1) There are no Mens leagues. There are women’s teams and Open teams. If a woman trans or otherwise coukd qualify for the NFL she would. There is no gender bar in “men’s” sports.
2) You are suffering from the Apex Fallacy. Many men compete in sports who never win. Do you want trans athletes to compete? Or do you want them to win. No one denied Lia Thomas the right to swim in the open division (men’s) she just never won.
3) Trans men don’t compete in open divisions for the same reason they aren’t clamoring to go to Men’s Prisons. Can we at some point be real please?
4) your case by case basis for of biomechanics measurement is unworkable. What is the benchmark? The champion or the historical fiftieth percentile? Just utter nonsense upon even cursory inspection
If this is truly the steel man argument, it’s laughable.
1) This *should* be the case but I don't know if it's true. Though you and I would be fine with a trans athlete or female theoretically playing in the NFL, I think many wouldn't. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the desire of outrightly banning all trans athletes means they care more about the sex and not so much about the actual competitiveness.
2) I think you're right about the Apex part, but it's not a fallacy here. I'm *actually* talking about the very best-- it's what we're always doing when discussing competitive sports. I don't want men or trans athletes to win, I don't care. I want them to compete if they can do so in a balanced and entertaining fashion. Thomas would've certainly been barred from competing with the men since Thomas was on hormones for nearly three years. I, unlike most though, don't care if Thomas wins, I care if she's competitive with the group she's participating with.
3) I'm not sure what you're referring to here, could you explain? I want to make sure I'm addressing your criticisms as best as possible!
4) The standard is different for each division, league, sport, and set of athletes. It's workable because it's been used before and nothing in the laws of physics is stopping it from happening. If you mean it's impractical, maybe. But only because so many are ready to throw out the entire issue instead of dedicated a minimal amount of creativity.
5) My steel man: trans women (males) present an uncompetitive experience for athletes in women's sports when they're too dominant physiologically, and we created womens sports so they could have opportunity to participate without being overrun by males, therefore trans women in women's sports leads to uncompetitiveness and is discriminatory to a protected class of people. How is this?
Man you have expended a lot of words to still miss the point, widely.
1. Matt is right and you are wrong. Anyone can play in the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL - read the bylaws if you want. Women are not excluded. There are no women in these leagues because there are none good enough to contribute to the teams. In your example, the difference between Curry and Wembanyama is large but tiny compared to the difference between either of these NBA players and, say, Caitlin Clark. Thus, we have created women's leagues, only for women, so that they can also have professional and elite amateur competition, but these only exist in a meaningful way if they are for women. Nobody cares about a biological woman being trans and trying to join a men's league. Even if she could make the team, she doesn't pose a safety threat or have an unfair advantage over the natal men, and like I said before there is no rule excluding her. She makes the team if she's good enough. Geez it's in the names! NBA (not MNBA) and WNBA. Are you dense?
2. This is funny. Thomas was on estrogen. Not exactly a performance enhancing drug. You do realize "hormones" is not a terribly descriptive term? Lia Thomas was always free to compete in the men's (aka "open") division, along with everyone else. Thomas should not have been free to compete against women, which is what we all saw and recoiled at.
3. Is related to 1. "Trans men" (i.e. women) are not clamoring to play in predominantly men's leagues because they can't and they'd probably get hurt trying. Just like they're not clamoring to get into men's prisons. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING MEN. It's about protecting women and the integrity of women's sports. Just as the prison issue is about protecting women prisoners from predatory men. Men do not need protecting in the same way. Get it now?
4. Women aren't disabled or impaired men. Taking men and shooting them up with estrogen and then saying, "ok he is now weak and impaired enough to play against the girls" is insulting and misogynistic. Can Steph Curry join the WNBA if he ties one hand behind his back? Why or why not? It may be true that Lia Thomas was a weaker swimmer after a couple years of estrogen, but that doesn't make Lia Thomas a woman swimmer!
I actually didn't see this until just now. Sorry there are hundreds of comments.
1. I never said a female couldn't play in the NFL-- that's your argument. I said I don't think people would approve of it even if they could and acknowledged I could be wrong and hopefully so. Women's sports do not have meaning because it's only women, thats nonsense. It has meaning because these athletes are competitive with each other and not others in different leagues-- that's it. Females do indeed have some natural advantages over males, but you're clearly not ready for that discussion. So, your point on trans women playing in males leagues is again, fine with me, but basically impossible because they are actively going in the OPPOSITE direction hormonally, anatomically, etc.! I don't know what to say to get that across to you.
2. I say hormones because we're talking generally about trans athletes, not one specific person. Except, every dissenter HAS to bring up Thomas because they don't know the names of any others-- typical. I have said about 20 times now that I think Thomas shouldn't have competed at that time... I can only say it so many times before giving up on your ability to decipher information. It's also funny (expected) you leave out that Thomas lost three other races that day LOL. Again, it seems none of you care about women's sports until a male is competing: strange.
3. Protecting women and the integrity of women's sports is virtue signaling. Sports isn't about protecting women, that's number one. Secondly, the integrity of women's sports, like all other sports, is about competition, not women. Men do need protection too, but I don't think you're ready for that conversation.
4. The way you talk about women compared to men, they might as well be disabled and impaired. I am not shooting anyone up with anything-- they do that themselves. I enjoy freedoms in my country, not sure what the problem is with that. If Curry wanted to do that, and the league was fine with it, then you have no argument against it. Nice try though. I have never stated that Thomas is a woman swimmer... where are you getting these arguments LOL. A male taking estrogen necessarily is becoming more competitive with females than males. If you don't like that logic, find a corner to cry in.
I'll wait for your substantive response to MY points.
There is too much BS to wade through there. Yes, I don’t like that logic, and neither does the majority of the public, on both sides of the political aisle. You lost this argument already, which you’d know if you were paying attention, so it’s not clear why I should be the one crying. Thomas WAS a woman swimmer, according to the NCAA, which is why he was competing in WOMEN’S SWIMMING genius. Everyone, including the NCAA, quickly realized how stupid and inhumane that was, which is why the sporting world is currently running as fast as possible away from all the daft arguments you’re now making. You are about 3 years too late to this argument and have chosen the losing side.
If your argument is that Thomas shouldn’t have competed, then I agree with you— as I’ve explicitly said too many times now. But that has nothing to do with my proposal. Thanks for reading and engaging!
Take a look at women professional hockey players. These women are olympic level athletes and have won gold in the past. They play with 15 and 16 boys and still lose. Please let that sink in for a bit.
Ooof. Yeah, it sounds like hockey would need a tougher set of requirements under my prescription. It means less trans athletes would be playing, not more or the same as other sports. It's entirely possible, if what you're saying is true, that no trans athlete would ever make it!
You have noted in comments that trans women should be more self aware. But think about that, you're asking men who think they're actually women to be self aware. A lack of self awareness is at the very root of their condition.
Well no because the condition comes from a self awareness. Gender dysphoria is a necessary component to being trans, I think. Therefore they would be experiencing an uneasiness with their self image and identity due to *proficient* introspection, no? I think my original reference was that they still hold certain advantages and others may not consent to their ideas, whatever they are.
Trans is an umbrella term that covers young children whose parents lie to them about sex through teenagers caught in a new-goth cult , transvestites, fetishistic cross dressers and transsexuals to autogynophiles.
I recommend you watch this to understand it from a psychotherapy perspective:
I’m good on the watch but yeah you’re right, not all who claim to be trans are trans. But I don’t really care about that in terms of this piece. This piece has nothing to do with identity or gender dysphoria or whatever. it’s about how we can separate *individuals* by competitiveness.
With respect to self awareness, these men in women's sports are either not self aware and really think they are women; or they are self aware and are just cheats. It's one or the other.
Gender is a social construct, it would be unethical to segregate sports by gender in the same way it would be unethical to segregate by race or religion. As absurd as segregating by star sign.
