Adding a non-binary category
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I’d like to start a discussion about adding a non-binary gender category to Flatland. I think this discussion is also relevant to other unicycling disciplines, but given I'm not on those committees I figured I'd start here. @Connie maybe this can be brought up in the main committee as well?
This idea comes out of 1) various discussions I’ve had about how to be inclusive of NB riders, and 2) general movement in the sports field to be more inclusive of trans and NB riders. I think it would be amazing if unicycling as a sport could take this step to be a more inclusive community, and I think it fits right in with the true unicycle spirit. As a small sport we are uniquely positioned to make the changes we want to see, and it would be so awesome if unicycling took the role of a leader, rather than follower, in this regard.
There is already something in the rulebook in relation to trans riders, which allows a rider to sign up for either male or female categories. This discussion is not about folks who feel comfortable in one of the already established categories. Some details I see needing to be worked out as a part of adding another category: is there a minimum number of riders needed to hold battles? If so, is there a situation where this group would combine with others? Similar conversations just came up in regards to the age group discussion that could be relevant here.
There are many ways to go about being inclusive of non-binary riders, so I’d love to hear other ideas (i.e. having an "open" gender category, getting rid of categories altogether...?); I don't feel that this discussion needs to focus on this particular proposal/idea. I’m familiar with how some other sports have gone about it (climbing, ultimate), but all would need to be slightly tweaked given the different competition formats.
Excited to hear your thoughts and ideas!
Comment
I think it is great to talk about this topic, thanks for bringing it up! I also think this is something we could and should discuss in the main committee as well.
I agree with you that it makes sense to create such a category - or at least to come up with a concept.
Unfortunately I am not familiar with how competition formats and categories work for NB and Trans athletes in the sports you mentioned - could you please briefly introduce their concept?
An open gender category sounds quite inclusive, and I think it sounds more welcoming and encouraging. Just to reflect on that, I don't think getting rid of categories altogether would be beneficial for the sport.
Just to clarify: if we create an open gender or a NB category, would that mean that Trans athletes should start in this category too? I am sorry if I am asking wrong questions, I don't mean to hurt anybody, I might be just under-educated on this subject.
That's also why I think it might be a better title for the category.
Comment
I think the overall fairest way to include non-binary and transgender athletes is along the lines of what Sarah suggested with an "Open" category but include two categories.
One category would be "Open" and every athlete can register and compete. The other category would be cis-gender women category open only to cis-gender women. This would allow 1) all athletes to compete in a category, 2) allow them to compete while refraining from labelling them or forcing them to assign themselves to a category they do not feel they belong 3) it would provide cis-gender females a competition to compete in that they wouldn't be disadvantaged physiologically.
Cis-gender females would be allowed to compete in open category if they preferred, but if they feel that they have a physiological disadvantage that is too great to be able to compete in open they could compete in a specific category for them.
Comment
I'm keen for discussion, I think this structure would benefit all unicycle disciplines, not specifically Flatland, but since the conversation started here I figured I'd put forward my idea.
Comment
Happy to share more about the sports that I mentioned. These are rules that have been implemented at a local level, and as far as I’m aware are not used at national or international competitions. For climbing, my local gym just held a self judged competition where you could sign up to compete in either men’s, women’s, or non-binary (which was open to anyone who identifies as NB) categories. You had a certain number of hours to complete as many climbs as you could, and folks were scored based on the highest score in each of the three categories, as well as age group categories. For ultimate frisbee, some pickup leagues near me have what they call an “open” league, which means players of all gender identities can play. I think there might be rules on who can match who, but I’m not sure (I can do more research if we want).
I agree that we should not get rid of existing gender categories at this point, but wanted to put it out as an idea.
In terms of an open category: my idea is that it would be a category that anyone (male, female, cis, trans, non-binary, gender queer) could choose to sign up for instead of the current male and female categories. We would leave the current categories as is (male and female), which are open to cis and trans athletes per current IUF rules. You could only sign up for one - i.e. if you are a man choosing to compete in the open category you cannot also compete in the male category.
@Steven - I do not support allowing only cis riders to compete in the female competitions. Like I mentioned in my first post, this discussion wasn’t meant to be about folks who want to compete in one of the existing categories. This is also contrary to the current rulebook, so I don’t think that needs further discussion unless you’re proposing to remove the rule, in which case I think that would be a separate discussion.
Personally, I also think that lumping all trans and non-binary athletes into the male competition and calling it “open”, would 1) get rid of the male gendered competition, which I don’t think folks want to do, 2) harm female athletes, by implying that they need their own competition in order to do well, and 3) further exclude trans and non-binary athletes by pushing them into what is effectively just a men’s category. I think an open category should exist in addition to, or instead of, gendered categories, at least at this point in time.
Sorry if that was blunt. I don’t mean to put down your idea, and happy to talk about more, just felt that it needed some pushback.
Comment
To make things fair and inclusive I do think we ideally need to provide two things.
Provide a category where people can compete without having a label given to them on their gender status.
Provide the option of a category for cis-gender females to compete in where they are not required to compete against people with male phyiology.
2) harm female athletes, by implying that they need their own competition in order to do well,
For the most part cis-gender females do need their own competition to have a fair shot at winning the category.
The June 2022 changes by FINA and a bunch of other sporting bodies shows this. These sports deemed that even if athletes had undergone hormone treatment, they still had significant advantages over cis-gender females. This shows how much of a difference they think sex makes. I recently worked at the Sprint Canoe junior world championships, 7 Under 18 male crews went faster than the senior women's world record. The average age of the senior women was 25 years old, so in 7 years of extra training the females are still slower than junior males, largely because of strength and power. This is consistent across the majority of sports.
