【翻譯】設立「開放」組別使跨性別運動員參賽
譯者前言：台灣即將開放跨性別者參加全國中等學校運動會。全中運作為全國性比賽，以現行制度來看，依照110年國民中學運動成績優良學生升學輔導甄審、甄試簡章，全中運前幾名可享有5%至40%不等的加分。只有極少數案例才能在未成年時進行SRS性別重置手術或HRT賀爾蒙替代療法，因此可預見開放跨性別者「跨組別」參加全中運，極可能會造成未使用賀爾蒙的生理男性進入女子組徑賽。該如何保障女子運動在升學與獎金上的公平性？需要好好斟酌。
原網址：Barbara Kay: The case for an 'open' category to welcome trans athletes in sports
翻譯：柚子旅人
校對：丁
In 2006, Canadian downhill mountain bike racer Danika Schroeter found out the hard way what happens to female athletes when they protest against unfair policies in sports.
2006年，加拿大下坡登山自行車錦標賽選手 Danika Schroeter吃足了苦頭，了解當女性運動選手對不公平的賽事政策提出抗議時，會發生什麼事。
Standing on the podium following a race won by transgender biker Michelle Dumaresq — Canadian women’s champion in 2003, 2004 and 2006, amongst other triumphs — Schroeter received her silver medal in silence, but everyone present could see the Sharpie-drawn message on her t-shirt: “100% Pure Woman CHAMP 2006.”
當Schroeter和贏得比賽的跨性別自行車手Michelle Dumaresq── 他拿下了許多賽事，包含加拿大女子組的2003、2004和2006年冠軍── 一起站在頒獎台上時，Schroeter默默地收下了她的銀牌，但在場的每一個人都可以看到她T-shirt上的麥克筆訊息：2006年100%純女子冠軍。
For her chutzpah, Schroeter was handed a three-month suspension. She offered a personal apology, but it broke her as an athlete, and the sports world hasn’t heard from her since. Following that incident, no female athlete has uttered a word of public protest against trans-identified males who are increasingly dominating women’s sports.
Schroeter因為她的大膽之舉被罰三個月的禁賽。她對此作出個人道歉，但這件事摧毀了她的運動員生涯，從此之後體壇再也沒有她的消息。在這件事之後，沒有任何女性運動員敢公開說出半個字，對自我認同為跨性別的男性逐漸主宰女子比賽一事表達抗議。
Athletes should not be tasked with such martyrdom in the battle for a level playing field in sport. Even though they are the primary victims of ill-considered transgender policies, female athletes did not sign up for political activism, and we have no right to ask them to jeopardize their scholarships and ambitions in the struggle to reverse those policies.
運動員不該在運動場上的戰爭殉道。僅管她們是粗糙跨性別政策下的主要犧牲者，女性運動員並沒有自願成為政治運動家，我們也沒有權利要求她們為了改變這些政策而犧牲自己的獎學金跟抱負。
Protecting athletes’ rights is the responsibility of other stakeholders. Coaches, retired athletes and sports commentators would seem like natural dissidents. But up to now, apart from a few courageous souls, a discouraging omertà has reigned across the board. Events of the last few weeks, however, offer tantalizing signs that the persisting policy logjam that’s slowly but surely destroying women’s sports may soon break up.
保護運動員的權利是那些利害關係人的責任。教練、退休運動員和賽事評論員看起來應該要是理所當然的異議者。但目前為止，除了少數幾個敢於發聲者外，令人沮喪的緘默法則統治了整個賽場。然而過去幾週的發生的事件，提供了令人興奮的訊號，現行政策僵局造成女子賽事被緩慢但確實逐漸被摧毀的狀況，即將被打破。
First, we have the mesmerizing story of trans-identifying University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. From 2016 to 2019, the tall, strapping Will Thomas, as Lia then was, performed successfully on the second-team All-Ivy League.
首先，我們看到了賓州大學跨性別自我認同泳者Lia Thomas引人入勝的故事。在2016到2019年，高挑魁偉的Will Thomas，也就是過去的Lia，作為常春藤聯盟的二軍出賽。
As Lia, Thomas has become a swimming supernova, smashing records left and right. At the recent Zippy International in Akron, Ohio, in a sport known for slim margins, Thomas bested last year’s 200-yard freestyle gold-medal time in the NCAA finals by seven seconds; came first in the 500-yard by more than 14 seconds; and won the 1,650-yard by a flabbergasting 38 seconds.