Sex is a physical category. It’s reasonable to consider segregating by physically manifesting categories like sex, age and weight. If any of those are objectionable the alternative is to simply not segregate.
Thank you for your article. I see you’ve responded to some responses so as someone who tends more conservative, I hope mine engages as well.
I think it’s important to preface by acknowledging 2 things:
1. A crucial distinction must be made between trans individuals and trans activists. The former I earnestly believe just want to live their lives as best they can. While I may disagree with how I participate in that, I would never begrudge a person for wanting to live a fulfilling life. The latter however, I am less magnanimous toward. Some (your article comes to mind) act in good faith to have a constructive dialogue. Some tack a far more inflammatory course which I think does tremendous damage to the plight of the former.
2. Trans participation in sports does not exist in a bubble. I say that partially because I admit I bristled at _the real issue is consent_ section and partially because without that context we’re avoiding the elephant in the room. To the consent point:
_post-2016 qualifier about generalization_
Women absolutely have agency to consent or not, they also exist in social structures and, I would claim, tend to be more sensitive to ostracization as a tactic for correcting behavior. I would further claim that outlets receptive to outrage over trans exclusion, the support networks to get that outrage amplified, and the networks that can apply social pressures (like ostracization) as a result of that coordination is a massive concern for someone participating in the social milieu. Therefore, I think a good faith argument acknowledges that while female participants can always choose not to consent to participating against a trans woman, they do so at great social risk, a risk calculation inherently different from men. To the latter point:
I’d hazard we can agree that no system, however benevolently constructed, will ever incorporate everyone. Changing an, albeit imperfect, culturally accepted system to incorporate edge cases at the cost of the vast middle’s beliefs (79% of the population by a NYT/Ipsos poll) reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote “…one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right rather than to be effective.” But the moral arc of the universe is long and bends towards justice, so ahead we charge.
The ideal of your two options: “allow trans athletes to compete on an individual basis” provided they’re comparable to cisgendered athletes. You reference comparing physiological conditions as well as testosterone levels, I’d argue that the first follows the second so I’ll focus primarily on Testosterone levels. I’m not inherently opposed to this. While I think it injects an engineered nature into an otherwise organic sorting method, professional athletics are a business and science is a tool. So let’s jump to the elephant: HRT in minors.
If we’re talking about T-levels in high school sports at all, we’re talking about HRT in minors. If we’re talking about leveling physiological advantages in adults brought about by puberty, we’re talking about HRT in minors. We can avoid this topic for a while by focusing on Lia Thomas’s levels, and overtures about how some women can beat some men, all worthy points to discuss that have little consequence. But we cannot forever dance around peer-to-peer physiological advantages, and how we _could_ prevent this so everything is fair… and thus: HRT in minors. We simply cannot have an honest conversation while ignoring this. I would claim that mounting research is showing this to be far more detrimental decision than WPATH, the AAP, the Endocrine Society, et al. have led on, and that the population is going to increasingly feel that they’ve been gaslit and lied to about the consequences of those organization’s claims. I suspect much ado about this and malpractice will be made in the coming decade. Additionally, I personally believe that if this is the hill Trans Rights wants to die on, tragically, those aforementioned inflammatory activist allies I mentioned will ensure that they die on it.
You said you see two options, neither of which are you sold on. Neither am I. A don’t ask/don’t tell policy seems preferable honestly. If Megan Rapinoe or Sue Bird were secretly a man this whole time and nobody knew, nobody would care. But this is the era of everything is online and everyone is a true crime detective of other’s personal lives, and the second some woman launches from the free throw line and windmill dunks over her opponent, there’s gonna be people digging as to how.
Taken out of the bubble of sports and in the whole of society, the better option, the one that strives to be effective rather than right, and what I would argue, however imperfect, is the moral arc actually bending to justice, seems like a ban of all trans athletes in all leagues.
2. Yes, women are more sensitive to ostracization, I think that's right, but so are trans people. So, while not consenting to a trans athlete can be a risk, it isn't any more of a risk than them not wanting to participate against any athlete for any other reason. And there are fairly simple ways around that ostracization: unanimity or anonymity, for instance.
I realize the unpopularity, as noted in the piece, but popularism isn’t my philosophy— unlike many other moderate Dems. My problem with the Fry quote is that justice doesn't bend towards justice, or at least not by accident or coincidence. It happens by effort and creativity and criticism and resources… it takes people seeking it! So, if I’m right about the trans athlete issue and sports in general, we won’t be getting any closer to justice by referring to public sentiment. Look at other big issues in the country’s history: a lot of progress was made by courageous individual efforts, not a persuasion of the masses. Nor do I think it should be the ideal to convince everyone and only then try new ways of doing it.
HRT in minors is indeed the crux and I’m glad you noticed it. I just figured since I’m already taking on an unpopular stance I shouldn't pile on more unpopular takes, but you're the first to explicitly catch on to my beating around the bush! I’m personally in favor of it so long as there’s a stringent process involving multiple doctors, psychologists, supportive family and friends, etc. I think that having that support, credibility and collaboration is just as important as the potential effects of whatever treatment they endure. But yes, for sports specifically, the sooner the better for HRT. The research seems dicey but those are always improvable areas of medicine. The actual problem of gender dysphoria is the thing to dedicate effort towards, everything else is implications. If some of these minors are genuinely helped and their lives improve after transitioning, then I’m not sure why any study saying otherwise would matter.
The don't ask don’t tell policy seems a bit outdated, as you allude. It also goes toward my ultimate point: if Sue Bird were actually a man, no one should care (though they might because she's one of the best of all time). But if an average-ish WNBA player turned out to be a male, I don’t think anyone would have an argument for caring. And they shouldn’t with trans athletes either– if they’re as indistinguishable.
The point about the free throw line dunk is humorous and I get your point. But also, wouldn;t that solve the pay discrepancy problem many female athletes have? (only half joking). I respect your preferable option, and that may be the best option as of now. I just wanted to provide some serious inquiry on an issue that it seems many liberals are giving up on. I don’t think anyone has ever achieved justice that way.
Thanks so much for reading and genuinely engaging!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I’ll try my best to genuinely wrestle with your points going forward, and I’ll keep an eye peeled for your posts going forward. Best of luck
As someone sympathetic to the trans community I think the sports debate has been a disaster because the trans athletes are so unsympathetic. Take Lia Thomas. As a he, Lia was an average (or worst) member of the men’s team. As a she, Lia won the NCAA. Did Lia really not wonder about the newly found success? And how can someone so sensitive to how others perceive them be so blind to the discomfort they cause others in the locker room?
That's an interesting moral argument I hadn't thought about much before. My guess would be that most trans athletes are doing this *despite* the perceptions and criticisms, making it harder for them to actually go through with it. You're getting a bit close to cynicism but I see your point. I don't think Thomas should've played, and she wouldn't have passed the qualifications I laid out in my piece. However, there is an argument to be made that trans athletes need to be more self-aware of not only the situation but their own influence on it. Thanks for your reading and response!
Yes, lets us tie ourselves in knots to accommodate delusional people who cannot accept any limits on their delusions and insist on making 99.9% of the world comply because the rush of power they get from making everyone play along is “affirming”.
They are delusional, largely mentally ill. “Born in the wrong body” isn’t a real thing. Biology is real. Males…females. A dude wants to pretend he’s a chick, fine whatever. Shouldn’t lose a job, shouldn’t be denied housing. But forcing the rest of us to play along is absurd, and commandeering the coercive power of the state to enforce lies is Orwellian.
Gender is software. Sex is hardware. Don't act confident if you don't know what you're talking about. When I tell you to "Man up" I'm not telling you to grow your penis. I'm telling you something about IDEAS. So yes, you don't know what gender is and therefore I am ignoring your biological explanation of gender LOLLLL
Oh, wow thanks for bestowing upon me the revealed truth that literally no one heard of or believed 10 years ago outside of Judith Butler and a few cranks laundering bullshit through queer theory conferences. I’ll check with turtle gender lady as well for further insight. You’ve added tremendous value.
