THE Commonwealth Games has, largely, passed without too much controversy so far. But there has been one issue that has caused quite a stir; the entry of New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard in the women’s weightlifting competition, in which she competed earlier this week. Until 2014, Hubbard was a man, known as Gavin.
Hubbard was strong favourite to win gold in the +90kgs category but an injury mid-competition saw her withdraw and consequently diminished the controversy somewhat. However, the pre-event comments about Hubbard’s inclusion highlighted how unclear the position is regarding transgender athletes, and how hard it is going to be for sport to reach a ruling that keeps everyone happy - if that is even possible.
Those who opposed Hubbard being allowed to compete against women argue she has natural physical advantages as a result of being born male. Men are stronger, more powerful and have higher levels of testosterone than women and so there are many who feel that with Hubbard having spent most of her life enjoying the physical advantages of being male she has an unfair advantage when competing against women.
That Hubbard did not become elite sport’s first transgender major championship gold medallist earlier in the week certainly took some of the sting out of the story but in fact, her injury has only delayed the argument rather than defused it. The question of whether transgender women should be allowed to compete against female athletes needs to be clearer than it currently is. Because as things stand, any transgender athlete will, as Hubbard was, be subjected to a barrage of abuse online.
Yet Hubbard did nothing wrong - she complied with every rule, including undergoing tests which prove her testosterone levels are below a threshold set by the International Olympic Committee.
But even these testosterone rules are far from straightforward, as has been witnessed in the case of Caster Semenya, who has already won gold in the 1500m in Gold Coast earlier this week and will go for her second title this morning UK time, in the 800m.
The South African middle-distance runner, who is hyperandrogenic, has been subjected to years of abuse by observers, comments from fellow athletes about the advantage she possesses and invasive tests to prove her eligibility to compete.
And the debate about Semenya and other hyperandrogenic athletes is far from over; in November, athletics’ governing body, the IAAF, will find out if they are able to bring in a rule which limits the permitted levels of testosterone in female athletes in certain events. It is a ruling the IAAF has already tried to pass in 2011 but ultimately, rules imposing limits on testosterone were suspended.
The challenge for those at the top of sport when it comes to both transgender and hyperandrogenic athletes is that the world is changing and they are only going to encounter more cases such as this as time goes on.
No longer do people generally think you’re born a man or a woman and that’s it forever. And so if sport wants to be the inclusive place it claims to be, things need to be clarified.
In one way, hyperandrogenic athletes should be a clearer case - Semenya and those like her were indisputably born female and so should she be forced to take drugs to artificially lower her testosterone levels in order for her to be allowed to compete? I struggle to see how that is the best solution. And similarly, should trans people be forever be excluded from competing in elite sport just because of how they were born? Again, it is hard to see how that is the best answer to this question.
Yet the ambiguity that currently exists around eligibility is doing no one any favours; not the athlete themselves, nor their competitors nor the spectators of the sport. There will likely never be a solution that keeps everyone happy - this is an issue with far too many grey areas for any straightforward answer to be found. But sport needs to work harder to reach a place in which any female athlete who doesn’t quite fit with the ‘norm’ is not made the centre of a controversy so substantial that it would be enough to put anyone off sport for life.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here