing and reversing my edits amongst many conjectures from you both?SheWhoSees (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Purported" in the intro

I have reinstated the long-standing use of the word "purported" in this edit to the intro. This has been in the article at least since last year (I haven't checked back any further) so I think we need a good reason to remove or change it. I do understand that "purported" reads a little odd but I think that just removing it is far, far worse. I'll explain why.

• "the purported aim of ensuring fair competition" is what we actually have here. People are doing a thing and they are purporting this as their aim.
• "the aim of ensuring fair competition" may or may not be a factual statement. Who can say whether they are honestly representing their own aims? Is their aim "ensuring fair competition" or is that a dishonest excuse given for discrimination?

Not that my personal opinion matters here, but I'd be willing to bet that sometimes it is sincere and sometimes it is not.

So, what should we do? We need to be neutral. We need to find a way to state that this is what is claimed to be the reason for these restrictions but do it in a way that does not pronounce either way (either directly or by inference) on either the sincerity or the correctness of this approach.

Using "purported" is factually correct but the problem is that it does tend to read as a raised eyebrow. Replacing it with "claimed" seems to be no better. I don't really know how to fix this for optimal neutrality. All I know for sure is that "purported" is definitely better than nothing, hence I have reinstated it pending discussion. Does anybody have any ideas for improvements? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're creating an issue out of nothing. The description of the aim behind restrictions is not an example of Wikipedia parroting what the people behind them say, but instead summarizing the sources' discussions of the topic. The Daily Maverick source, for example, discusses that the issue is surrounding an attempt to "ensure performance equality".

Either way, the use of "purported" is explicitly against MOS:ALLEGED, as I previously pointed out, and there's no reason that material against the Manual of Style should remain on a temporary basis while editors capitulate to find an alternative you're comfortable with. --Equivamp - talk 21:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "purported" is not the best approach. So how can we reword it? How would we word it if we were talking about rules to segregate sport on racial grounds? We certainly would not say "with the aim of ensuring fair competition" in such a scenario even if that was what the segregationists claimed. I'm not sure exactly what is best but maybe something along the lines of:

"Access regulations requiring that trans athletes compete against athletes of the same assigned sex at birth and requiring sex verification testing have been used. Proponents of such regulations regard them as necessary to ensure fair competition while opponents regard them as discriminatory."

Does that offer a way forward? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. (I think "There are concerns" in the body also needs revision to clarify: from whom?) -sche (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. "Concerns" is turning into a potentially weaselly word that can mean pretty much anything, from well founded concerns, to sincere but misplaced concerns to intentionally dishonest "concern trolling". Saying who is expressing the concerns and what they actually are gives the reader a chance to decide where they fall on this credibility spectrum without us needing to pronounce.

I'm going to swap in my proposed text in the intro now, as we all agree that what we have at the moment is not good. That's not intended to be the final word on the intro. Suggestions for further improvement are welcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent study on changes in strength during hormone therapy

I read this article today in relation to this topic:

https://ec.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/ec/8/7/EC-19-0196.xml

It showed that transitioning definitely affects strength the way you think it would:

"In transwomen, grip strength decreased with −1.8 kg (95% CI −2.6; −1.0), while in transmen, grip strength increased with +6.1 kg (95% CI +5.5; +6.7)."

And describes the overall effects compared to the baseline:

"After 12 months, the median grip strength of transwomen still falls into the 95th percentile for age-matched females. The median grip strength of transmen after 12 months falls into the 25th percentile of age-matched males (18). Thus, transwomen are still stronger than average females and transmen are still weaker than average males."

This article only covered 3 years of HRT, and the steepest losses in strength for transwomen were at the end of the study, so it's likely the differences would be more pronounced over a greater period of time, as they state in the article.

I'm not adding it to this article as I'm not sure what the quality of the journal is, as I'm not in the field (impact factor is 2.4 or so), and it only has one citation in the year it's been published. But I'll leave it here for more knowledgeable editors to deal with. It definitely doesn't settle any debates. Brirush (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable trans men

Looking at the list of trans men included at the bottom of the article, it appears that a number of them only competed as women (in the women's categories while IDing as women), went on to transition and then retired from athletics. Would the inclusion of these trans men, like Andreas Krieger and others, be appropriate for this article at all? Shouldn't this list be reserved for those like Chris Mosier who competed as their post-transition gender? AntiChirality (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think the list should be reserved for only those athletes? Surely the list would be remiss if it were to lack examples like Mack Beggs, whose notability revolves entirely around the fact that he was required to compete in the girls' league?

Also, re this edit, while Mark Weston should have been removed for not AFAICT identifying as trans, just like Schinegger in the edit before it, he would not in any way be appropriate for the trans woman section, as trans women are necessarily assigned male at birth. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing points of detail

It appears that much is missing from this article. I have tried to add some, but it was removed as the other user said they were differences in sex/gender? Which is odd, seeing as that is the entire point of this article.