I haven’t met a gay person who wants to actively lie to them and myself and the world about reality. Likewise, never met a person in a wheelchair who demanded I tell everyone they can walk.
And a trans person is lying to themselves and the world about reality by wanting to play sports? Lots of creative effort going into solving this issue I see.
99% of the world must accommodate disabled people and their "delusions". Your same argument was used to keep Black people out of sports too because, well, it was an unfair advantage they had right...... right??
Sports are segregated by sex because it absolutely is the fairest way to ensure fair competition. What I've noticed in this article is a disingenuous attempt to pretend that it's mean to keep men (however they choose to identify) out of women's sports on principle. No, it is not. While you've paid lip service to the stories of women being injured by men with special identities, you don't seem to be taking it seriously. Because you're all about the men with special identities.
Your comment about transmen is misleading. They already compete in women's sports because they are not the problem.
So, assuming that you've read this far, you have either written me off as a bigot or are wondering why I use the term 'men with special identities.' It's because calling them women of any kind is misleading. Gender identity is merely an individual's entirely subjective feeling, not a biological fact. One proof that even the wokest sports authorities don't believe that men with special identities are women is the testosterone levels allowed: <10 nmol/L for 12 months prior to competition. For women, it's a maximum of 5.0 nmol/L. If they don't believe these people are women, why should we?
I presume you've read up on the musculoskeletal advantages that men have over women. A 5'4" man at 14.7 stone (my weight) is stronger than I am.
And all of that is before we even get to the changing rooms issue. No way! And women who complain about this get punished.
The biggest flaw in your argument, besides trying to sneak men into women's sports based on discredited attempts to compare body types, size, weight, and testosterone levels, is that you haven't bothered to ask women about it. If you say you did I'll bet it's the gender woo true believers that you paid attention to.
Let men with special identities compete with their fellow men. They can be given a head start (or comparative) to discount any disadvantages resulting from the hormones, etc., that the ones who actually take them have.
No one is trying to stop men with special identities from competing in sports at all. Go for it, I say. But in your own sex class. Just don't arrogate to yourself the right to lecture women on what is or isn't fair for us.
Given the fact you can't even call them trans athletes I'm going to assume there's less than no point in having a conversation with you about this. Thanks for reading and responding!
Precisely. People play sports with their bodies, not their personalities.
And having a feminine personality does not change one's sex. Claiming a special identity is not a ticket to participation in women's sports. Nor should it ever be. Your opinion of yourself is your own. We are not obliged to share it, even if you take hormones and have surgery.
If you're a male and you start taking estrogen, that's not a personality. It's not an opinion. And yes, it is now part of reality that even you must reckon with. Why waste so much time typing when you could've just said "I don't care. I want men vs men. I don't care about competition in itself." Save us all the time next go around.
Taking oestrogen does not take away your musculoskeletal advantages, so spare me the morality lecture. I note that you've forgotten their right to double the upper testosterone levels allowed for women. Why waste so much time typing when you could simply say that you don't care about fair competition, you just want men v women?
I don't think y'all could even keep up in a morality lecture first of all, that's evidenced by the way you talk about trans people. Secondly, if a male is taking estrogen, that's not a made up thing nor is it just their personality, they're actually a male on estrogen. A male on estrogen is becoming more competitive with females than they are with males, who they are going literally AWAY from competitively. If you can somehow square this with your idea that males who are transitioning and taking estrogen (trans athletes) are *trying* to gain an advantage I'd love to hear the explanation. Luckily I know you don't have one!
Can males in the NBA take estrogen? I actually don't know. Also if your problem is with calling them trans athletes, then you've definitely been wasting everyone's time LOLLL
I am happy to continue the conversation if and only if you are willing to be honest about the realities involved. As it is, since you can't even acknowledge that sex is the issue here, I doubt it. I will end by asking that you accept your nonconforming brothers into your own sports and spaces and leave your sisters in peace.
The thing is you think there's no world imaginable, no matter the sport, league, division, or athletes, that a male on estrogen could compete with females, so there's not much discussion to be had. Thanks for reading!
A male on any drugs or hormones is still and always will be male. There is no reason for him to compete with females because he's not one. There is no reason to think he ever could.
The only reason you can give is that his feelings and hormones, etc., make him a type of woman. No, they don't. If you cone from a dishonest position you can only ever advance dishonest opinions in which you pretend that sex is irrelevant and dismiss women who object.
Gender identity ideology is based entirely on misogyny and outmoded sex stereotypes, as if men have the right to tell women that they should not think that there is no world imaginable in which a male on hormones can elbow his way into women's sports and spaces. They do not. It's offensive.
There is nothing wrong with my thinking as it is rooted in solid, provable scientific fact. Yours is rooted in a misogynist belief that women ought to shut up and know their place. That we are ignorant and you know better.
I will not be told to put up with being relegated to an ancillary role within my own sex to accommodate men with issues. Men should accommodate their fellow men. Do not presume to lecture women or try to work around our boundaries. No means no. Consent matters. Let women decide what is fair for ourselves. You don't get a say in it, however you identify.
I think all-inclusive or all-exclusive policies are probably wrong. There's a lot of exaggeration and misinformation for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, there's not a lot of trans people playing sports (because there's not a lot of trans people), while there's not a lot of trans people dominating sports, because only like 1% of athletes are dominating in the first place.
Having said that, I think the male puberty standard is a good one to go to for high school sports, as well as limitation on contact sports. Even though there's a lot of transphobia in people talking about concerns for women sports, there *is* good reason to think safety is something to consider. For instance, where I grew up in South Carolina, 8th graders and (I think) 9th graders aren't allowed to play Varsity football, but they can run cross country at the varsity level. Again, these are boys not allowed to play with other boys - puberty and contact are important.
So, for me, the standard is simple: no biological males who have gone through male puberty in at least biological female *contact* sports at the high school level. For Olympic sports and individual sports, I say let everyone play, but then evaluate on a case by case basis. EG: often the distance runners run in the same race, and track runners care more about their times than winning their heat. I think if a transwoman is dominating the competition, it may be a situation where they can play the sport, but they may not get a recognized title (again case by case basis).
Would it suck for trans people to not get recognition for their ability? I mean yes, but that's high school. I was a great offensive lineman from elementary to high school, but I entered 9th grade at 5 '9, 165 and couldn't play OL anymore.
I think this is correct. I grew up in NC, we had the same guidelines. The point on contact sports is very important and hopefully was alluded in the piece: the sport, division, league, and other participants should determine much of the process and standards each trans athlete would need to fulfill. I would support your prescription too. Puberty is also super important but I didn't want to get too bogged down on it in the piece. I did however lay out a fairly stringent standard of at least three years of hormones to even begin the actual demonstrations. Thanks for reading and offering some interesting points to think about.
I'm no expert but others have claimed that no amount of hormone treatment will negate the advantage gained by men as a result of puberty. As an aside, I don't believe any child should be subject to pre-pubescent hormone treatment because they lack the capacity to provide informed consent and the long term effects of massive hormone treatment has not been proven to be safe.
So much of your first point depends on the sport, league, division, and other athletes. The UFC, sure. Rock climbing, not so much! Also, it doesn't need to be a total negation. We're just looking to see if they're reasonably competitive with the other athletes. So they could still be the fastest runner in the sport but if you're playing ping pong that doesn't really mean much. If you're running track, and you've completed all the requirements for HRT, then you may just be too good to make the team and need to try out for the mens or continue therapy. Like I say in the piece, my prescription isn't a mandate, it's an opportunity. A child means different things in different places, but to your underlying point: no one, even an adult, should be able to transition without a collaborative, stringent process with doctors, phycologists and supportive close ones. Children are people just like adults. Freedom and autonomy isn't given because of proof, it's valuable for its own sake.
The difference in male and female hips can’t be accounted for by changes in hormone levels, nor can lung capacity differences nor the (men’s) ability to more efficiently transmit oxygen throughout the body. There is no “fair” way to do what you have proposed.
