A Scoping Review of Transgender Policies in the 15 Most Commonly Played UK Professional Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been much debate recently on the participation of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) athletes in sport, particularly in relation to fairness, safety and inclusion. The 2021 IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination acknowledges the central role that eligibility criteria play in ensuring fairness, particularly in the female category, and states that athletes should not be excluded solely on the basis of their TGD identity. AIMS: To identify policies that address TGD athlete participation in the 15 major United Kingdom (UK) sporting organisations and to summarise the evidence for each of these policies. METHODS: A scoping review of TGD policies from the 15 major UK sporting organisations. RESULTS: Eleven of the governing bodies had publicly available TGD policies. Most of the sporting associations drew guidance from the official 2015 IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism, particularly with regard to physiological testosterone levels. Many organisations referenced their policies as a guide for decision making but stated that they ultimately made case-by-case decisions on an athlete's eligibility. Relevant considerations not addressed in most policies included pre- versus post-pubertal athletes, justification for testosterone thresholds, the length of time out of competitive action (if any) for transitioning athletes, the irreversible advantage from male puberty (if any), the responsibility for and frequency of follow up for hormonal testing and the consequences for athletes outside set testosterone limits. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus among the top 15 UK sporting organizations relating to elite sport participation for TGD athletes. It would be useful for sport organizations to work together to develop greater standardization/consensus for TGD athlete policies, taking into consideration fairness, safety and inclusion in each sport.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".