Thread by @FondOfBeetles

One of the claims used to justify inclusion of transwomen in female sport is that they do not dominate in female categories, therefore any male advantage they retain after transition cannot be considered an unfair advantage. 1/

The observations that TW are often beaten by females (true enough) or that no TW has ever qualified for the Olympics (no mechanism exists to determine the veracity of this statement; it’s going to change in 2020 anyway) seem to support the central claim. 2/

So in what sense can a TW who doesn’t win, or perhaps even qualify for, female sports competitions be deemed to have an unfair advantage? 3/

Take a female athlete who pumps herself full of androgens, trains 8 hours a day every day, recovers well, builds large muscle mass and, consequently, boosts her 100m sprint from a natural 12s to an enhanced 11s. 4/

Now, she isn’t winning female Olympic gold with an 11s 100m; in fact, she’s closer to the back than the front of the field. But with her natural 12s 100m pace, she isn’t even qualifying for the competition. 5/

If she is still taking androgens at the time of her 8th place Olympic final finish, do we ignore the results of her urine test because she didn’t win? Do we let athletes enhance their performance as long as they don’t get too good? Of course not. 6/

Nobody believes that a doping female should be allowed to compete, even if she is not winning. We don’t shrug and say “Oh well, she’s not taking medals so no harm done”. 7/

What if she’s no longer doping when she enters that Olympic competition? Her pee is purer than holy water and her 8th place stands as a fair run. She gets a bit of fame, dines out on her success, and depending on country of birth, becomes a national treasure. 8/

But what happens when her doping history is discovered? That while she has been running clean for a year, she was doping for the previous 10 years? 9/

Her career is done. Any accolades she has acquired are probably stripped. She will be suspended from competition, perhaps indefinitely. Her name will be mud. Even though she didn’t ever win a gold medal. 10/

Nobody believes that a historic drug cheat should escape sanction, even if they are currently clean. We don’t shrug and say “Oh well, that’s all in the past, her androgen levels are fine now so what’s the problem?” 11/

Because we recognise the *headstart* athletes gain by taking a banned substance, currently or historically – ability to train, recover, build, etc. We understand that, even if she’s now clean, without that headstart she would not make the Olympics in the first place. 12/

We know that without the headstart, she wouldn’t have made 8th place in the final, and we know that the achievement, the fame, the respect and the entry in the sporting records belonged to someone else. 13/

If it’s straightforward, as I believe it is, to understand why a female with a doping headstart is deemed to have an unfair advantage in competition *even if she’s not challenging medals*, why such a blind spot when we think about males competing in female sports? 14/

A male transitioning at 25 years old has, just like our doping female, a 10 year history of high androgens, doing all the great things androgens do to physical prowess. 15/

Why is this TW, but not our recently-doping female, allowed to compete in female sports? Why is male history not considered a headstart relevant to fair competition? 16/

The TW gets a free pass because they are not winning? That same argument does not apply to our doping female. We know it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t win – it is the headstart, not the final placement, that is the unfair aspect. 17/

The TW gets a free pass because they are not intending to cheat? WADA and national policies are all clear that “lack of intent” is no defence. If you are found to have taken a banned substance – one that enhances athletic performance – that is the bottom line. 18/

That is, it matters not whether you intended to enhance your performance, or indeed whether your performance was actually enhanced, but whether there is a substance that could have enhanced your performance present in your body. 19/

The current sports situation would bar a female with a history of high androgens from competition but allow a TW with a history of high androgens to compete. That starts to look like discrimination on the basis of sex. 20/

The TW gets a free pass because being nice to a marginalised person is more important than their headstart? I’d love to know how a detransitioned transman with a long testosterone history would be received when trying to enter female sports. 21/

A headstart not available to your competitors is clearly an unfair advantage. Our TW athlete has had, just like our doping female, a headstart on the remainder of the field, a potential for an extra second, a potential not available to others. 22/

There is no requirement that someone with a headstart wins a race. If a TW, even with this headstart, fails to win, then, like our doping female, they are simply *not very good*. But not being very good does not mean there is no unfair advantage. End/

A note: I have presented the question (more briefly) to various advocates of TW inclusion, of how historic doping in females should be viewed in reference to the inclusion of TW with their bio history.

Most recently @DrDavid_Hughes

They don’t answer.