I keep hearing this criticism that hormones won't do enough to make it "fair".
We aren't looking for fairness, we're looking for competitiveness between athletes. If a male is taking estrogen, they are becoming more competitive with females, not less. This doesn't mean they are *identical* with females.
No two people are the same. Brittney Griner has a natural advantage over most females despite sharing their sex. She's competitive with females. If a trans athlete is competitive with females, then the fairness aspect isn't my concern, especially since they are actively getting *worse* at the sport by your definition of competitive (male to male, female to female), and therefore more competitive with females!
I would be surprised to see a female- biologically so - be good enough for the NBA, NFL or MLB. Annika Sorenstam, the greatest female golfer of her generation, did poorly in two tournaments she played vs men. But floor gymnastics, figure skating, synchronized swimming, diving, archery and shooting, co-ed could work.
Definitely!! I agree on both points. It all really depends on those factors I keep mentioning: the sport, division, league, other athletes participating. If co-ed is the best way to go for competitive reasons, I'm all for it. And yes, it would definitely depend on the sports!
Some leagues are co-ed. For those that aren't, typically the higher levels of competitiveness, they don't do it because it would make it less competitive. My prescription is that trans athletes should only be allowed to participate if they can prove they're competitive with the other athletes in that specific sport, league, division, etc. If a female could make the NBA, we wouldn't throw up our hands and say okay let's just merge the two leagues. We would say this one individual is good enough to make this team and is competitive with other athletes in this league and that's it. Thanks for your reading and inquiry!
This is a courageous attempt to articulate a position which has rarely been explained in open public fora. Nonetheless, as proved in this piece, it can only be described as one grounded in envy, delusion and, indeed, hatred. None of this remotely makes sense to the majority of people on this planet. It is the fruit of activist, in-group and revolutionary reasoning nurtured among social outcasts who have come to think it is their turn to be the mainstream. They don’t want justice. They want power and retribution.
I think that's true for many on both sides of this debate. Hopefully this piece gives people something to productively argue about! Thanks for reading and engaging!
Thoughtful post. I haven’t read all the comments, but let me just say a few things:
1) I definitely think we can make distinctions for trans athletes in sports where biological sex doesn’t seem to matter, and I think nuances in the law can reflect this. But we need to make sure that biological sex *really doesn’t matter.*
2) Caitlin Clark example was a good one, and I think you’re correct that the underlying logic is about fairness in competition, not necessarily about sex. Sex is just (typically) associated with certain advantages, such as speed and strength in basketball.
To zero in a bit more: If a trans female athlete was good enough to make the team or play in the NCAA or NBA or whatever, then she would by extension be taking another female’s spot on that team or in the starting lineup, say. People would then question whether that is due to the trans athlete’s natural advantage in strength, speed, etc.
Even if she met the required medical criteria for trans females in female competition, I just don’t think it would sit well with, say, the median voter. Even if one could prove, statistically, that a trans female athlete meeting X, Y, and Z criteria puts her on a level playing field with other biological females, I don’t think many people would buy it. Statistically, one may be able to make the case, but how statistically precise can one really be? And what about the outliers, you know? There will always be doubt there, and that is why, I think, the polling is so lopsided in Republicans’ favor on this issue.
The last thing to consider is the politics and optics: This clearly requires *nuance,* and the more you have to explain in politics, the more you are losing, often times. It’s unfortunate and sad, but it’s reality. Democratic senators voting unanimously against the trans bill is just a bad look politically. They can bring up their own bill with more nuance to defend themselves, which would help, but Republicans will continue to use simplicity (and the average voter’s simplistic thinking on this issue) to their full advantage.
Of course, not every issue is just about politics, and if Democrats are willing to die on this hill, then that’s their prerogative. But I think it would be wise to push back against extremism from trans activists while trying in good faith to support trans athletes and trans people wherever they can. A similar issue for Republicans in terms of political liability that is probably more of a political liability is abortion. Many would ban abortion federally with no exception other than the life of the mother, if they had their druthers. And some anti abortion activists are indeed willing to die on that hill.
Would love to read your take on medical treatments for trans kids if you have an interest. I know all this is very, very delicate, but it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation.
Thanks for your courage to write about these things.
1. Just a quick thing: sex definitely does matter in determining competitiveness, but it's not a perfect, all-encompassing, necessary rule. It's a means of achieving competition--the best we know of so far. Trans athletes provide us with the opportunity to adjust our *means* of competitive sports. The trans individuals genetics matter too because it's the basis of many of the advantages they possess, but it doesn't mean they could never be competitive with women or other athletes in their particular sport or league. I see what you're saying I just wanted to be clear about the sex and competitiveness connection.
2. I agree with your skepticism of the political salience of this position. I think we're a long way off of seriously having these conversations as a society. But I also think some of that is due to two things: first a misconception of sports and its *end goal* (good, fun competition and not intra-sex competition). And second a misinterpretation of how wide the male and female athleticism is from one another-- I think people have this idea that no female ever has any chance against any male in any sport. But we know that to be false. We are the same species, no need to make it seem like we're impossibly different physiologically (Not you, just in general).
Your point, "This clearly requires *nuance,* and the more you have to explain in politics, the more you are losing, often times" is SOOOO true!!! And I hate that because I'm all about explanations. But yes, this solution is really more about getting people to think about the points listed in (2), not so much winning elections. If that were the case, I'd tell Democrats to think very quietly about possible solutions LOL.
I fully agree with you about pushing back against trans activists, especially the dogmatic and authoritarian ones. Democrats should not die on this hill, they have much more pertinent matters as of now. And yes: "it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation."--- 100%!
I won't go too deep right now but I'll give my general view, however you should be aware that my philosophy on children is more radical than even this piece was! But to be brief: especially when it comes to sports, the younger the better in all honestly. If a 13-15 year old knows they're trans and has gone through all the requirements and tests and so on, and they aspire to play competitive sports fairly, then starting them as soon as possible would be the best way to keep them from even obtaining the initial "natural advantages" trans athletes typically possess. In general, not just about sports, I think as long as a child has gone through a stringent, longish process with multiple doctors, psychologists, therapists, a few tests of other treatments, all with their family and close ones as support, I think any child should be able to transition if that's really the best treatment. I know there are cases of regret, sometimes kids can obtain the therapies much too easily, and they can even be forced or pressured by others into doing it: and because of all that I think the process of obtaining it should be rather difficult. I understand we also aren't too sure of the long term effects of some of these treatments, we should continue to find new, better ones and be cautious and critical when a child comes in to receive that type of care. I think the right makes much too big of a deal about it and much of what they say is lies or misinformation, but there are real problems in this that need to be solved-- I just don't think that means some kids are lying to themsevles or others by wanting to transition.
Thanks so much for reading and engaging! This was a fun discussion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my response as well as the trans kids process in your view. Again, as you said, "it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation." I truly appreciate your genuineness. (And sorry for any writing errors, I'm at work and typing quickly LOL).
1) I also think people use sex as a key point here because people don’t get to choose their sex. We’re all born how we are. So even though genetics and other factors play a role in the competitive process, and even though life isn’t fair regarding the advantages we inherit, trans athletes are *choosing* to transition to the gender they feel comfortable with and *choosing* to play sports in accordance with that gender. Despite their best efforts to level the playing field by taking hormone therapy, the fact there will be some degree of ambiguity means that whatever accolades they earn, people will question them. It’s like if an athlete takes steroids—even if ultimately proven to be statistically insignificant, people are often still skeptical and sometimes bitter about it. Or take the “Deflate Gate” drama with Tom Brady back in his heyday, if you’re a football fan. The Patriots played better *after* the footballs were aired up more in the second half of that game, but Brady haters always bring that saga up when talking about him as the GOAT. There’s always an asterisk next to the accomplishments in their mind. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think those scenarios are similar to the dynamic going on with trans female athletes.
