FINA BRINGS FAIRNESS AND RATIONALITY BACK TO SWIMMING

Grass roots activism can have a world wide effect as world swimming’s governing body has listened to women and coaches, but why are most world governing bodies still failing women’s sport?

The inclusion of ‘transgender’ athletes in female sports categories has migrated from being an issue mostly discussed within individual sports to one that has become part of a very public international debate. Whilst the topic is not new, the publicity that surrounded the exploits of Lia Thomas during the last college swim season in the USA put the controversy onto the front pages.

For those who either do not recall the furore or have been living under a rock for the past few months, Thomas is a biological male who used to swim for Penn State’s men’s team with, it has to be said, limited success. Thomas now self-identifies as a woman and, after a period of transition and hormone treatment, was allowed, under the rules as they then were, to compete in the female category in various college-level events. Unsurprisingly perhaps, with the significant and well-understood benefits of having gone through a full male puberty, Thomas was extraordinarily successful. Pictures of Thomas on the winner’s podium dwarfing the women who filled the other places speak for themselves. The tall, broad-shouldered and narrow-hipped Thomas was clearly a completely different physical specimen to the women in those races. This outward manifestation of the differences between the sexes merely hints, however, at the more deep-rooted advantages that flow from the androgenisation effects of male puberty.

Whilst Thomas’s story was playing out in the world of American swimming, British Cycling, the UK’s national cycling governing body, clearly felt left out and decided to make its own bid for notoriety. Enter one Emily Bridges, another fully intact biological male athlete who had been competing very recently as a man. Having followed a similar ‘transition’ path to Lia Thomas, Bridges was due to compete in the female category of the British National Omnium Championships during the weekend of April 2nd. At the 11th hour, Bridges was barred from competing following a decision by the world governing body, the UCI, which confirmed that Bridges remained registered with British Cycling as a male athlete and thus could not compete in the female category. As the date of writing this article, that registration has not changed.

British Cycling issued a press release in which it explained that both they and Bridges were extremely disappointed, not least because there had been ongoing discussions with the UCI for some time, with the stated objective of facilitating Bridges’ participation. British Cycling had clearly approached the whole issue from a particular ideological perspective that promoted inclusivity at the expense of any degree of fairness.

Further public debate occurred involving both athletes (by no means the only ones profiting from inclusive approaches around the world) and these led to changes or suspensions of the relevant policies on transgender inclusion pending further reviews. Neither national governing body has, to my knowledge, concluded any such review as yet but there has been movement on the international stage.

The central argument concerns the efficacy of current policies in reaching an appropriate balance between the perceived need for inclusion of ‘trans women’ within female sport and fairness and safety for ‘natal’ women. From the International Olympic Committee downwards the almost universal emphasis has been on prioritising inclusion over fairness. This has been facilitated by a very specific approach based on, essentially, two main factors – testosterone suppression regimes and time. Put simply, the only requirement for a biologically male athlete to be able to compete in women’s sport has been the provision of a consistent, reduced level of testosterone over a specific period of time. There is no requirement, for example, for any form of surgical intervention so at the elite level it has been the perceived wisdom that fairness can be achieved if fully intact biological males simply reduce their testosterone levels. Initially, the IOC guidelines required biological male athletes to suppress testosterone to a consistent level of less than 10 nano-moles per litre for a minimum period of 12 months. More recently, governing bodies including those for swimming and cycling have lowered the permitted levels to 5 nano-moles per litre.

This approach has a myriad of flaws, both scientific and ethical. Ignoring the science issues for a moment the most egregious problem is that the very essence of these policies is fundamentally misogynistic. Women are being told that they are just men with less testosterone – the very idea is demeaning and should have no place in 21st century policy-making. What is worse is that even if all other things were equal (which they are not) the permitted levels of testosterone under the most recent rules are still approximately three times higher than the average female range, which is between 1.12 and 1.79 nano-moles per litre. Even as the rules are currently formulated, therefore, there is no requirement for men to reduce their T levels to a figure remotely close to being within the typical female range. Just take a moment to think about that; what message does that send? Not only is fairness erroneously considered simply a question of testosterone levels but those sanctioned levels would not even go close to levelling down T as between biological males and biological females. Clearly, these bodies have been content to sacrifice any semblance of real fairness on the alter of inclusive ideology.

But the nonsensical position does not end there because even if the testosterone suppression that was required actually reduced levels down to within the female range that still would not centre fairness above inclusion. This is because concentrating exclusively on T suppression ignores the major advantages that men have over women in most sport – broader shoulders, narrower hips, longer levers, bigger lung capacity, bigger hands, bigger heart and blood circulation capacity and so on. These are the result of the androgenisation produced by male puberty and their performance consequences are easy to identify. In track and field athletics, for example, all of the male world records are approximately 10% better than the equivalent female ones. Furthermore, thousands of 15 year-old boys produce performances every year that are superior to the female world records. The pattern in swimming is similar. The unfairness is obvious for anyone to see if not blinded by ideology and politics.

