Thread by @FondOfBeetles

Regarding case-by-case inclusion, here is the full section in the new Sports Councils UK guidelines for transgender inclusion.

https://twitter.com/void_if_removed/status/1443510859523842048

‘Case-by-case’ assessment is unlikely to be practical nor verifiable for entry into gender [sex] affected sports.
NGBs [national governing bodies] may wish to consider the following when determining the appropriateness of this:

> It has not been scientifically validated as to whether any parameters of physical capacity or ability can be defined with a certain cut-off point at which someone is considered appropriately ‘female’ or appropriately ‘male’.

> Many tests related to sports performance are volitional. This means a person must try their very best to get an appropriate measurement.

It is difficult to foresee how someone could be expected to provide maximal effort when a positive outcome for them relies on achieving a lesser result.

> Panel members are unlikely to be able to manage a situation in which their decisions can determine the suitability of some individuals, and not others. In the absence of a scientific rationale this places the panel members in a difficult situation.

> Case-by-case analysis may fall outside of the provisions of the Equality Act (whereby provision is for average advantage not individual advantage) and may be based on criteria which cannot be lawfully justified.

Some transgender people will be included, some will be excluded through criteria outside of their own control.
----------
Both @runthinkwrite and @Scienceofsport have provided excellent analysis of the pitfalls of case-by-case.

Here are Jon's extensive arguments against case-by-case:

https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1443492784422494211?s=20

And here is the summary of @SexMattersOrg response to England Rugby.

"The criteria by which the RFU proposes to screen individual transwomen who appear to undermine fairness for and the safety of female rugby players is not based on scientific evidence.

The assessment process lacks detail or qualifying guidelines, is inconsistent with existing RFU policies and is unworkable for those tasked with such screening and assessment.

Furthermore, the screening and assessment process will stigmatise individual transwomen while cementing sexist ideas of femininity.

From: sex-matters.org/wp-content/upl…

And I look forward to this upcoming research by @cathydevine56, who works so hard to protect the femal category.

https://twitter.com/cathydevine56/status/1443464647865217025?s=20