2) Great point on the second half, but what do you mean about the end goal? I just didn’t catch your meaning there.
3) Re: Kids and treatment. I don’t think your view is particularly radical. I find it pretty sensible, actually. I think you and I both want the medical treatment that is best for kids and helps them thrive. I think there are cases of gender dysphoria that arise spontaneously in otherwise healthy children and households. But I think those cases are rare, and a lot of gender dysphoria in kids is social contagion that we have to get a handle on.
I also think it’s notable that American medical guidance on this is out of step with Europe’s. The Cass Report (you probably are already aware of it) showed that evidence of medical interventions for gender dysphoria in kids is remarkably weak. That is the most comprehensive study to date, and yet, crickets from the powers that be in America… It just gives already skeptical Americans of the medical and scientific establishment more reason to be skeptical.
I am open to helping kids in this way *if* there is good evidence for it because the stakes are so high. We all want kids to feel comfortable in their own skin, but we should also want to keep them safe. A lot of gender dysphoria seems to be the quirkiness of being a child and the difficulties of changing bodies and coming of age. By the way, Sam Harris is very good on this, and I highly recommend his podcast and newsletter because he’s also very good at critiquing the right, particularly Trumpism.
I am finishing up graduate school right now, but when I have a little more time on my hands, I plan to start writing more. I look forward to reading more of your takes! I’ve really enjoyed the exchange! :)
1. 100% correct. I've noticed that seems to be more of the problem and many aren't aware that that is the thing that's concerning, not necessarily the fact they're trans or that we're striving for competition in whatever form it takes.
2. The end goal is competitiveness. Sex is used as a means to achieve this by segregating sexes to induce competition. The required level of competitiveness entirely depends on the specific sport, league, division, and set of other athletes we're talking about. So I think part of the reason for the disdain of it politically is due partially to a misconception of what sports is all about: competition in itself not intra-sex competition, though we do that in certain leagues only for competitive reasons like Olympic boxing or something but if a male wanted to do interpretive dancing I'm not sure why they shouldn't be able to so long as they were competitive.
3. Yes, Yes, YES! And I am aware of it but I think the bigger problem isn't necessarily the guidance, we have different problems than others do, but that we simply don't study it at all-- it seems! Like you say, we have scant studies on this and we really need to be doing more work here, I hate Trump is doing away with so much NIH funding and university research funding. But yes, that lack of understanding and of the risk makes Americans queasy.
Absolutely love Sam Harris, glad to see another follower of his!
Wow, congrats on graduate school and almost being done! That's a huge accomplishment. I'll definitely be on the lookout for your writings, I'm sure we have a lot more to discuss! I truly appreciate your engagement, hopefully we're making some progress!
Lia Thomas is 6'4" and has a HUGE advantage over shorter female athletes. The fact that Thomas was a mediocre male athlete and then became a women's champion should tell you all you need to know about why this person's participation in women's collegiate swimming is unfair.
Suppressing testosterone does not change the fact that, on average, men are larger, have greater lung capacity, can jump higher, and can run (and swim) faster than women. Sure, SOME women are faster and stronger than SOME men, but that's like saying that some days in Cheyenne are warmer than some days in Miami. How many women's medals have been claimed by people who were born male?
Trans men are not barred from men's sports because they would never make the team. Imagine a WNBA player transitioning and trying to play in the NBA. They would be laughed at. To me this is an issue of fairness. We have separate women's sports so that women can compete fairly against others who were born female and whose bodies are female.
I have no problem with people living as they wish, but your rights end where mine begin. And as the father of 2 daughters, if a natal male beats my daughter out for a spot on a team, you're damn well sure I will be angry about it.
I don’t think Thomas should’ve competed, but while winning one race Thomas did lose two others.
Suppressing testosterone does change the fact that the one doing it is steadily becoming different than the average male. And it’s in the direction of fairer competition, not worse— unless they want to still play with males. I don’t know the answer to how many medals males have won in women’s sports but I’d guess not many. Maybe a handful.
If trans men cannot make the team, as I say in the piece, they are essentially barred from competition entirely. *If* a female could play in the NBA, then she should be allowed. If you agree, you have zero argument against trans athletes. I understand why women’s sports was created.
You, like many others, claim to not care how others live their lives but you’re against even contemplating a method of separating athletes based on their skill and not necessarily their sex or gender? Hm. I don’t believe you. If a trans athlete takes your daughters spot on the team, either the standard of competitiveness is faulty and should be improved (not ban trans athletes outright, or your daughters should work harder to make the team next year. As I say in the piece, welcome to competitive sports!
Jordan, I see your points. I am trying my best to keep an open mind. That is my general approach to life. That, and to be respectful to everyone I meet (online or in person).
About the trans men issue, while Lia Thomas was competing on the women's team, a trans male named Isaac was also on the women's team! This setup led Riley Gaines (whom I'm sure you have heard of) to remark that women's sports was now a catch-all for anyone and everyone.
The unfairness is not limited to the competition itself. Are you okay with fully intact males undressing in the women's locker rooms and showering naked with biological women? Lia Thomas was well known to walk around the locker room naked in front of the other women, not caring that these other women did not want to see a penis and testicles in their locker room. Indeed, one of these women (Paula Scanlan) indicated that she had been raped and that seeing exposed male genitalia traumatized her.
Why is it that the feelings of the one trans person always seem to come before those of the 30 or 40 women who are uncomfortable? I just don't get it.
As for the idea that my daughter - or any other natal female - should have to "work harder" to beat out a natal male with clear physical advantages, that does not seem reasonable. The record for the fastest female runner ever is regularly broken by high school boys. A team of WNBA all-stars was soundly beaten by a team of male college basketball players. If you put Tiger Woods on the LPGA, he would win every major - even at 49 years old and with a bad back. Even if Tiger were to be on testosterone reduction therapy, you don't think he would still dominate? He is still physically stronger than almost all the women in the LPGA
As for segregating sports by ability, isn't that why they have weight classes in boxing? Mike Tyson would have KILLED Sugar Ray Leonard had they ever gotten into the ring together. Youth sports are segregated by age so that 16-year-olds don't destroy 12-year-olds. But if you have a group of 15-year-old runners on the girls' track team, the unspoken assumption is that none of them have unfair biological advantages (such as longer strides, greater muscle mass, larger hearts, and greater lung capacity) associated with being male. No amount of testosterone suppression is going to change any of that.
Do you think Isaac presented an uncompetitive environment? How did they perform? How long were they on hormones? What sport was it? -- all questions I'd ask before making a judgment on this. But again, I'm perfectly fine denying athletes of any kind a "right" to play, given I don't think the right exists.
I think it's strange for anyone to change together in the open unless they're in a relationship. An easy solution to this is adding private areas in the locker rooms. And I don't think the trans person's rights come before anyone else's. But I do think there's too much emotion around these problems when, like I explained, it could be easily solved with some critical thinking and funds. I'm sure some females feel uncomfortable around other females in the locker room too but no one is arguing in support of their rights. So to me it seems people only care about rights when trans people start getting some, but that's just my general speculation not a criticism of you or your points specifically.
No, not saying your daughters need to work harder to beat a male. I'm saying they should work harder to become so good that they make the team either way. If a male who has undergone hormone therapy and transitioned is found to be competitive in this particular league, then either the standards need to be harder to pass or your daughters need to work harder to play next year. This is just how competitive sports works and I don't think one should be able to whine about another athletes "natural advantages" because those arguments would hold true for other females too. If we care about competition and not participation trophies, then it shouldn't matter the genitals of the athletes--only their competitiveness.
Yes, correct. And it's also why I stressed the point of the league, sport, division, and other athletes competing: they *determine* the competitiveness, not the sex or gender necessarily. There are coed leagues, for instance. Some sports males just don't play as much. Also, youth sports being segregated by age is the same MEANS as using sex and gender to the ENDS of fair competition. I think that's roughly fine. My argument here is that it shouldn't be all-encompassing given sex alone doesn't always determine competitiveness: I cannot compete with LeBron even though I'm a male. I think it'd be better to end the age restrictions and let anyone who can compete play: if a 10 year old is good enough to play with 15 year olds, let them!!
