Nationals Kudos

I haven’t looked at the final results, but imagine if any of these events had more than 10 competitors. The 11th place finisher just lost the thrill of receiving a National medal. To some, that’s a pretty big deal and a goal they worked toward. It’s just as damaging/disappointing as the second place finishes.

There are points to consider as well. This isn't just about individual standings but team rankings as well!!!

The assertion was that fast trans women are so numerous that they "HIGHLY affect NQTs." That assertion is ridiculous.

I also have quite a bit of competitive experience, so you don't need to explain to me what does and doesn't matter in competition. We just have different priorities.

As I noted above, if this particular swimmer at 2025 SCY Nationals didn't satisfy USMS's policy, she'll be retroactively DQ'd because of a successful eligibility protest. If she did satisfy USMS's policy but people think that policy should change, they can advocate for a policy they think will be better.

What about all the other events/meets in which this swimmer has competed over a number of years? Why should those results stand?

yes, It would be helpful to have a representative of the administration give some guidance as to who to connect with.

Many of us who were not in the age group etc. are evidently shut out of the application for complaint form Kurt so quickly found and shared.

It only needs one very fast one to skew the NQTs.

You could try emailing Rules and Eligibilty to see if you get a response on procedures if it was an older race and you have aged up.

wwhttps:/.../transgender-eligibility-review-procedures

I am talking about the athlete in question swimming for USMS in 2010, 2012,etc and having nothing said about those swims or any acknowledgement as to gender issues.

No. SCY NQTs are based on the average of the tenth-fastest time in an event over the three previous years, plus 15% for some events or 10% for others.

www.usms.org/.../NQT-FAQ.pdf

But this swimmer has been competing since 2021 so those times would have an effect.

Wrong! I said this "woman” highly affects the NQT…not women. But since you raise the issue, yes…if MULTIPLE athletes in ANY division or age group are using an unfair advantage of any sort, then do the math. There was no assertion and you should read posts more carefully before spouting off. Sure, in my example race the 10th place wasn’t “blazing”, but then how do you explain the 1:30 DROP on NQT? Did the other higher places over three years skew this? They HAD TO or there wouldn’t have been such a time drop. There’s another thread about testosterone and how men having prostate removal surgery are getting prescription T therapy and are swimming faster and setting records. To be clear, my point was and is there’s a LOT going on outside of the pool that USMS needs to start addressing if they really want to define inclusion and fairness properly.

If you are bound and determined to reverse-engineer a justification for your position, I can't stop you.

On the other hand, if you'd like to read about NQTs and how the Championship Committee actually determines them, you can read the FAQs that I linked for you. The whole point of the system that uses a three-year rolling average of the 10th place time (from the Top Ten, not from Nationals) is to make sure that one super-fast person, regardless of the life history explanation for the person's speed, doesn't skew the NQT to be so fast that it cuts off too many people.

You also can look up the 10th fastest times in, say, the W50-54 1000 for the past five or ten years, and see for yourself what time progression caused the NQT to get faster. No single person is responsible for that phenomenon. The only way you can call any trans women responsible for that phenomenon at all is to assume that not just one but multiple women in that age group are both fast and trans, which I maintain is a ludicrous assumption.

A person who was comparatively fast as a man is likely to be comparatively faster as a woman, true. But such people are very uncommon, both because trans women are not common and because trans women who went through boy-to-man puberty while training at a high level in swimming are even less common. USMS policy should reflect these facts, as well as our values of fair competition and inclusion, and I recognize and respect that someone whose priorities differ from mine might come to a different conclusion about what that policy should be. I don't respect exaggeration or scare-mongering. 

If you are bound and determined to reverse-engineer a justification for your position, I can't stop you.

On the other hand, if you'd like to read about NQTs and how the Championship Committee actually determines them, you can read the FAQs that I linked for you. The whole point of the system that uses a three-year rolling average of the 10th place time (from the Top Ten, not from Nationals) is to make sure that one super-fast person, regardless of the life history explanation for the person's speed, doesn't skew the NQT to be so fast that it cuts off too many people.

You also can look up the 10th fastest times in, say, the W50-54 1000 for the past five or ten years, and see for yourself what time progression caused the NQT to get faster. No single person is responsible for that phenomenon. The only way you can call any trans women responsible for that phenomenon at all is to assume that not just one but multiple women in that age group are both fast and trans, which I maintain is a ludicrous assumption.

A person who was comparatively fast as a man is likely to be comparatively faster as a woman, true. But such people are very uncommon, both because trans women are not common and because trans women who went through boy-to-man puberty while training at a high level in swimming are even less common. USMS policy should reflect these facts, as well as our values of fair competition and inclusion, and I recognize and respect that someone whose priorities differ from mine might come to a different conclusion about what that policy should be. I don't respect exaggeration or scare-mongering.