Be inclusive and give transgender athletes like swimmer Lia Thomas their trophy – in a separate category

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

Although I believe that transgender women such as Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete in women’s events at the Olympics and other international meets, their finishes and any possible records should be treated in a separate category (“Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas says she belongs on the women’s team, is eyeing 2024 Olympics”, March 4).

A transgender athlete should win a medal based on her actual finish. However, the top three cisgender women in an event should receive gold, silver and bronze medals regardless of whether one or more trans women finished ahead of them.

A relay team with a trans woman should be treated in the same way. In one-on-one events such as tennis, a repêchage system should be developed so that if a cisgender woman is defeated by a trans woman, she can continue in the competition against other cisgender women.

Potentially there could be two gold medals, one for an undefeated athlete and one for a cisgender athlete undefeated by other cisgender women. All medals of a given colour should have the same weight in determining a team’s standing.

Having multiple medals in the same event based on a physical difference is no more unusual than having multiple medals for different weight classes in boxing or weightlifting.

This approach would allow for all athletes to be recognised for their ability regardless of their gender identity.

Bruce Couchman, Ottawa, Canada

Why is the US blundering about with China?

US officials said Russia had asked China for help in its military attack on Ukraine, a claim both Russia and China have denied. To be fair, Russia doesn’t seem exactly in need of weaponry, given that it is the world’s second largest arms exporter, even though sanctions are clearly causing disruptions on the economic front.

In any case, on the first opportunity that the United States had to reach out to China on this issue, the chosen tone was threatening, warning of potential consequences should China help Russia. It again highlighted the divisive and self-interested action taken in yet another blunder of US foreign policy.

China has made it clear it seeks a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine and thus the idea that it would be adding fuel to the fire by supplying weapons to Russia is just ludicrous.

Further, China knows too well how attempts by third parties to meddle in others’ internal affairs could inflame the issue. It is taking a neutral stance and supporting the people of Ukraine with humanitarian help.

The US is clearly overstretched, having imposed sanctions on so many parties, to the point that it is even considering buying oil from sanctioned Venezuela. Yet, the US opted for a condescending tone towards China when a cordial overture could have been made. The US could have seized the opportunity to try to persuade China to cooperate on an economic front.

A conflict with devastating consequences is already raging in Ukraine, we do not need another one.

Jose Alvares, Macau