The ICC Board met yesterday (November 21) to discuss several issues within international cricket. Among the decisions made was the approval of new gender eligibility regulations for the international game, which effectively ban trans women from playing international women’s cricket.
The magnitude of the problem is being lost in the hyperbole and hurtful language surrounding the discussion of trans women participating in women’s sports. In the club’s history, a trans woman, Danielle McGahey, was featured as a player in women’s international cricket. It is difficult to connect women, who played six T20I matches, with a threat to the “integrity of the women’s game”, as the ICC puts it.
Security is second on the list of priorities underlying the new policy. Although it is not specified whose safety this is referring to, it is safe to assume that it is not meant to protect trans women from the violent transphobia that is often directed at them when playing sports.
Furthermore, placing people who exist primarily out of the spotlight at the center of this discussion shows little concern for their safety. Danielle McGahey, the only player currently subject to this policy, has faced an inevitable transphobic backlash following the announcement, with her international career on the line. < /span> /p>
Almost all local cricket clubs play boys against girls and girls against boys. This is normal for weekly matches. For most of the game’s history, women had to play alongside men to play any form of cricket. There were no safety concerns because when people of the same age and similar ability engage in a sometimes dangerous sport, it does not pose an unacceptable risk.
span However, the specificity of this threat is not clearly stated. If you’re concerned that “men bowl faster than women and are more likely to get injured,” it’s worth considering how unlikely it is that trans women can bowl faster than cisgender women.
span Bowling at speeds over 130 miles per hour is the ultimate accomplishment for a cisgender man. In reality, only a few people can play professional cricket. If we apply the same criteria to the small number of trans women who make up around 0.15 per cent of women in the UK, and consider only those who have undergone gender-affirming treatment, then to keep hormone levels low, we need to constantly monitor their hormone levels. is needed. Beyond a certain level, the probability becomes negligible.
These guidelines apply to runaways, players who bowl at a fast pace and identify as female even though they were assigned male at birth. Although such a player is unlikely to appear, it is being used as a theoretical excuse to ban all trans women from participating in international women’s cricket. This is more of a convenient hiding place than a legitimate security risk. If it were legal, it would certainly make more sense to evaluate individual cases than to exclude all trans women.
span In fact, she will be celebrated. This person is only considered a threat if he or she is a transsexual.
span First of all, it is ridiculous that someone of such caliber would leave the economically lucrative world of men’s cricket to join the economically disadvantaged world of women’s cricket. Second, in order to play sports on women’s teams, access to gender-affirming treatment is even more absurd — it is notoriously difficult to access and requires invasive treatments. And finally, why? To hurt their opponents? In any case, evaluating individual cases can also alleviate this non-problem.
The third principle of ICC policy is fairness. Fairness means that the best players should be allowed to play international cricket, regardless of gender. The ICC has already demonstrated its commitment to this principle by continuing to fund government-backed boards that do not allow women to play cricket at any level. Similarly, in the period that trans women have been allowed to play international cricket, only one has done so. Daniel McGahey averages 19.66 in his T20I cricket with a maximum score of 48. The idea that trans women will dominate women’s sports because of the inherent advantages that trans women have is simply untenable.
It also involves the disadvantages that trans women face as a group. According to the UK government’s Equalities Office, 25 per cent of transgender people in the UK have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives, and research into trans mental health and emotional well-being found that 88 per cent of transgender people in the UK suffer from depression. It turned out that he was suffering. Trans women are already at a significant disadvantage, given how important a stable and supportive background is to a career in elite sport. There’s nothing “fair” about it.
For trans women who have made it to the elite level of international sport, there are already huge hurdles to overcome. Your accomplishments deserve praise, not punishment.
Their ultimate principle is inclusivity, which deserves to be last in the hierarchy. Citing inclusion as a reason to exclude a section of society from a game does not require further analysis.
It’s also worth breaking down the expression “male-to-female participants who have experienced some form of male puberty.” Much of the discussion about trans women in sports revolves around the “male adolescence” debate. However, given the controversy over whether young transsexuals should be allowed access to puberty blockers, elite sports have become largely inaccessible to trans women.
The insanity of the ICC’s position is best exemplified by the reactionary fear of a single trans woman’s mere presence on the stage of women’s sports. If cricket prides itself on being a ‘sport for all’ then their talent should be celebrated and used as an excuse to exclude those who come next. You shouldn’t.
Subscribe to the Wisden Cricket YouTube channel for post-match analysis, player interviews, and much more.