當成為Lia之後，Thomas變成了泳界的超級新星，四處刷新紀錄。在最近於俄亥俄州Akron舉行的 Zippy International比賽，在一項以選手間秒數差異極小著稱的賽事中，Thomas以7秒之差超越了去年的NCAA決賽200碼自由式金牌紀錄；在500碼賽事中領先第二名14秒；並在1,650碼賽事中以令人目瞪口呆的38秒之差勝出。
譯註：
1. 1碼約等於0.91公尺。
2.游泳賽事差距，以台灣108年度大專院校運動會200公尺自由式舉例：
200公尺公開男子組冠軍時間01:51.21，亞軍01:51.28，差距不到1秒
400公尺公開男子組冠軍時間03:55.13，亞軍03:56.65，差距不到1秒
200公尺公開女子組冠軍時間02:03.88，亞軍02:06.91，差距不到3秒
400公尺公開女子組冠軍時間04:26.69，亞軍04:33.02，差距不到7秒
200公尺男子冠軍贏女子冠軍約9秒，400公尺男子冠軍贏女子冠軍約31秒
Thomas reportedly bragged after the 200-yard that it “was so easy, I was cruising.” A teammate granted anonymity told the sports news website Outkick that her fellow women were crying on the pool deck, knowing they hadn’t a hope against Thomas. That’s a telling sign in itself, because athletes are often warned not to complain to the media about gender-related grievances.
依據報導，Thomas在200碼比賽結束後吹噓道「這太簡單了，我只是隨便划划。」一個女性隊員得到匿名性保證之後，告訴體育新聞網Outkick說她的同伴們在泳池邊哭了出來，因為她們知道對上Thomas她們一點希望都沒有。這本身就是一個訊號，因為運動員通常會被警告，不要對媒體訴說性別相關(gender-related)的委屈。
More encouraging still was the reaction to the 1,650-yard freestyle race by spectators. “Usually everyone claps, everyone is yelling and cheering when someone wins a race. Lia touched the wall and it was just silent in there,” OutKick’s source said. “When (Penn swimmer) Anna (Kalandadze) finished second, the crowd erupted in applause.”
更令人振奮的仍然是觀眾在1,650碼自由式比賽後的行動。「通常大家都會拍手，大家會大喊大叫並為贏得比賽的某人喝采。Lia觸牆時大家一片沉默，」OutKick的消息來源說。「當Anna(Kalandadze)（賓大泳者）以第二名完賽時，觀眾爆出掌聲。」
註：Lia Thomas與Anna Kalandadze完賽時的現場影片，可以聽出觀眾反應差別
That silence, in my opinion, represents a tipping point in this charged debate. Nobody organized it. Nobody called for it. This is the “wisdom of crowds” at work. This is society saying: enough is enough; calling us transphobic won’t shut us up; this is unfair to women; we won’t be a party to it. So that was a breath of fresh air.
在我看來，那陣沉默就是這場激烈論爭的轉捩點。沒有任何人組織行動。沒有任何人要求這麼做。這是「群眾智慧」運作的結果。這個社會說：夠了；稱呼我們恐跨不會阻止我們發聲；這對女人不公平；我們不會加入。這就新鮮空氣的來源。
By happy coincidence, as an evidence-based corollary to the crowd’s emotive repudiation of unsporting behaviour, the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) recently published a boldly definitive report on this thorny issue, titled “ Fair Game: Biology, fairness and transgender athletes in women’s sport .”
與此同時一個令人開心的巧合，一份基於證據的推論──呼應群眾情緒性的否認與不支持行為──近期發表了：位於渥太華的 Macdonald-Laurier Institute(MLI)對這個棘手的議題發表了一個決定性的大膽報告，標題為《公平競賽：生物學、公平性與女子運動中的跨性別運動員》
It was written by Jon Pike, a political philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of sport at Open University in the United Kingdom; Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester, who specializes in fairness in women’s sports; and Leslie Howe of the University of Saskatchewan, who has published extensively on inclusion and ethics in sports.
這篇報告的作者是以下三人：Jon Pike，一個在英國Open University專門研究體育哲學的政治哲學家；Emma Hilton，一個在University of Manchester研究女子運動公平性的發育生物學家；和University of Saskatchewan的Leslie Howe，他在體育的包容性與倫理方面發表了大量的文章。
The report does not question the right of trans-identifying athletes to participate in sports: “The question is whether there is a justification for excluding transwomen from the protected category of women’s sport. This is about rights within sport, as opposed to access to sport.”
這篇報告並未質疑跨性別運動員參與體育運動的權利：「問題在於是否有正當理由將男跨女排除在受保護的女子運動項目之外。這是關於運動之中的權利，不是參與運動的權利。」
The report examines the principles of “fairness, safety and inclusion,” and finds that there is no scenario in which fairness and safety for women can be guaranteed in harmony with inclusion for trans-identifying males.
該報告檢查了「公平、安全和包容」的原則，發現沒有任何一種情境可以在自我認同為跨性別的男性參賽下，能保障女性的公平和安全。
Even those who argue most passionately for the inclusion of trans women in women’s sports do not deny that natal males enjoy a post-puberty physical advantage over women, in spite of reduced testosterone (a stricture Lia Thomas submitted to). But, they insist, it has not been proven to be significant, and in any case is overshadowed by the more pressing principle of “inclusion.”
