Search Results

As former Sports Minister Grant Robertson departs Parliament, he described those working hard to protect the female category in women’s sports as “warriors for safety in pursuit of an invisible enemy”. Save Women’s Sport Australasia Spokeswoman Ro Edge says it’s not the first time Robertson has sought to target people who disagree with his ideology that men who self-identify as women should be included in women’s sport.  As the Minister who oversaw the release of Sport New Zealand’s guidelines for the inclusion of transgender people in sport, which allowed for just that, Robertson has previously stated that those opposed were “petty and small-minded”. In his valedictory speech to Parliament, Robertson said he was concerned at the way those in the trans community had been the subject of increasing hatred, bigotry and lies. “I saw this especially in the sports portfolio. People with absolutely no care for women’s sport suddenly became warriors for safety in pursuit of an invisible enemy," he said. Ms Edge says the comments illustrate ignorance and indifference to those women (and men) that recognise it is unfair, not right, and unsafe for males who self-identify as women to be included in women’s sport.  And it’s an absolute insult to those who give voluntarily of their time to protect the integrity of the female category in sport.  Something Robertson seems to have been intent on undermining. Having coached and managed sports teams, as well as run a regional sports organisation that became a fast growing women’s sport, Ms Edge has a daughter that has represented New Zealand in sport and is proud to have a female Olympian family member. SWSA’s other Spokeswoman, Candice Riley is a former NZ elite rower and professional endurance athlete who has had a number of coach and volunteer roles. She is actively involved in community sport and is fighting to protect the rights of females to have the same fairness and opportunities as she did. SWSA patron, Lorraine Moller MBE, is a four-time Olympian, Boston Marathon winner and forerunner for equality in women’s athletics.  “Our concerns have always been for the participation and inclusion of women and girls at all levels of sport. I would have expected that an (ex) NZ Minister of Sport would champion females and encourage their fair participation in their own category. Sadly Grant Robertson has not been willing to engage in any constructive dialogue with those of us with genuine concern for the future of women’s sports. Clearly he is not interested in women at all” says Moller. SWSA is a grass roots organisation made up purely of volunteers who receive no tax payer funding. “Grant Robertson may believe females are fighting an ‘invisible enemy’, however, that is no longer the case. Those who identified the risk of policies and guidelines that ignored male advantage in female sport saw this coming. Now the public see it too. They see it at primary school, at intermediate and high school, in community sport and at the elite level.  And in a growing number of sports. “Biological sex categories were set up to ensure maximum inclusion, while providing as fair competition as possible. Allowing male advantage into the female category is not inclusion, it is delusion,” Ms Edge says. “Sport New Zealand, through the development of its transgender guidelines at Grant Robertson’s direction added to this delusion, prioritising the feelings of a small but growing number of males who identify as females, over the feelings, fairness, safety and opportunities of half the population.” Females in New Zealand deserve better.

Save Women's Sport Australasia congratulates New Zealand’s newly formed coalition Government for their commitment to safeguarding fairness for females in sport. With a pivotal focus on ensuring publicly funded sporting bodies support and prioritise fair competition for women and girls this ground breaking coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National has responded to the strong collective voice of New Zealanders. The firm stance taken by the coalition government echoes the overwhelming sentiment expressed by voters across the nation: the unequivocal disapproval of males who identify as transgender competing in women's sports, as confirmed by a recent Talbot Mills poll. New Zealanders love sport and they know that fairness, safety, and integrity in women’s sport is critical to increasing participation of girls and women in sport and the success of our female athletes. This progressive coalition agreement marks a significant milestone in making these values clear at the highest levels of government after being actively undermined by the previous Minister. The current Sport NZ 'Guiding principles for the inclusion of transgender people in community sport' are inherently biased against women, unjust, ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence on male biological and physiological advantage, and are not consistent with longstanding provisions in the Human Rights Act that provide for sporting categories based on sex. We look forward to the guidelines being promptly replaced with directives that prioritize the fundamental values of integrity and fairness for women and girls’ sport whilst supporting males who identify as gender diverse to participate in other categories. "While advocating for inclusivity in sport, it's imperative to maintain fairness through appropriately categorized participation," remarked Ro Edge, Spokeswoman for Save Women's Sport Australasia. "Sex based sporting categories are the bedrock of inclusive participation. All individuals should have the opportunity to engage in sport, but this doesn't translate to unrestricted participation in any chosen category." As an advocacy group Save Women’s Sport Australasia look forward to working with the government and sporting organisations on the changes to ensure principles of fairness and safety for females and upholding the integrity of the female category in New Zealand's sporting landscape remain paramount. For media inquiries, please contact: Ro Edge New Zealand Spokeswomen Save Women’s Sports Australasia Founding Member ICFS www.icfsport.org

MEDIA RELEASE: On International Women’s Day an increasing number of New Zealanders support the protection of women’s categories in sport March 8th 2023 A recent independent poll has shown a collapse in support for male athletes who self-identify as women competing in women’s sport with only 16% of those surveyed supportive in February 2023, down from 27% in February 2022. Conversely, opposition has continued to strengthen with 67% of New Zealanders polled in February 2023 opposed, compared to 55% in February 2022. The two independent polls, taken a year apart by Curia Research, were commissioned by Save Women’s Sport Australasia (SWSA) following Sport New Zealand’s persistent and continued refusal to survey either female athletes or New Zealanders on their views about the inclusion of male transgender athletes in women’s sport, despite spending millions in the past four years on other surveys. “On this International Women’s Day we call on New Zealand sporting organisations to implement clear policies to protect the fairness, safety, and opportunities of women and girls in sport,” says Candice Riley, former New Zealand elite rower and endurance athlete. “This is now critical as examples of male athletes displacing women from their own categories, podium placings, or prize money both in New Zealand and internationally become more frequent.” “SWSA supports the inclusion of transgender athletes in sport but it should not be at the expense of the safety, fairness, and integrity of the female category,” says Ro Edge, co-spokeswoman. “It is clear that as New Zealanders see more examples of this happening, the more opposed they become, and the more disconnected Sport NZ and other sporting organisations who allow this are from their volunteers, supporters, and communities.” “This International Women’s Day it’s time for sporting organisations to be brave and acknowledge that the inclusion of any male, regardless of how they self-identify, in women’s sport leads to the exclusion of women from their own sporting category, deprives them of their rightful recognition, and is now denying some prize money they have rightly earned. Female athletes and advocates spent decades fighting for a fair go. It’s the Kiwi way. This is not fair and New Zealanders know it.” Additional 2023 Polling Information POLL DATES: Thursday 2 to Thursday 9 February 2023. TARGET POPULATION: Eligible New Zealand voters. SAMPLE SIZE: 1,000 respondents agreed to participate – 800 via phone and 200 via online panel. SAMPLE ERROR: Based on this sample of 1,000 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 3.1%, at the 95% confidence level.