Cis-gender females are not disadvantaged in every category to the same degree, but they generally are to large or very large degrees in categories where strength and power is a positive attribute. The womens unicycle high jump world record over bar is 91cm. While one female has ever jumped 91 cm over bar, at unicon in 2018, 37 male riders jumped higher than the women's world record. I do think based on strength and power we have to acknowledge that females do need the option to compete in their own category to be given the opportunity to compete fairly. Strength and power makes a difference for a large number of disciplines so yes I think the current rule doesn't really make sense. An open category and a cis-female category solves this entirely.
3) further exclude trans and non-binary athletes by pushing them into what is effectively just a men’s category.
I disagree that it is pushing trans and non-binary into a mens category. It is only a rebranded male category if it is exclusively male riders and riders are referred to by their genders. Cis-females are allowed and encouraged to compete in it. If they feel they will be competitive, or they specifically want to challenge for open champion then have at it. Ana Schrödinger who competes in a discipline where strength and power have less of an effect would likely compete in the open still stand, (and may result in one less gold medal for Mark Fabian).
Your point 2) says that women don't need their own competition to do well. If this is the case then a handful of women will compete in the open category instead of the cis-female category which helps ensure it is not just a rebranded men's category. Since everyone can compete in Open category there is no disadvantage that I can see to having it. By including non-binary and trans athletes in the open category it further shows that it is not a male category but an open category where everyone can compete. The category removes all classification of the rider gender meaning non-binary and trans athletes do not need to fit in with a label that we are projecting onto them.
Adding another category in addition to the categories we have (male, female, open) is feasible for some events like still stand where all your attempts are completed individually but would be more problematic for others like flatland where you are supposed to battle people or where finals are held and require more time slots.
I have no problem with your bluntness and I will also pushback on some of your points. I have thought for a long time about how to make competition fairer than what our current rulebook provides while also ensuring all athletes can compete in a category that does not label them as something they don't want to be labelled as.
Comment
I agree with Steven's initial statements on fair and inclusive competition and I think it would be good to evaluate any ideas we come up with against them.
However, I do think the two category model is problematic.
In terms of female athletes, I am concerned that it will create a two-class competition, whereby good female riders might decide to compete in Open despite physiological disadvantages, effectively rendering the cis-female category a second-class category. For example, flatland is one of the discipline where physiological disadvantages play less of a role (still do though, especially for tricks involving any kind of jumps such as spins, hoptwists, and flips). So there might be some people deciding that they don't mind and decide to compete in Open, which effectively would mean that the winner of the female category would not have competed against all good female riders. And I think that would de-value the female category.
I don't feel like I can comment on how non-binary, trans people would feel about your proposed system. But the fact that Sarah has identified it as a problem shows that the two category system might not represent them adequately.
I think a three category system might work better, but it would be good to get more views from people who would actually choose to compete in this category. And who would like to compete in it? Would trans-men want to compete in it? Trans-women?
I don't want to cause any offence but I think there might be an argument for restricting the female category. I actually competed against two trans-women in the UK competitions this year, for 100m and trials. One would have won the 100m race if they hadn't dismounted and the other one placed 2nd in trials. They were really happy that we chose to let them compete in their chosen category and I think at the level that we were holding the competition I would always choose inclusivity. However, to be blunt, I wouldn't feel so comfortable if this had happened at UNICON and the female category would be won by trans-women. In my mind, the point of a female category is to have a fair competition of people with similar physiology and, unfortunately, I think it might mean not being inclusive :/
Comment
If we keep this discussion on the topic of non-binary people feeling more welcome at competitions, we have a few options in my opinion.
- keeping Male and Female categories and adding a third 'Open' one, that anyone can join who doesn't feel like they belong in either Male or Female.
- going with one Open category anyone can join
1. is pretty straight forward, the only thing problematic there is potentially having a third battle bracket in Finals. Since we can't really make Finals any longer this would mean shortening other categories (basically not having 16 Male riders advance but 8, to make room for a potential 4 'Open' rider Final.
2. is even easier in terms of including non-binary riders. The question then becomes (as stated by others here): do some riders need a more protected competition to have a fair chance (like Female).
The discussion if trans women should be able to join the current (option 1) or then possibly protected (option 2) Female competition should be held elsewhere, it is not really the topic here. (if we decide on any 'Open' category here it would then also become a decision between trans women being allowed to join Female or Open)
From what I gathered here that's the two options that we see on the table.
I would say let's focus on the options to offer an 'Open' category and start a new discussion on the Female category and its possible restriction.
What I would find interesting is what the non-binary community thinks about these options. Would they prefer to have their own category to be represented publically or would they prefer to join one big 'Open' category together with male and possibly female riders.
Comment
I would be happy to do some outreach to see what others in the NB/GNC community are feeling and wanting. I also plan on bringing this discussion up in the main committee as it applies to all unicycling disciplines, so will try to get a more unicycle-wide viewpoint rather than urban specific (even though implementation might look different for each discipline).
I think if we're considering the second option of 1 open category, we need to get input from all riders, and specifically women. Maybe at this point I'll stick to just collecting thoughts the from NB/GNC community, and if we decide we're leaning towards the 1 category option we can open the discussion up?
Anyone know if I can post on behalf of the IUF or flatland rulebook committee? I can draft a survey in the meantime, and if you have anything specific you think would be important to include or want to give input on feel free to reach out :)
Comment
I think it should be discussed in the overall committee as it would likely be used in all disciplines.