1) Differentiation between trans athletes who started treatment before puberty and after puberty.

        -This is important because most pertinent differences will have occurred during puberty, such as muscle myonuceli density (which are presumed to be permanent for the most part). Though there are also differences between males and females that may affect athleticism pre-puberty, such as muscle fiber size and composition, some bone structures, etc. 

https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-016-0119-1

2) The differences between various sports. Long-distance running are sports that have very little difference between males and females. Males will generally have a more inherent advantage in power sports due to larger muscle fibers, height, limb ratios/mechanical advantage, bone density, muscle myonuclei density, etc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4285578/

      -Some of these differences are evident even with transwomen who have taken treatment since pre-puberty. 

3) Hosts of differences that affect athleticism between males and females, such as the fact that females have more connective tissue relative to men, which can limit their strength, meaning transwomen would have an inherently better composition for sports.

    -Males have different limb ratios and lengths which give them mechanical advantages. 
    -Males have more efficient respiratory systems physiologically, which would not be greatly affected by treatments.  
    -

4) Testosterone is not the only androgen relating to athleticism, and some think it is not even the most important one. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/22586/1/miller_andrea_1990Dec_masters.pdf.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs)

You can add sources as long as those sources talk about transgender people. Otherwise, if they're not mentioned at all, it's not allowed as WP:SYNTH. Please also read WP:MEDRS - we should be using review articles and other secondary sources for medical content. Otherwise material can be removed or disputed due to being weakly sourced. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

De-emphasize the "controversy"

The article should start with an overview of the topic. Then there could be a "controversy" section further down. That the article starts with the controversy is not how Wikipedia articles are generally written.

Some of the issues are also weirdly chosen: the concern that TG contenstants may injure non-TG opponents is wicked, and the issue of gay men in sport doesn't seem particularly relevant to this topic.

All in all, the article feels more like a rant than a proper Wikipedia article. Heleneht (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If it wasn't controversial we wouldn't have an article, and it should be front and centre in this article. I also note that the issue of gay men in sport is not discussed here, and your point about injury of TG opponents is a little obscure. Wicked? Have you seen the size of some TG women rugby players? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Where are gay men mentioned in the article exactly? Also, the issue of trans women injuring cis women is a concern discussed in multiple studies featured in the article, so it makes sense to include in the lede. X-Editor (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles are written in accordance with the sources on the topic, which focus on the controversy. Falsely reflecting an emphasis on something else is undue weight. Equivamp - talk 01:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all maybe we should make this a protected page

So... the trans ppl in sports page had a section that was full of misleading information. I changed its name to health to simplify it bc it had like 3 topics to it. I deeply despise misinformation delivered as fact, so I just wasted 5 hours of my life fixing it up to be more informative and centrist.

---

Here are some embarrassing issues I noticed that Im advocating for correcting--------

1) anyone can edit > this isnt that bad, but when discussing a deeply polarizing issue, that can lead to people posting unhelpful info to further their agenda

2) There was a lot of transphobia in the old health tab > this is the crux of my annoyance, as a scientist, I quickly found a lot of issues with things quoted.

>Emma N. Hilton's paper about transgender women in sports isn't necessarily bad, but she came to many conclusions with too little evidence, and was quoted as an expert. Doing minimal research, I discovered not only was her paper the first time she dipper her toe in the fields of endocrinology and sports science, but she also believes that transgender people are trying to make kids trans (which is weird) and obsessively tweeted (and celebrated) Laurel Hubbard's loss at the olympics. Her use as a source then shouldn't be acceptable due to the factor that she isn't reliable. >Dr. Vilian was also quoted to promote skepticism about transgender participation with their id'ed gender, but the info he provided was important to understanding why this is a tough topic, so I had to clarify his beliefs. THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT GOOD AND WE SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE MISLEADING DATA

>When it came to the army research and the rugby research, it was also important TO CULTIVATE A LESS BIASED SECTION to clarify how many people were in the studies, this helps the reader come to their own conclusions.

3) Carrying on with that theme, the health section very much lead the reader to a specific conclusion: TRANS WOMEN COMPETING AGAINST CIS WOMEN IS CHEATING, which isn't the scientific consensus-

> this is embarrassing to me bc i come to wiki for my own prelim looksies into topics, like i don't mean to input my opinion too much, but why the hell is there a section detailing how much better trans women are at sports than cis women when u can literally fit the whole list of notable trans athletes on a macbook screen without reformatting it. I understand testosterone/estrogen really affects the human body, but testosterone doesn't make u godzilla or smthing that puts cis women at immediate danger and we have to save them now. Trans women have participated in sports, openly, since the 70's at least, and only a since one has made it into the olympics. She came in last.