Save Women’s Sport Australasia welcomes the release of further research that shows that the majority of New Zealanders continue to oppose males who identify as transgender women competing in women’s sports. “We welcome the release by Talbot Mills of their pre-election poll on 14 social policy issues, as the results clearly indicate that despite concerted efforts by both Ministers in the Labour Government and government agencies the New Zealand public sees through the previous government’s activism around gender ideology,” spokeswoman Ro Edge says. The Talbot-Mills poll found 60% of New Zealanders oppose biological males that identify as female from competing in female sport, with just 14% in support. These results reinforce Save Women’s Sports own independent polling by Curia Research in 2022 and 2023 that also found that the majority New Zealanders support protecting women and girls sport for females only. “This sends a strong message to the incoming government and National, ACT, and New Zealand First that they should move quickly to clarify and strengthen the already existing provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 for single sex sport, specifically that the female sports category is for females only. “This is particularly important given that both the Human Rights Commission and Sport New Zealand have been actively undermining the law by conflating sex and gender identity and telling sports, councils, and other organisations that they cannot exclude males who identify as transgender from sports, services, and facilities intended for females only. This has created a confusion and distress for many sports administrators, coaches, volunteers, women, and girls.” The new Minister for Sport and Recreation should also require the board of Sport New Zealand to rescind their transgender inclusion guidelines for community sport (which includes competitive and representative level sport) which were pushed by the previous Minister and ignore both the Human Rights Act and the best interests of women and girls. “New Zealanders don’t want males who identify as women competing against women. They want sport to be fair, they want it to be safe, and they want females to have opportunities to compete for prizes, placings, and prestige, and that is exactly what we want and are working so hard for.” Some sports have moved to protect the elite female category from male participation. Cycling New Zealand recently updated its Transgender Policy to align with its world governing body that earlier this year banned male transgender athletes, who transitioned after male puberty, from participating in elite women’s events. International swimming, rugby, and triathlon bodies have also made similar decisions at the elite level. “These decisions are based on the clear scientific evidence that men have athletic performance advantages over women. As such, the female category should be protected from birth and apply to all single sex sporting categories. Science shows that advantage for males starts in the womb and we believe the female category should be protected at all levels. So, there’s still plenty of work to do.” Ms Edge says this doesn’t prevent males who identify as transgender or non-binary from participating in sport, as they can compete in the male, mixed sex, or open categories. “We recognise the importance of the physical, mental and social benefits of sport which should be accessible to all people. It’s important that people who identify as transgender or non-binary are not excluded from sport but inclusion needs to be on the basis of the reality of sex, not an internal gender identity.” On a related question, the poll also found 50% of New Zealanders opposed biological males who identified as women from using women only bathrooms, with just 21% in support. Ends.