And I'm sorry but you're just wrong about the testosterone point. *Even if* it didn't negate all the natural advantages, that shouldn't be the goal. Males differ in testosterone levels and sometimes they take it or estrogen to make their competitiveness fairer. It's not about "matching", per se, with females. It's about getting it down enough to display competitiveness with other athletes in that sport. I don't care if they have a billion more testosterone levels, if they can beat Bron 3-7 out of 10 times I couldn't care less about their hormone levels. The same goes with trans athletes.
Any argument you have against trans athletes, it seems I'm able to come up with the exact same one for intra-sex competition. That's because sports isn't about sex or gender or age or natural advantages or women or anything like that. It's about competition. That's it. Once you acknowledge that, allowing individual trans athletes compete based on their competitiveness should be an easy second step. Of course there will be problems, and again I'm not saying let all of them play whenever they want wherever they want... no! I'm just saying I value competition more than what the athletes have between their legs.
Jordan it is way more than “a handful”. Especially as the carefully supervised supportive & cautious approach to gender transition in kids (or adults now) is NOT what is happening. See this listing. https://www.shewon.org/
I'm not sure what this link is supposed to show. The first athlete I clicked on was a 15 year old boy who was decent but not great at high school golf. Is this really the major issue we're making it out to be?
The point is that there is actually a flood of trans athletes now & in women’s sports (but only women’s sport) there are increasing spots, awards, records & medals going to these. If it were rare I don’t think we would be hearing so much about it. The lower levels of competition are needed to ever get to the higher levels. Look at the totals on that list.
The problem is I don't care about trans athletes winning medals. I care if they're not being competitive with other athletes in their sport. If trans people make up less than 1% of the population and even less of the student-athlete population, then I find it hard to imagine how they could "take over" anything. If your link is supposed to be evidence of trans athletes doing that, I don't think it suffices.
In the world before social media transgendered people made up less than 1% of the population. In the age of social media contagion we have had 3000% (yes, that is the number) increase in referrals to transgender clinics for CHILDREN. We have actually only seen the leading edge of this tide of trans athletes.
And doesn’t it prove that they aren’t competitive (in the manner you’re using the word) if they have gone from no trans-female record holders, medals, etc. to long lists of them in such a short time?
Here are the walls you’re running into.
1) There are no Mens leagues. There are women’s teams and Open teams. If a woman trans or otherwise coukd qualify for the NFL she would. There is no gender bar in “men’s” sports.
2) You are suffering from the Apex Fallacy. Many men compete in sports who never win. Do you want trans athletes to compete? Or do you want them to win. No one denied Lia Thomas the right to swim in the open division (men’s) she just never won.
3) Trans men don’t compete in open divisions for the same reason they aren’t clamoring to go to Men’s Prisons. Can we at some point be real please?
4) your case by case basis for of biomechanics measurement is unworkable. What is the benchmark? The champion or the historical fiftieth percentile? Just utter nonsense upon even cursory inspection
If this is truly the steel man argument, it’s laughable.
1) This *should* be the case but I don't know if it's true. Though you and I would be fine with a trans athlete or female theoretically playing in the NFL, I think many wouldn't. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the desire of outrightly banning all trans athletes means they care more about the sex and not so much about the actual competitiveness.
2) I think you're right about the Apex part, but it's not a fallacy here. I'm *actually* talking about the very best-- it's what we're always doing when discussing competitive sports. I don't want men or trans athletes to win, I don't care. I want them to compete if they can do so in a balanced and entertaining fashion. Thomas would've certainly been barred from competing with the men since Thomas was on hormones for nearly three years. I, unlike most though, don't care if Thomas wins, I care if she's competitive with the group she's participating with.
3) I'm not sure what you're referring to here, could you explain? I want to make sure I'm addressing your criticisms as best as possible!
4) The standard is different for each division, league, sport, and set of athletes. It's workable because it's been used before and nothing in the laws of physics is stopping it from happening. If you mean it's impractical, maybe. But only because so many are ready to throw out the entire issue instead of dedicated a minimal amount of creativity.
5) My steel man: trans women (males) present an uncompetitive experience for athletes in women's sports when they're too dominant physiologically, and we created womens sports so they could have opportunity to participate without being overrun by males, therefore trans women in women's sports leads to uncompetitiveness and is discriminatory to a protected class of people. How is this?
Man you have expended a lot of words to still miss the point, widely.
1. Matt is right and you are wrong. Anyone can play in the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL - read the bylaws if you want. Women are not excluded. There are no women in these leagues because there are none good enough to contribute to the teams. In your example, the difference between Curry and Wembanyama is large but tiny compared to the difference between either of these NBA players and, say, Caitlin Clark. Thus, we have created women's leagues, only for women, so that they can also have professional and elite amateur competition, but these only exist in a meaningful way if they are for women. Nobody cares about a biological woman being trans and trying to join a men's league. Even if she could make the team, she doesn't pose a safety threat or have an unfair advantage over the natal men, and like I said before there is no rule excluding her. She makes the team if she's good enough. Geez it's in the names! NBA (not MNBA) and WNBA. Are you dense?
2. This is funny. Thomas was on estrogen. Not exactly a performance enhancing drug. You do realize "hormones" is not a terribly descriptive term? Lia Thomas was always free to compete in the men's (aka "open") division, along with everyone else. Thomas should not have been free to compete against women, which is what we all saw and recoiled at.
3. Is related to 1. "Trans men" (i.e. women) are not clamoring to play in predominantly men's leagues because they can't and they'd probably get hurt trying. Just like they're not clamoring to get into men's prisons. THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING MEN. It's about protecting women and the integrity of women's sports. Just as the prison issue is about protecting women prisoners from predatory men. Men do not need protecting in the same way. Get it now?
4. Women aren't disabled or impaired men. Taking men and shooting them up with estrogen and then saying, "ok he is now weak and impaired enough to play against the girls" is insulting and misogynistic. Can Steph Curry join the WNBA if he ties one hand behind his back? Why or why not? It may be true that Lia Thomas was a weaker swimmer after a couple years of estrogen, but that doesn't make Lia Thomas a woman swimmer!
I actually didn't see this until just now. Sorry there are hundreds of comments.
1. I never said a female couldn't play in the NFL-- that's your argument. I said I don't think people would approve of it even if they could and acknowledged I could be wrong and hopefully so. Women's sports do not have meaning because it's only women, thats nonsense. It has meaning because these athletes are competitive with each other and not others in different leagues-- that's it. Females do indeed have some natural advantages over males, but you're clearly not ready for that discussion. So, your point on trans women playing in males leagues is again, fine with me, but basically impossible because they are actively going in the OPPOSITE direction hormonally, anatomically, etc.! I don't know what to say to get that across to you.
2. I say hormones because we're talking generally about trans athletes, not one specific person. Except, every dissenter HAS to bring up Thomas because they don't know the names of any others-- typical. I have said about 20 times now that I think Thomas shouldn't have competed at that time... I can only say it so many times before giving up on your ability to decipher information. It's also funny (expected) you leave out that Thomas lost three other races that day LOL. Again, it seems none of you care about women's sports until a male is competing: strange.
3. Protecting women and the integrity of women's sports is virtue signaling. Sports isn't about protecting women, that's number one. Secondly, the integrity of women's sports, like all other sports, is about competition, not women. Men do need protection too, but I don't think you're ready for that conversation.
4. The way you talk about women compared to men, they might as well be disabled and impaired. I am not shooting anyone up with anything-- they do that themselves. I enjoy freedoms in my country, not sure what the problem is with that. If Curry wanted to do that, and the league was fine with it, then you have no argument against it. Nice try though. I have never stated that Thomas is a woman swimmer... where are you getting these arguments LOL. A male taking estrogen necessarily is becoming more competitive with females than males. If you don't like that logic, find a corner to cry in.