The responses of governing bodies and activists promoting ‘inclusive’ policies have a similar motif – that the science isn’t settled, that the science we have is somehow flawed and, in reality, such advantages as described above don’t exist. Why not then, they say, just be kind and inclusive, for to do otherwise would be clearly motivated by transphobia. This is usually coupled with a demand for ‘better science’ (by which they mean science that supports their position) and wider discussions.

The true position is that the science is very clear. The UK Sports Council’s Equality Group produced revised guidance in September 2021 following a comprehensive review of the available research. Its conclusion, in brief, was unequivocal – that an inclusion policy based on T suppression is unlikely ever to produce fair competition between ‘trans women’ athletes and natal female athletes because of the long-lasting advantages produced by male puberty. That should be the end of the matter, but of course it is not. We now have the spectacle of trans athletes saying that they are participating in new research in this area and that this will demonstrate ‘once and for all’ that there is no inherent long-lasting physical advantage that is enjoyed by biological males who suppress testosterone levels. Any such research will be meaningless, of course. The objective (to prove a truth which the researchers believe to be self-evident) in itself invalidates any possible scientific value. The participants know what findings are desired and the research will not involve, therefore, even blind studies, let alone double blind ones. Such ‘research’ will not produce evidence but simply more propaganda, which is all the inclusion activists have ever had.

Despite having the opportunity to change direction and begin to prioritise fairness over a misguided notion of inclusion, governing bodies continue to fail women. On 16th June the UCI announced new rules. Rather than acknowledge that reducing T levels can never lead to fairness, the UCI has merely extended the required transition time to 24 months and lowered the permitted consistent T level to 2.5 nano-moles per litre. The science behind this is of extremely dubious quality and no doubt Emma Hilton will demonstrate this with her usual eloquence in due course.

This decision is cowardice in the face of political bullying and women deserve better. It amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down the road a few metres instead of addressing scientific reality. Surely now is the time for Britain’s female cyclists to stand up and say that enough is enough. Follow the example of downhill mountain biker Jane Page and show some self-respect and pride. Where are the voices of Laura Kenny, Sarah Storey et al? What about all of those familiar names from British Cycling’s recent period of success – Chris Hoy, Jason Kenny, Victoria Pendleton, Rebecca Romero, Mark Cavendish and the like? Are these stars willing to remain silent in the face of unfairness?

And then there is FIFA, as ever the bastion of reason, common sense and critical thinking in the midst of chaos. Faced with overwhelming evidence that having biological males in female sport is unfair (and indeed, in a fast contact sport, incredibly dangerous, FIFA has bitten the bullet and decided to reverse its transgender policy. Not, however, as one might imagine, with the objective of promoting fairness and safety for women by further limiting the inclusion of biological males in women’s football. No. FIFA’s ‘solution’ (and I am being really generous with that description) is to remove all of the limits on participation. So, no testosterone suppression required at all. This will lead to nothing other than the complete erasure of women’s football. I look forward to the football world rising up in opposition to this attempt to remove the very concept of female football. Male professional footballers might just be the most powerful group of sports stars in the world so, come on fellas, let’s have some collective action to support the integrity of the women’s game. If enough of you refused to participate in anything sanctioned by FIFA or any national body that adopts such a policy you could make all the difference. Gary Lineker, Jamie Carragher, Alan Shearer. Gary Neville – you too have clout. Let’s be havin’ you!!

But not all is doom and gloom, however. Returning to the Lia Thomas story I propose three cheers for FINA, the world governing body for swimming, which has today announced a blanket ban on all biological males who have been through male puberty from competing in female categories at an elite level. It is undoubtedly the case that this policy change has come about due to the hard work and commitment of women athletes, their families and coaches, supported by a plethora of scientific experts and a collection of superstar former elite-level athletes. They have all taken a brave public stand to support the integrity of female-only support in the face of bullying ideologues and have demonstrated that reason and common sense can prevail. It may not have a perfect solution to the fairness v inclusion question but FINA is very much heading in the right direction. The suggestion that a third ‘open’ category might be an option in which trans athletes could compete is not new but it does need refining. If FINA can get this right and other governing bodies can follow suit then we will soon discover whether this was, actually, all about a desire to be allowed to participate and compete or whether it was just mediocre males wanting to win something, anything, at all costs and at the expense of women.