Cycling New Zealand’s decision to restore fairness for females in cycling is a positive move that has been welcomed by Save Women’s Sports Australasia spokeswoman Ro Edge. “It is great that Cycling New Zealand has changed its rules, as they were enabling male born cyclists to unfairly win female competitions, prize money and accolades in events throughout our country,” Ms Edge says. “The situation was demoralising and disheartening for our best female competitors, so I’m really excited for them that this change has occurred and their opportunities for fair competition have been restored.” Cycling New Zealand (CNZ) is updating its Transgender Policy to align with the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), which in July banned male transgender athletes, who transitioned after male puberty, from participating in women’s events. If CNZ follow the UCI’s lead, they will rename the Men’s category as Men/Open to enable any athlete who does not meet the conditions for participation in women’s events to be admitted without restriction. “The decision reflects that cycling now acknowledges male born cyclists have athletic performance advantages, even with testosterone reduction, over females.” The decision only applies to elite cycling events, with rules for other events to be determined by the relevant organisers. “My hope is that CNZ gives strong guidelines to local clubs running other events and categories to take the pressure off them and event organisers when male born cyclists wish to compete in the female category.” SWSA is hopeful that both the UCI and Cycling NZ will eventually move to protecting the female category from birth, but still applauds them for their updated policies, which are a move in the right direction. “Other New Zealand sporting bodies now need to step up and update their policies so females in their sports can be assured of fair competition.” Photo: Photosport

Integrity in sport means that athletes, supporters, and fans can participate and celebrate sport, confident in the knowledge that they are part of a safe, fair and inclusive environment. The Right Hon. Grant Robertson, NZ's Minister of Sport, has stated that this bill will help protect the wellbeing of participants and the fairness of competition. We agree that more needs to be done to ensure everyone who participates in sport are treated fairly and can be kept safe. Save Women’s Sport Australasia support the creation of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission: To be an independent body, separate from Sport NZ and High Performance Sport NZ, to set standards that ensure there is a safe, and appropriate, and timely mechanism for people to have complaints investigated and to be resolved. To enhance integrity within sport and physical recreation to protect and promote the safety and well-being of participants, and to ensure the fairness of competition. To safeguard young children involved in sport. To assist grassroots organisations, helping with expert advice and pathways for resolution to deal with disputes. However, we cannot support the Bill as it is currently drafted because: The Bill appears to undermine the existing provisions in the Human Rights Act that provide for single sex sports Clause 12(b) states that one of the two objectives of the Commission is “promoting participants’ trust and confidence in integrity within the sport and physical recreation sector”. The protection of the integrity of the female category is central to the achievement of that objective. However, Bill as drafted makes no reference to how it will interact with longstanding provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 that provide for single sex sport. Specifically, section 49 of the HRA provides for sex based separation of sport where strength, stamina or physique are relevant. This provision is specifically there to provide for fairness, inclusion, and opportunities for female athletes and players at all levels of sport. Sex specific physiological and biological differences between males and females are proven by science. These give males, on average, a significant advantage in almost all sports. This Bill appears to set up a situation in clause 14(2) whereby male people who say they have a feminine gender identity could take a complaint of discrimination against a sporting organisation who refuses them access into women’s or girls sport. At best this Bill creates a confusion as it is not clear how the Human Rights Act provisions would now apply. However, given the Government’s already existing track record of saying that gender identity is more important than sex it seems more likely that it is using this Bill to undermine the provisions in the Human Rights Act that support the provision of sporting categories for females only. If that is the Government’s intent then they should be honest and present proposals to change the Human Rights Act so this can be debated properly and honestly. If it is not the Government’s intent then an additional clause should be added to clause 12 that specify that provisions in this Bill are subservient to the section 49 of the Human Rights Act, that all sporting bodies will continue to be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility is determined by sex, not gender identity. An independent poll undertaken by Curia research showed that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders (67%) do not support male people being able to self-identify into women’s sport[1]. As such, fulfilling the Commission’s objective of “promoting participants’ trust and confidence in integrity within the sport and physical recreation sector” requires the protection of single sex sport for women and girls. The Bill could undermine safeguarding and does not properly recognise the historical and contemporary discrimination against female athletes If gender identity is prioritised over biological sex in an integrity code, then the safe guarding of girls and women (females), in particular, cannot be guaranteed. There are already reported cases overseas where female athletes have felt intimidated, unsafe, and their privacy compromised by allowing male athletes who assert a feminine gender identity access to their changing rooms. Conflict has also been created by those same males demanding the right to female single sex spaces. For example, Hannah Mouncey, an Australian transgender identified male handball player quit the team after they were requested not to shower and change with female players. That female athletes, whose interests are surely as important as those of any other group in society, and who have suffered historical discrimination in terms of funding, support, and status, and who have significant interests in ensuring that sex remains a relevant basis on which to determine sports categories, are not explicitly mentioned in clauses 16 and 20 as relevant stakeholders who should be consulted with. To not explicitly specify female athletes alongside other relevant stakeholders would be a continuation of contemporary discrimination. For example, Sport New Zealand refused to survey or consult with female athletes and players on the development of their transgender inclusion guidelines, despite the safety, fairness and opportunities of female athletes being significantly impacted. Other concerns The Commission’s board members will be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, which could see appointments made to develop ‘integrity codes’ that are politically motivated. E.g. the Labour Government’s prioritisation of inclusion of males over fairness for females in sport could see the development of integrity code that would allow and encourage a male who identifies as a woman to take a sports organisation to the Commission for NOT letting them play in the female category. 'Integrity' is not defined, therefore we believe there should be a set of principles that all integrity codes developed must be in line with. This bill centralises control of sport and recreation under a Commission. This gives individual sports organisations little/no power over how they can deal with disputes and will likely lead to disconnect and distrust between yet another Wellington based sports bureaucracy and frontline regional volunteers. Recommendations for changes to the Bill We recommend that the Select Committee: Insert a new definition be included in section 4 of “sex” which specifies that sex refers to biological sex at birth[2], not gender identity and defines “female” as a person of the female sex as observed at birth. Insert a new clause 14(3) which specifies that nothing in section 14(2) shall be interpreted to undermine section 49 of the Human Rights Act 1993 which provides for the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant and that the Commission must act consistent with this provision. Amend clause 16 to include female participants as a relevant stakeholder: The Commission must establish effective means of seeking the views of participants, Māori, and other relevant stakeholders, including female players, Pacific peoples, disabled people, children and young people, and rainbow communities. Amend clause 20 to include female participants as a relevant stakeholder: Before making an integrity code, the Commission must consult participants, Māori, other relevant stakeholders (including female players, Pacific peoples, disabled people, children and young people, and rainbow communities), and the Privacy Commissioner on the proposed code. Please make your own submission here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/53SCSS_SCF_F72961F6-E08F-4703-BD3E-08DB2F1A21D8/integrity-sport-and-recreation-bill [1] More information about this poll is available at https://www.savewomenssport.com/media-releases/march-8th-2023---iwd-poll-results [2] Save Women’s Sport notes that the very small number of people (approximately 0.02% of live births) born with differences of sexual development (referred to in this Bill as diverse sex characteristics, sometimes known as intersex) that make determining their sex more complex than observation in utero or at birth are still all either female or male. In fact, almost all DSDs are sex specific.