就算是那些最熱切主張跨女可以參與女子賽事的人，也沒有否認原生男性──儘管在減少了睪固酮之後（一個Lia通過的限制）──較女性享有後青春期的身體優勢。但是，他們堅持沒有辦法證明那些優勢是重大的，並且「包容原則」遠比這些優勢更為重要。
The MLI report handily rebuts any notion that the male advantage is unproven, with reams of objective evidence, helpfully illuminated in reader-friendly graphs, to demonstrate that the male musculoskeletal advantage is not only proven, but in certain areas, shockingly disparate: performance differences between women and natal males, for example, range from 11 per cent in swimming to 120 per cent in rugby. (Illegal doping, by contrast, confers less than a 10 per cent advantage.)
MLI報告用大量的客觀證據，輕易地反駁了「生理男性優勢尚未被證明」的任何概念，貼心地加上了讀者友善的圖表，說明男性的肌肉骨骼優勢並不只是被證實了，並且在特定領域，出現令人震驚的差別：舉例而言，女性與原生男性的表現差異，範圍從游泳的11%到橄欖球的120%。（相較之下，使用禁藥則優勢少於10%）
The report reserves its most serious criticism for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), whose extremely permissive 2016 recommended guidelines on trans inclusion in sport were taken up by virtually every sports organization in Canada.
這份報告將它最嚴肅的批評留給了加拿大體育倫理中心（CCES），其極端放任的2016年跨性別體育包容指南幾乎被所有加拿大運動組織採納。
The MLI report observes that the membership of the expert working group put together by the CCES to draft the guidelines “contained neither a biologist nor a professional ethicist or philosopher,” instead leaning heavily on sport administrators. The MLI authors, by contrast, offer disinterested academic expertise, “with no such conflicts of interest.”
MLI報告發現CCES的起草這份指南的專家組成成員「沒有任何一位生物學或專業倫理學家或哲學家」，取而代之的是嚴重依賴體育官員。MLI作者們，相較之下，是客觀的學術專家，「沒有衝突或利益」。
The authors recommend, as the fairest and safest paradigm that’s consistent with trans inclusion, a protected (biological) women’s category, which would welcome trans-identified women who are not (yet) on testosterone, and an “open” category for everyone else.
作者們建議，一個包容跨性別的、最具公平性與安全性的賽事模式，是保護生物女性的組別，開放自我認同為跨性別但尚未使用睪固酮的女性參與女子賽事，並設立「開放」組別給任何人參賽。
Trans activists will undoubtedly consider this recommendation unacceptable. In a perfect world, there might be a solution to please everyone. But in the real world, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is a solution that is good. In sport-policy argot, it is “fit for purpose.”
跨權運動者想當然耳地認為這項建議不能接受。在一個完美理想世界，或許會有一個人人滿意的解決方式。但在真實世界，完美跟良好不應該是對立的。這是一個良好的解決之道。根據體育政策的行話，這「符合目的」。
台灣相關案例中，台灣史上第一個參加女子競賽的已術跨女小欣，變性後在一般女子組（非體育生）得到破紀錄的成績，對應到公開女子組（體育生）大約在4至5名間。值得注意的是，小欣接受田徑訓練約兩年的時間，體育生則是從小到大都接受田徑訓練。
延伸閱讀：
MLI報告的摘要：跨性別與運動公平：開放類別作為解決方案
奧委會的架構(framework)
對跨性別女性運動員設定血液睪固酮濃度標準，能否「降低」其運動表現優勢？
體育競賽若不區分「生理性別」與「社會性別」，生理女性運動員將會被全面扼殺
IOC跨性別運動員新指引 醫學專家質疑威脅賽事公信力
Boys vs Women 此網站比較了男高中生運動員與與奧運女子運動員的成績，以視覺化的圖型呈現。僅簡單摘出幾個例子：
田徑200公尺
田徑800公尺
此篇摘要指出，接受睪固酮抑制療法，對減少跨女運動員的生理優勢極其有限。
男跨女的荷爾蒙轉變如何改變身體成分、肌肉力量和血紅蛋白？系統性的文獻回顧，關注對參與體育活動的影響
此篇的簡易結論指出，跨女運動員接受賀爾蒙療法以後，會減少力量(strength)、瘦體重(lean body mass)和肌肉位置(muscle area)，但即使接受了36個月的賀爾蒙療法，相關數值仍然高於原生女性的數值。
註：第一作者Joanna Harper本身是跨女跑者，也是奧委會（IOC）相關政策的顧問。IOC政策的問題請見此。
留言
張貼留言