I'll wait for your substantive response to MY points.
There is too much BS to wade through there. Yes, I don’t like that logic, and neither does the majority of the public, on both sides of the political aisle. You lost this argument already, which you’d know if you were paying attention, so it’s not clear why I should be the one crying. Thomas WAS a woman swimmer, according to the NCAA, which is why he was competing in WOMEN’S SWIMMING genius. Everyone, including the NCAA, quickly realized how stupid and inhumane that was, which is why the sporting world is currently running as fast as possible away from all the daft arguments you’re now making. You are about 3 years too late to this argument and have chosen the losing side.
Jordan appears a modest thinker seeking relevance
Thanks!
If your argument is that Thomas shouldn’t have competed, then I agree with you— as I’ve explicitly said too many times now. But that has nothing to do with my proposal. Thanks for reading and engaging!
Take a look at women professional hockey players. These women are olympic level athletes and have won gold in the past. They play with 15 and 16 boys and still lose. Please let that sink in for a bit.
Ooof. Yeah, it sounds like hockey would need a tougher set of requirements under my prescription. It means less trans athletes would be playing, not more or the same as other sports. It's entirely possible, if what you're saying is true, that no trans athlete would ever make it!
You have noted in comments that trans women should be more self aware. But think about that, you're asking men who think they're actually women to be self aware. A lack of self awareness is at the very root of their condition.
Well no because the condition comes from a self awareness. Gender dysphoria is a necessary component to being trans, I think. Therefore they would be experiencing an uneasiness with their self image and identity due to *proficient* introspection, no? I think my original reference was that they still hold certain advantages and others may not consent to their ideas, whatever they are.
Trans is an umbrella term that covers young children whose parents lie to them about sex through teenagers caught in a new-goth cult , transvestites, fetishistic cross dressers and transsexuals to autogynophiles.
I recommend you watch this to understand it from a psychotherapy perspective:
https://youtu.be/aHe5vbMj_YU?si=686AYFgx2gMsaBtD
I’m good on the watch but yeah you’re right, not all who claim to be trans are trans. But I don’t really care about that in terms of this piece. This piece has nothing to do with identity or gender dysphoria or whatever. it’s about how we can separate *individuals* by competitiveness.
You're right, it's not really relevant.
With respect to self awareness, these men in women's sports are either not self aware and really think they are women; or they are self aware and are just cheats. It's one or the other.
You’re overthinking this.
Sex isn’t gender.
Gender is a social construct, it would be unethical to segregate sports by gender in the same way it would be unethical to segregate by race or religion. As absurd as segregating by star sign.
Sex is a physical category. It’s reasonable to consider segregating by physically manifesting categories like sex, age and weight. If any of those are objectionable the alternative is to simply not segregate.
Gender is not a social construct. Gender is directly related to sex.
Identity is a social construct and lefties have been conflating gender and identity.
Thank you for your article. I see you’ve responded to some responses so as someone who tends more conservative, I hope mine engages as well.
I think it’s important to preface by acknowledging 2 things:
1. A crucial distinction must be made between trans individuals and trans activists. The former I earnestly believe just want to live their lives as best they can. While I may disagree with how I participate in that, I would never begrudge a person for wanting to live a fulfilling life. The latter however, I am less magnanimous toward. Some (your article comes to mind) act in good faith to have a constructive dialogue. Some tack a far more inflammatory course which I think does tremendous damage to the plight of the former.
2. Trans participation in sports does not exist in a bubble. I say that partially because I admit I bristled at _the real issue is consent_ section and partially because without that context we’re avoiding the elephant in the room. To the consent point:
_post-2016 qualifier about generalization_
Women absolutely have agency to consent or not, they also exist in social structures and, I would claim, tend to be more sensitive to ostracization as a tactic for correcting behavior. I would further claim that outlets receptive to outrage over trans exclusion, the support networks to get that outrage amplified, and the networks that can apply social pressures (like ostracization) as a result of that coordination is a massive concern for someone participating in the social milieu. Therefore, I think a good faith argument acknowledges that while female participants can always choose not to consent to participating against a trans woman, they do so at great social risk, a risk calculation inherently different from men. To the latter point:
I’d hazard we can agree that no system, however benevolently constructed, will ever incorporate everyone. Changing an, albeit imperfect, culturally accepted system to incorporate edge cases at the cost of the vast middle’s beliefs (79% of the population by a NYT/Ipsos poll) reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote “…one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right rather than to be effective.” But the moral arc of the universe is long and bends towards justice, so ahead we charge.
The ideal of your two options: “allow trans athletes to compete on an individual basis” provided they’re comparable to cisgendered athletes. You reference comparing physiological conditions as well as testosterone levels, I’d argue that the first follows the second so I’ll focus primarily on Testosterone levels. I’m not inherently opposed to this. While I think it injects an engineered nature into an otherwise organic sorting method, professional athletics are a business and science is a tool. So let’s jump to the elephant: HRT in minors.
If we’re talking about T-levels in high school sports at all, we’re talking about HRT in minors. If we’re talking about leveling physiological advantages in adults brought about by puberty, we’re talking about HRT in minors. We can avoid this topic for a while by focusing on Lia Thomas’s levels, and overtures about how some women can beat some men, all worthy points to discuss that have little consequence. But we cannot forever dance around peer-to-peer physiological advantages, and how we _could_ prevent this so everything is fair… and thus: HRT in minors. We simply cannot have an honest conversation while ignoring this. I would claim that mounting research is showing this to be far more detrimental decision than WPATH, the AAP, the Endocrine Society, et al. have led on, and that the population is going to increasingly feel that they’ve been gaslit and lied to about the consequences of those organization’s claims. I suspect much ado about this and malpractice will be made in the coming decade. Additionally, I personally believe that if this is the hill Trans Rights wants to die on, tragically, those aforementioned inflammatory activist allies I mentioned will ensure that they die on it.
You said you see two options, neither of which are you sold on. Neither am I. A don’t ask/don’t tell policy seems preferable honestly. If Megan Rapinoe or Sue Bird were secretly a man this whole time and nobody knew, nobody would care. But this is the era of everything is online and everyone is a true crime detective of other’s personal lives, and the second some woman launches from the free throw line and windmill dunks over her opponent, there’s gonna be people digging as to how.
Taken out of the bubble of sports and in the whole of society, the better option, the one that strives to be effective rather than right, and what I would argue, however imperfect, is the moral arc actually bending to justice, seems like a ban of all trans athletes in all leagues.
1. 100% correct.
2. Yes, women are more sensitive to ostracization, I think that's right, but so are trans people. So, while not consenting to a trans athlete can be a risk, it isn't any more of a risk than them not wanting to participate against any athlete for any other reason. And there are fairly simple ways around that ostracization: unanimity or anonymity, for instance.
I realize the unpopularity, as noted in the piece, but popularism isn’t my philosophy— unlike many other moderate Dems. My problem with the Fry quote is that justice doesn't bend towards justice, or at least not by accident or coincidence. It happens by effort and creativity and criticism and resources… it takes people seeking it! So, if I’m right about the trans athlete issue and sports in general, we won’t be getting any closer to justice by referring to public sentiment. Look at other big issues in the country’s history: a lot of progress was made by courageous individual efforts, not a persuasion of the masses. Nor do I think it should be the ideal to convince everyone and only then try new ways of doing it.
HRT in minors is indeed the crux and I’m glad you noticed it. I just figured since I’m already taking on an unpopular stance I shouldn't pile on more unpopular takes, but you're the first to explicitly catch on to my beating around the bush! I’m personally in favor of it so long as there’s a stringent process involving multiple doctors, psychologists, supportive family and friends, etc. I think that having that support, credibility and collaboration is just as important as the potential effects of whatever treatment they endure. But yes, for sports specifically, the sooner the better for HRT. The research seems dicey but those are always improvable areas of medicine. The actual problem of gender dysphoria is the thing to dedicate effort towards, everything else is implications. If some of these minors are genuinely helped and their lives improve after transitioning, then I’m not sure why any study saying otherwise would matter.