13th April 2023 With less than 100 days until the Women’s World Cup gets underway in Australia and New Zealand, many supporters of women’s sport are anxious. For Australians and New Zealanders this will be the largest women’s sporting event to ever hit our shores. But will our female players have a safe, fair, and level playing field when they take the pitch in July, given FIFA still allow trans identifying male players to compete in the gender they identify with, on a case-by-case basis. It is disappointing that no clear policy is yet in place despite their review being underway since June last year, and other sports such as World Athletics and World Aquatic’s having already made the move to protect the female category. In Australia men are already being granted entry to play in the women’s football competition “as women” merely by a self-declared “gender identity” due to Football Australia’s flawed inclusion policies. This has resulted in injuries for female players that we are aware of in the Football NSW fixture alone, due to the obvious male performance advantage and accompanying injury risk. There is a growing body of science to demonstrate what we already know - that males have athletic advantage due to their biology, and this performance advantage is not mitigated by testosterone suppression. Save Women’s Sports Australasia, along with our supporters across the globe, are calling on FIFA Women’s World Cup organisers to provide an assurance that males will not be permitted to play “as women” in the upcoming competition. This is to ensure fairness for our female athletes and to safeguard them from a heightened risk of injury. Female football players also deserve access to female-only changing facilities for their privacy and dignity. As World Athletics President Seb Coe stated earlier this year: “We can’t have a generation of young girls thinking there is not a future for them in the sport. So we have a responsibility … maintaining the primacy and the integrity of female competition is absolutely vital.” It is our hope that FIFA shows their female athletes, and young aspiring female footballers, the same respect. Regards Ro Edge Nerissa Assiren New Zealand Spokeswoman Australian Spokeswoman Save Women's Sport Australasia www.savewomenssport.co.nz Source: Getty Images

By Lorraine Moller MBE, Four-time Olympian, Boston Marathon Winner & Forerunner for Equality in Women’s Athletics When I die, if my ideas of immortality are not completely off, I imagine I will get to sit at the cosmic coffee table with my buddies and reminisce on my life. One of my boasts will be “Earth USA, August 5th, 1984, I was there!” My friends will gasp with envy, knowing full well that this was a poignant time in history. George Orwell predicted we would be a worker-society, our emotions stifled by the control of Big Brother, our lives colorless and fear driven. To the contrary, 1984 for me was the year of liberation and promise, not that George got it wrong, but he was not envisioning through the eyes of a woman runner. What happened over 38 years ago that was historically so significant? The one event that signified the arrival of Woman as Athlete in every sense of the word - the inaugural women’s marathon at the 23rd Olympiad in Los Angeles. Running women had demanded that they be taken seriously and here we were, all dress rehearsals done, on the greatest of all stages, heralding in a New World Order where women equally shared opportunities and rewards of the sports arena with their male counterparts. I was 29 years old and enthralled to be a part of history-in-the-making. Females Excluded When I was born (in the mid-fifties) the codes of physical expression for men and women were well defined: men were warriors with exteriors hardened by the two great wars, while women tended the home fires and raised children. As I grew up, I accepted that competitive sport was a man’s domain. Women’s sports remained more on the delicate side of things - not too strenuous or rambunctious. Any running distance that took a woman out of sight was medically suspicious, and as the ruling elite once stated (all men), boring to wait around for the finish. The furthest distance women were allowed to compete in at that time was the 440 yards - because the female body supposedly could not withstand the strain of anything further. As a case in point, newspaper reports of the controversially newly added women’s 880 yards to the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam showed photos of collapsed women at the finish. As a result, the event was struck from the program for the next 32 years, for medical reasons. Later reports revealed that the photos were in fact from the 100 yards finish and not the 880. But coupled with newspaper headlines of horrendous finish line distress, the media damage had been done and the myth of the unsuitability of women’s bodies to endurance events was perpetuated for another whole generation. It was not until 1960 that the 880 meters was finally reinstated, offering an Olympic event longer than the 220 yards. It was 1968, I discovered that I possessed an athletic talent suited more for distance than speed. I gravitated to the longest events that were available to me: first the 440 yards as a thirteen-year-old, then the 880 yards a few years later, and once it had been added to the 1972 Olympic program, the 1500 meters. Our track menu in New Zealand, as it did in most countries affiliated with the IOC (International Olympic Committee), faithfully followed the Olympic program. During the off-seasons I ran cross-country in the winter over one or two miles at most, and some unofficial road races, because there were no official ones for women. I was desperately ambitious for the Olympics, but failed to make the team in 1976 because my qualifying time over 1500m had been run in a time trial with men and was discounted. While I loved to run, even felt compelled to run, I did not pause to consider the constant disparity in events, opportunity, coverage and prizes between the men and the women. They were all extraneous to the real prize: the thrill of competition. I readily accepted that women’s physiology made her athletically inferior to men in speed, strength and endurance and thus could not be afforded the same athletic status as men. The reason had to do with our reproductive organs. From the beginning I was warned that my running would give me muscle-bound hairy calf muscles, that sit–ups would make my stomach muscles too tight for giving birth, that beating boys would make them insecure and reject me, and that the pounding of running would detach my womanly innards from their proper placement. It seemed reasonable enough to me that protecting vital bits from falling out be a priority for a perpetuating species, as did the idea that sport, proven to be a testosterone-enhancing activity, was dangerous to femininity and thus the fulfillment of a woman’s biological destiny. But such warnings