>This is all to say that I think it's fair to recognize the upperhand some trans women have been dealt when it comes to athletics, but the nuance was lost to the classic fear mongering of them being men in dresses with long hair. >Appealing to most people's high school level understanding of biology deeply offends me, the section didn't address the fact that this isn't a black and white issue. >What about intersex trans people, transgender children, and the transgender people that went on hormone blockers before puberty, then went through their desired puberty and have the anatomical/muscular proportions of cisgender people of that gender? >Nothing. >Honestly, what about the trans women that are physically weaker than cis men, even before hormones? nothing

>Engaging with the discourse requires people to address all the nuance, and sadly this page hasn't and it's hurt however many people who visited this page looking for info's understanding of the debate

4) This is why I clarified the debate beforehand

5) Seriously, I think we should make it private for integrity reasons >like no joke, pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhvanstory (talk • contribs)

Since this article appears to be your second ever edit to Wikipedia, perhaps you misunderstand what being "centrist" (more properly, WP:NPOV) means on Wikipedia. It isn't about what we personally feel to be balanced, but about representing the most WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight. As this topic is a medical topic, WP:MEDRS applies. This means we represent medical aspects of the topic based on how recent academic review articles do so. The news media is absolutely not a WP:MEDRS. And since this topic is politicized, much like climate change and others, they can be especially dubious. Your personal opinions and WP:Original research about Hilton are quite irrelvant. She is only one of the two authors, and the article was peer-reviewed and published in one of the top journals in its field. Certainly many of those who don't like what that article found have their own personal political views and even advocacy, and most of them haven't published any scientific articles. This review article, co-authored by transgender runner Joanna Harper that same year, found much the same results. Reliability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with editors' opinions of writers' opinions.

I have removed the sound bite from Vilain and preserved your bit about the rugby decision for now. The rest of your comment appears to be entirely your opinions. If you find WP:MEDRS sources on these things, then please share. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has recently been given extended protection. This limits it to experienced editors. This seems like a smart move but it clearly isn't going to solve all of our problems. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Big rewrite?

I have reverted an attempt at a big rewrite of the article. The page format was severely mangled and I don't think that the attempt to introduce a table with columns and icons for "Birth Sex and Transition" and "Sex Category of Competition" was at all helpful. I have not reviewed every single thing about the rewrite so I am not in a position to say that it was all bad. Do we think there is anything to be recovered from this? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor reinstated their rewrite and has fixed the formatting issues. I still do not see the columns as helpful. They also used POV dogwhistle phases like "biological male" so I have reverted again and invited them to discuss it here. Here is their version (diff). --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the tables fwiw, and wouldn't want them returned to the article as they'd become bigger and more unmanageable. I also dont like the way the rewrite invented a new sport called "Boston Marathon" either. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

Paragraph that states “ A 2021 literature review concluded that for trans women, even with testosterone suppression, "the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant."[33]” fails to highlight that this was an opinion piece by three authors who were subsequently required to publish a correction as they had filed to declare significant conflict of interest having gained employment from gender critical/anti-trans talks and the literature review failed to be conducted in a systematic way and there is considerable bias in the research included into the review. For example, failing to include studies that demonstrate no significant advantage of trans women vs cis women eg this study https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/Supplement_1/A792/6241278 85.255.232.35 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Though I think you're right that the sentence should changed, it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format when making a proposal with the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece but a review article. It meets WP:MEDRS completely and was published in a top journal in its field. Its reliability, in the Wikipedia sense, derives from where it was published and its peer review, and as a WP:SECONDARY source for the research done on the topic. The personal opinions of authors are irrelevant, same as with other papers. The cited material is based on the current version hosted on PubMed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Chloe Anderson competed openly in collegiate women's volleyball in 2014 and was featured in the Olympic Identify series as the only female transgender athlete competing openly in the NCAA in 2016. She made it to State playoffs for beach volleyball for the Spring 2015 season in the California Community College Athletic Association and earned multiple titles for first team all conference in the Orange Empire Conference. She was also worked with the ACLU on the Hecox case in Idaho 2600:8802:1815:D00:58FB:AB97:27D1:5503 (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2021 (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)

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: [1]

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)

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." [2][3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Agreed; my impression has been that the topic is referred to as being about transgender people by sources, by far, not "gender variant people". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 26 April 2024 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydcg (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cycling

The UCI has prohibited participation of female transgender athletes who have transitioned after (male) puberty in women's events on the elite UCI International Calendar.

• UCI (Jul 14, 2023). "The UCI adapts its rules on the participation of transgender athletes in international competitions". 68.12.132.227 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2024

A cycling sub-section should be added to the world bodies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.132.227 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)