came too late for me: they had failed to consider that endorphins are not gender-discriminating and once I had partaken a few times there was no going back. I was willing to take the risk of uncertain consequences to keep on running. My experiences were typical of my era, unfair but always improving, thanks to the constant agitation of the running suffragettes. Acts of Genius Although the word ‘suffragette’ evokes connotations of ‘suffering’ these were not suffering women, but rather passionate ones who were willing to flout established rules that governed the tidy but confining gender box that contained them. Let’s start with the one woman who decided to run the marathon at the first Olympics in 1896. We all laud the brainchild of Pierre de Coubertin in forming the modern Olympics, but it was, after all, a resurrection of an ancient Greek men’s-only club. Dubbed Melpomene after the Greek muse of tragedy, (because no one bothered to find out her real name at the time) she finished the race outside the stadium. Shutting the gates on her, while rude, was certainly an improvement on the death penalty offered up by the Greek establishment of old. One must wonder, in the face of no recognition for her efforts and probably a good deal of scorn on the way, why a woman, probably relatively untrained, would subject herself to a twenty-mile run. I bet, like most marathoners, she simply wanted to see if she could do it. I can imagine her limping home with her tight calves and a satisfied smile on her face having won a dare from her brother. What more does a runner need? All the running suffragettes I knew came from that mold. Their passion was for running. The cause of social change was not a primary motivation, but rather springing out of their longing to do what they loved to do. Genius comes from passion, not reason, and genius is the lightning bolt that has the capacity to break down outdated structures. I am thinking here of passionate women such as Melpomene, the all-round natural American Babe Didrickson, the ”flying housewife” Fanny Blankers-Koen from Holland, Wilma Rudolph, who rose from childhood leg braces to double Olympic champion, and in my time, and the renegade and inspirational Boston marathoner, Kathrine Switzer (who became a mentor to me). In my country of New Zealand, we had our own running suffragettes: Millie Sampson, Val Robinson, Sue Haden and Pam Kenny whose leads I followed as an impressionable teen. Flying in the face of convention their acts of genius created history in their wake. Some of these pioneers argued the point after the act. ‘I did it, I hurt no-one. I would do it again’. Maybe they said ‘sorry’ rather than be banned from competing for breaking a set of stodgy sexist rules still on the books, but I’m sure they never really meant it. They were, after all, claiming running as their right and not their privilege. And they could not be stopped. For behind every limiting belief about women was a suffragette with the outrageous notion that they could do what the men were doing. Boosted by the availability of the pill in the sixties, women bodies were finally unshackled from their reproductive destinies and a new menu of activities beckoned young women. Rapid Evolution When the marathon was added to the 1984 Olympic program a quantum leap was achieved, and the world blossomed for women like me. This pivotal point signified a final admission from the patriarchy of sport that women’s bodies no longer needed their protective oversight. We were free to express ourselves as athletes should we choose, even if it meant encroaching on the men’s domain, which we did, big time. I cannot recall how many times in the late seventies I heard a man declare, “The day a woman beats me is the day I hang up my shoes.” I never heard it again after 1984. While women made great strides ahead, kicking down all the old hurdles of ignorance as they went, the men revised, many cheered, and most joined forces with us and offered up their knowledge and support. New women suffragettes took the batons from their predecessors to lead the way, and the masses followed: African women, Asian women, South American women, old women, chubby women, mothers and grandmothers, sisters and wives. They traded their high-heels for sneakers, bracelets for chronographs, parasols for killer-loops - and hit the streets. Since 1984 there have been many significant milestones. Here are some of them: The gaps in Olympic event parity are filled. (Women’s 5000 and 10,000 meters added in 1988, pole-vault in 2000 and steeplechase in 2008.) 1987 New York City Marathon: Brit Priscilla Welch wins the women’s open division at age 42, six years after giving up smoking and embarking on a jogging program. 1989 USA 24-hour Championship; Ann Trason becomes the first woman to win a USA National Championship outright, beating the next man by over 4 miles. 1992 Olympics in Barcelona: Yuko Arimori becomes the first Japanese woman to win an Olympic T&F medal for Japan in 64 years with her silver medal behind the Russian, Valentina Yegerova. She becomes one of Japan’s most popular celebrities. Her feats herald a period of domination on the world marathon scene by Japanese women. 1992 Olympics Barcelona: Hassiba Boulmerka of Algeria angers Muslim fundamentalists for competing. Wearing typical running attire, she is accused of displaying her naked body and threatened with stoning. Undeterred she becomes the first Algerian woman to win a gold medal (1500 m). 1994: Publicly struggling with her weight and fitness for years popular show host and trend-setter, Oprah, trains for and runs a marathon. 1996 Atlanta Olympics: Fatuma Roba, an Ethiopian woman, becomes the first African woman to win the Olympic marathon, just weeks after an appendectomy, emulating the feats of her most famous countryman, Abebe Bikile. She goes on to win the Boston Marathon in the next three successive years. 2001 Berlin Marathon: Naoko Takahashi of Japan, Gold medalist of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, runs 2:19:46 to become the first woman to break 2.20 for the marathon. Other women quickly follow suit. 2003 London Marathon: Brit Paula Radcliffe breaks her own world record with 2:15:25. Since 1955 the women’s marathon world record has improved by over 60%, while the men’s has improved by just 18%. 2008 Olympics in Beijing: A 38-year-old woman, Constantina Dita-Tomescu from Romania, becomes the oldest competitor, man or woman, to win an Olympic gold medal in distance running. Women’s marathon participation in the USA goes from 10.5% of the field in 1980 to 40% in 2006. (Running USA.) By 2018, 50.24% of runners worldwide are female, the first time in history that the number of female runners surpasses males. (International Institute for Race Medicine.) L to R: Ann Trason, Hassiba Boulmerka, Constantina Tomescu Dita, Yuko Arimori, Priscilla Welch, Fatuma Roba, Naoko Takahashi, Paula Radcliffe. I can remember how proud I was that day in 1984 as I lined up on the track at Santa Monica College, next to the likes of Grete Waitz, Ingrid Kristiansen, Joan Benoit, Rosa Mota, Priscilla Welch, Jacqueline Gareau, Anne Audain and Julie Brown. I was proud to be an Olympian, but it was much more than that: I was a marathon runner and the women I stood beside on the start line were not just my competitors but my comrades who had played their part in getting us here. We were not just representing ourselves or our respective countries but all women, those brave ones who had gone before us, and the many who would follow. We were making history and we knew it. For the first time ever, eighty-eight years after Melpomene’s unwelcome Olympic run, about fifty women strode, uteri intacti, through the open gates to finish a marathon inside the Olympic Stadium, their efforts celebrated, their names officially recorded. Woman, as distance runner, had long ago arrived ahead of her time - now the world had finally caught up with her. Yes, I am proud to boast: August 5th 1984, Los Angeles - I was there! Photos sourced by Wikimedia

December 6th 2022 MEDIA RELEASE: Sport NZ confirm fairness and safety of women and girls no longer a priority In a cycling club in New Zealand a male cyclist now holds the 2022 season trophies for female rider of the year, the female road race, and female time trial, after identifying into the women’s category. In roller derby, women have left a sport they love after being hurt by a male player who was allowed to join a women’s team on the basis of his self-proclaimed gender identity. When they raised concerns, they were accused of bigotry and transphobia. In mountain biking, a male cyclist is regularly taking placings and prize money from female contenders after being allowed into the women’s competition a season after announcing they were transitioning. Save Women’s Sport Australasia (SWSA) co-spokeswoman Candice Riley says according to Sport New Zealand, and its transgender inclusion guidelines released today, all of these examples, and many others, are to be celebrated as shining examples of transgender inclusion in community sport. “Today Sport NZ has made its position clear. The right of any male, for any reason, to self-identify as a girl or woman into the sport of their choosing without any medical or surgical transition is deemed more important than the female players and athletes to be able to compete fairly and safely.” Riley, a former New Zealand elite rower and endurance athlete, says there are many other examples in New Zealand where Sport NZ’s inclusion policy is negatively impacting women. “There is the domestic violence victim who has quit the women’s sports team she loves after suffering panic attacks from being physically accosted by a male player, the Muslim woman who no longer swims because the ‘women’s only’ session is open to males who identify as women, the aspiring young cricket player who knows she will never be able to bowl as fast or hit as hard as the male allowed to self-identify into her team, are all invisible collateral damage.” SWSA research conducted by Curia found only 27% of the New Zealand public supported males self-identifying as women being able to compete in women’s sport, with 55% opposed and 19% unsure. “Sport NZ find themselves markedly out of step with the majority of New Zealanders who know that the biological and physiological differences of sex matter in sport. New Zealanders know the truth – that people play sport with their body, not their self-determined inner gender identity. “New Zealanders know that sex separated categories in sport are required for girls and women to compete and thrive at all levels of sport. Every single female Olympian, World Cup winner, and professional athlete started and advanced her sporting aspirations in community sport. It is unbelievable that today Sport NZ is telling New Zealand girls and young women that including male bodies that possess an inner female gender identity in their sporting categories is more important than providing them with a fair playing field on which to participate, compete, and succeed. “Sport New Zealand stated during the consultation process that they may reduce or withdraw funding from sports that do not implement their transgender inclusion guidelines. While they are claiming these are only “guidelines” we know that many sports are reliant on funding from Sport NZ to function and so the principles released today will place many sports in an insidious position,” she says. SWSA are strong advocates for the inclusion in sport. Co-spokewoman Ro Edge says participation in sport brings physical, mental health, and social benefits that should be accessible to all, but not at the expense of fairness and safety to female players. SWSA applauds the decision of Boxing NZ to balance inclusion with fairness and safety – by protecting the women’s and girls’ categories for females only, and progressing with open categories for those who do not identify as their biological sex. Ro Edge says Sport NZ has shown itself to be intransigent. “Sport NZ has refused to even consider the scientific evidence that clearly sets out the differences in male and female physiology that provide indisputable male advantage in sports involving strength, stamina or speed. It has also refused to take into account the significantly increased safety risk of allowing a male body to compete against women in contact or combat sports. There is a growing body of evidence that shows that female athletes are at significantly greater risk of a traumatic brain injury event than male athletes. They also fare worse after a concussion and take longer to recover. “We are also deeply dismayed by Sport New Zealand’s claim in the guidelines that not allowing a transgender woman (male) access to women’s sporting categories is a form of direct discrimination. This stands in direct opposition to section 49 of the Human Rights Act 1993 that specifically allows for the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant. “With the release of the guidelines today Sport NZ has confirmed its continued prioritisation of ideology over common sense solutions and how out of step it is with international sporting bodies such as rugby, swimming, and triathlon which are being led by science and evidence,” she says. “Sadly, it is female players and athletes who are losing out by no longer participating, and in lost opportunities, placings, and prizes.” Media Contacts Candice Riley Ro Edge email: savewomenssports@gmail.com

Last week Save Women’s Sport Australasia shared the story of a female football (soccer) player in NSW. She spoke about getting tackled by the goalie on the opposing team and it was then she realised that individual was a transgender male. This male was playing in the women’s football league in a community level competition. The woman who shared her story recounted how she hadn’t experienced being hit that hard since being subjected to male violence in a domestic situation sometime in the past. The soccer incident had not only injured her due to the force of the tackle, but it had also re-traumatised her as it triggered memories of her abuse at the hands of a male. This domestic abuse survivor went to the football association to make a formal complaint and for her trouble she has been ostracised from her team and her club, as well as encouraged not to play anymore games due to the apparently problematic and no doubt bigoted views she holds around men in women’s sport. The President of her football club even had the temerity to state that the presence of the transgender male is “not up for debate” as “she has a right to be there”. Meanwhile the team the transgender male plays for have denied this matter entirely saying the player registered as “female” and so they are a female. The reason transgender males (or any male who says he “identifies as a woman”) have been permitted and indeed encouraged to play in women’s competitions is due to Sport Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission 2019 guidelines. The “Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport”(1) (The Guidelines) prioritise “gender identity” above sex in the name of “inclusion”. The Guidelines state: “Sporting organisations should consider incorporating the following elements into their inclusion policies: a statement that participation in sport should be based on a person’s affirmed gender identity and not the sex they were assigned at birth (2) to the fullest extent possible”. Football Federation Australia is one of the first 8 sporting organisations in The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS) to sign up to the Sport Australia guidelines. If the use of this ideological language by Australia’s peak sporting body isn’t bad enough, then consider that the presence of a male in a women’s sport competition is not considered the business of the female athletes or those athletes’ parents in the case of younger participants. As per The Guidelines Section 5.6: “Sporting organisations can ensure that their processes are inclusive, minimise potential discrimination and protect the privacy of transgender and gender diverse people by: not disclosing the transgender or gender diverse status of a player without their express permission”. This may be news to many readers, and this is exactly what has occurred in this instance. The football club with the transgender player has refused to acknowledge this (despite another Club President confirming it). Instead, they have said that the player registered as “female” and therefore they are female. This is where these “inclusion” policies lead us. To a place where fairness and safety for girls and women has been completely disregarded. To a place where a female survivor of male violence has been re-traumatised after colliding with a male on the field in a women’s sports competition. The privacy and confidentiality of the transgender player is considered more important than fairness and safety for the rest of the players. Save Women’s Sport Australasia raised concerns regarding these controversial policies back in 2020 and again in 2021 at International Women’s Day rallies in Brisbane (the only capital city women’s day march in Australia which doesn’t centre males and their special identities). Considering what we already know as fact regarding the biological and physiological advantages males have over females(3) (regardless of testosterone suppression) and the considerable safety risks to females as a result - why should the truth be withheld from women? As an example - on average, men are physically stronger than women; men have 66% more upper-body muscle than women, and 50% more lower body muscle(4). Why should the fact there is a male in a women’s sporting competition be kept from the female players and their parents? Don’t these girls and women have a right to know they are taking the field against a male? Why is the chosen “identity” of a male and the acceptance and validation of that identity considered more important than the actual reality of women? Why are we being forced to not only pretend that these males are women and accept they may be in our sports, but also being denied the truth when it may impact on female player welfare and wellbeing? Many sections of the media have continually portrayed the inclusion of “transwomen” in women’s sport as a non-issue and have misrepresented the science and the facts. Just this week the ABC was found to have breached their code of conduct with regards to impartiality and was forced to correct a sports story and headline about transgender athletes after an internal review found the story was “materially misleading”(5). I’m proud to say I was the complainant in that matter. I hope it is the start of the end of the biased reporting we have seen from the ABC on this issue. Finally, the heart of the issue (and something which will have to be the topic of another article) is the fact that the ABC is signed up to the ACON Australian Workplace Equality Index(7). (AWEI) which promotes “inclusion initiatives” and is the Australian equivalent to lobby group Stonewall(8) in the UK. Meantime, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Sports Commission (which includes Sport Australia) are both “Foundation Partners” of ACON’s “Pride in Sport”(9) program, a “sporting inclusion program specifically designed to assist sporting organisations at all levels with the inclusion of employees, athletes, volunteers and spectators with diverse genders and sexualities” (10) Why is Australia’s national public broadcaster, government agencies and peak sporting body taking instruction from an unelected lobby group who do not represent the Australian public but who are instead working to entrench gender ideology into Australian sport, culture and society as a whole? Nerissa Scott Representative, Save Women’s Sport Australasia www.savewomenssport.com 1 Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport (2019) | Australian Human Rights Commission 2 Emphasis my own – sex is not “assigned at birth”, it is observed, even in utero, and recorded at birth 3 “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage” Emma N. Hilton, Tommy R. Lundberg, Sports Medicine (2021) 51:199–214 4 NPRGFullDocumentPrintV17.pdf (genderresourceguide.com) 5 ABC transgender sport story ‘misleading’, review finds (archive.ph) 6 Pride in Sport Index (https://www.prideinsport.com.au/psi/) 7 Australian Workplace Equality Index (pid-awei.com.au) 8 Department of Health becomes latest public body to DITCH Stonewall | Daily Mail Online 9 Current Members - Pride in Sport Pride in Sport 10 About Pride in Sport - Pride in Sport

Alice Soper (Why sportswomen don’t need ‘saving’ from transgender athletes, 25 August) and Save Women’s Sport Australasia agree on many important things. That participation in sport is the beginning, not the apex for many athletes. And that women are fiercely competitive. We also agree that years of under investment in women’s sports, misguided policy, people learning on the job, decisions being made by people with no lived experience, sexual harassment and bullying, and pay disparities have roots in sociology. Or more specifically, sexism. Finally, Alice is absolutely right when she says that sportswomen are not damsels in distress in need of “saving”. I come from a sports mad family of high performing athletes. Within our whanau we have those who have represented New Zealand in multiple sports on the international stage and at Olympic level, as well as those who channel their competitive spirit into community level sport. Our sportswomen are strong, competitive, smart, and dedicated. Their participation and success is only possible because of the existence of the female category. A category that allows them to participate in fair and meaningful competition against other women. And, when it comes to contact or combat sports, one that also protects them from the increased risk of harm that competing against a male-bodied athlete could result in. If it was not for the existence of, and the protection of, women’s sporting categories we would have no female medalists or even contenders on the international stage in any sport where strength, speed or stamina matters. New Zealanders would have never heard the names of athletes like Alison Roe, Susan Devoy, Sophie Pascoe, and Lisa Carrington. As much as some people may wish to deny reality, biology and physiology matters because we play sports with our bodies, not our identities. Ms. Soper appears to be comfortable with the loss of meaningful and fair competition for women and increased risk of injury in some sports by the inclusion of male-bodied people, as is her right. However, many people do not share her views. Save Womens’ Sports Australasia had heard from female athletes and the parents of girls across New Zealand who have been impacted by the inclusion of male transgender people in their sports category. They have included cricketeers, roller derby players, netballers, hockey players, weight lifters, and mountain bikers, among others. They have shared stories of how they have been injured and given up sports that they love. They have told how they have been ostracized by people they have previously considered to be friends and dismissed by their sporting organisations when they raise concerns. This never happens, people like Alice Soper tells us. Except it does, and it is growing as more sports organizations fall into line with Sport New Zealand’s relentless insistence that the inclusion of male people who identify as women is more important than fairness to, and the safety of, female players. These are the words of one woman who contacted us, “During one training, I was elbowed sharply in the stomach, knocking the wind from me, and on another occasion was held and shoved with such excessive force that I had a panic attack. All aspects of my physical and mental safety were ignored… I never felt comfortable again and subsequently felt that I had little choice but to leave the sport which I had loved for the previous eight years.” As another example, right now in a community cycling club in New Zealand there is a male transgender cyclist who holds the award for both best female cyclist of the season as well as best overall cyclist. Why? Because this cyclist not only cleaned out the women’s field, posting times so fast that no female had a chance of competing for first, but on some occasions even beat the fastest male in an event. This is what kindness and inclusion now looks like. Female athletes being forced out of sports that they love and out of their rightful placings and recognition because including males in their category is considered to be a higher priority. Sportswomen don’t need saving, but their category certainly does. Rowena Edge, spokeswoman, Save Womens Sport Australasia

This opinion piece appeared in the NZ Herald on June 27th 2022 - you can read it here. ​ Shane Te Pou (23 June) reveals himself as another man advocating to undermine fair competition and safety for female athletes under the guise of “inclusion”. Worse he claims ignorance as to the science of physiology and biology of the sexes while also comparing the professionals and experts involved with the FINA decision to the quasi race based science of eugenics. The NZ Herald’s decision to publish this cannot go unchallenged. As a former elite female athlete who represented New Zealand I am more qualified to comment on the subject of male athletic advantage than Mr Te Pou will ever be. Male athletic advantage begins in the womb and is supercharged by a testosterone based puberty, endowing advantage that cannot be reversed by testosterone suppression later in life. This includes, in general, larger hearts and lungs, greater muscle mass, higher blood oxygenation, skeletal differences, and greater grip strength than comparable female athletes. Women are not small men, we are not men with lower testosterone, we are our own sex. Sports categories are by their very nature exclusionary for reasons of fair and meaningful competition and safety with separation usually done by age, sex, and/or weight. Mr Te Pou is not decrying that 30 year old men are excluded from playing 12 year old boys, nor that heavy weight boxers are excluded from the feather weight category. No, it’s just female athletes that he demands should roll over and make space for the opposite sex. Mr Te Pou claims that FINAs decision not to allow swimmers who have experienced male puberty to compete in elite women’s categories further victimises the most marginalised and oppressed. Let us be clear, a white male Ivy League swimmer born to privilege who could not crack the top 200 when competing in men’s competition but wins a national championship against an silver olympic medalist when“included” in a women’s team is neither marginalised nor oppressed. Nor is a white male weightlifter, child of a multi-millionaire, who displaced a woman of colour from an Olympic spot. All athletes know the benefits that sport provides to peoples’ mental and physical well-being. We all want transgender people to be able to access sport, but it should not be by demanding that women include males in their categories. FINAs intention to progress the creation of an “open” category is a decision to be applauded, not maligned by the uninformed. It is also one that should be followed by Sport NZ in community sport. Instead they seem determined to advocate for any male who says that he “identifies” as a woman to be entitled to play in that category, even without any form of medical transition. As for Mr Te Pou’s appalling comparison of the professionals, scientists and experts involved in analysing the evidence that informed FINAs decision to quasi race based “science” of eugenics and the Holocaust, he owes both them and New Zealand’s Jewish Community an apology. Candice Riley June 27 2022