The don't ask don’t tell policy seems a bit outdated, as you allude. It also goes toward my ultimate point: if Sue Bird were actually a man, no one should care (though they might because she's one of the best of all time). But if an average-ish WNBA player turned out to be a male, I don’t think anyone would have an argument for caring. And they shouldn’t with trans athletes either– if they’re as indistinguishable.
The point about the free throw line dunk is humorous and I get your point. But also, wouldn;t that solve the pay discrepancy problem many female athletes have? (only half joking). I respect your preferable option, and that may be the best option as of now. I just wanted to provide some serious inquiry on an issue that it seems many liberals are giving up on. I don’t think anyone has ever achieved justice that way.
Thanks so much for reading and genuinely engaging!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I’ll try my best to genuinely wrestle with your points going forward, and I’ll keep an eye peeled for your posts going forward. Best of luck
Same to you! I followed so I’ll be on the lookout!
Why are we even having this conversation given the smallness of the “problem set” ?
I mean seriously, this violates the first rule of Spock 😉 “The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few”
Read and commented. This piece was laughable.
Thanks so much!
As someone sympathetic to the trans community I think the sports debate has been a disaster because the trans athletes are so unsympathetic. Take Lia Thomas. As a he, Lia was an average (or worst) member of the men’s team. As a she, Lia won the NCAA. Did Lia really not wonder about the newly found success? And how can someone so sensitive to how others perceive them be so blind to the discomfort they cause others in the locker room?
That's an interesting moral argument I hadn't thought about much before. My guess would be that most trans athletes are doing this *despite* the perceptions and criticisms, making it harder for them to actually go through with it. You're getting a bit close to cynicism but I see your point. I don't think Thomas should've played, and she wouldn't have passed the qualifications I laid out in my piece. However, there is an argument to be made that trans athletes need to be more self-aware of not only the situation but their own influence on it. Thanks for your reading and response!
Yes, lets us tie ourselves in knots to accommodate delusional people who cannot accept any limits on their delusions and insist on making 99.9% of the world comply because the rush of power they get from making everyone play along is “affirming”.
They are delusional, largely mentally ill. “Born in the wrong body” isn’t a real thing. Biology is real. Males…females. A dude wants to pretend he’s a chick, fine whatever. Shouldn’t lose a job, shouldn’t be denied housing. But forcing the rest of us to play along is absurd, and commandeering the coercive power of the state to enforce lies is Orwellian.
https://substack.com/profile/84617315-smellycarney/note/c-96494897?r=63nfc&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Gender is software. Sex is hardware. Don't act confident if you don't know what you're talking about. When I tell you to "Man up" I'm not telling you to grow your penis. I'm telling you something about IDEAS. So yes, you don't know what gender is and therefore I am ignoring your biological explanation of gender LOLLLL
Oh, wow thanks for bestowing upon me the revealed truth that literally no one heard of or believed 10 years ago outside of Judith Butler and a few cranks laundering bullshit through queer theory conferences. I’ll check with turtle gender lady as well for further insight. You’ve added tremendous value.
Wouldn't this argument apply to gay, disabled, etc. people too?
I haven’t met a gay person who wants to actively lie to them and myself and the world about reality. Likewise, never met a person in a wheelchair who demanded I tell everyone they can walk.
And a trans person is lying to themselves and the world about reality by wanting to play sports? Lots of creative effort going into solving this issue I see.
Jordan, you do understand that just because a person wishes to be the other sex, they’re not actually the other sex? . . . Right?
How on earth would it apply to gay or disabled people?
99% of the world must accommodate disabled people and their "delusions". Your same argument was used to keep Black people out of sports too because, well, it was an unfair advantage they had right...... right??
This is surely a satirical comment.
Please tell me you’re being satirical……
Sports are segregated by sex because it absolutely is the fairest way to ensure fair competition. What I've noticed in this article is a disingenuous attempt to pretend that it's mean to keep men (however they choose to identify) out of women's sports on principle. No, it is not. While you've paid lip service to the stories of women being injured by men with special identities, you don't seem to be taking it seriously. Because you're all about the men with special identities.
Your comment about transmen is misleading. They already compete in women's sports because they are not the problem.
So, assuming that you've read this far, you have either written me off as a bigot or are wondering why I use the term 'men with special identities.' It's because calling them women of any kind is misleading. Gender identity is merely an individual's entirely subjective feeling, not a biological fact. One proof that even the wokest sports authorities don't believe that men with special identities are women is the testosterone levels allowed: <10 nmol/L for 12 months prior to competition. For women, it's a maximum of 5.0 nmol/L. If they don't believe these people are women, why should we?
I presume you've read up on the musculoskeletal advantages that men have over women. A 5'4" man at 14.7 stone (my weight) is stronger than I am.
And all of that is before we even get to the changing rooms issue. No way! And women who complain about this get punished.
The biggest flaw in your argument, besides trying to sneak men into women's sports based on discredited attempts to compare body types, size, weight, and testosterone levels, is that you haven't bothered to ask women about it. If you say you did I'll bet it's the gender woo true believers that you paid attention to.
Let men with special identities compete with their fellow men. They can be given a head start (or comparative) to discount any disadvantages resulting from the hormones, etc., that the ones who actually take them have.
No one is trying to stop men with special identities from competing in sports at all. Go for it, I say. But in your own sex class. Just don't arrogate to yourself the right to lecture women on what is or isn't fair for us.
Given the fact you can't even call them trans athletes I'm going to assume there's less than no point in having a conversation with you about this. Thanks for reading and responding!
Being trans DOES have something to do with your anatomy and athletic ability. I don't know how to make it clearer. We'll just have to disagree.
Precisely. People play sports with their bodies, not their personalities.
And having a feminine personality does not change one's sex. Claiming a special identity is not a ticket to participation in women's sports. Nor should it ever be. Your opinion of yourself is your own. We are not obliged to share it, even if you take hormones and have surgery.
If you're a male and you start taking estrogen, that's not a personality. It's not an opinion. And yes, it is now part of reality that even you must reckon with. Why waste so much time typing when you could've just said "I don't care. I want men vs men. I don't care about competition in itself." Save us all the time next go around.
Taking oestrogen does not take away your musculoskeletal advantages, so spare me the morality lecture. I note that you've forgotten their right to double the upper testosterone levels allowed for women. Why waste so much time typing when you could simply say that you don't care about fair competition, you just want men v women?
I don't think y'all could even keep up in a morality lecture first of all, that's evidenced by the way you talk about trans people. Secondly, if a male is taking estrogen, that's not a made up thing nor is it just their personality, they're actually a male on estrogen. A male on estrogen is becoming more competitive with females than they are with males, who they are going literally AWAY from competitively. If you can somehow square this with your idea that males who are transitioning and taking estrogen (trans athletes) are *trying* to gain an advantage I'd love to hear the explanation. Luckily I know you don't have one!
Can males in the NBA take estrogen? I actually don't know. Also if your problem is with calling them trans athletes, then you've definitely been wasting everyone's time LOLLL
In any case, the exact thing that -makes- them trans is their male sex.
I am happy to continue the conversation if and only if you are willing to be honest about the realities involved. As it is, since you can't even acknowledge that sex is the issue here, I doubt it. I will end by asking that you accept your nonconforming brothers into your own sports and spaces and leave your sisters in peace.
The thing is you think there's no world imaginable, no matter the sport, league, division, or athletes, that a male on estrogen could compete with females, so there's not much discussion to be had. Thanks for reading!
A male on any drugs or hormones is still and always will be male. There is no reason for him to compete with females because he's not one. There is no reason to think he ever could.
The only reason you can give is that his feelings and hormones, etc., make him a type of woman. No, they don't. If you cone from a dishonest position you can only ever advance dishonest opinions in which you pretend that sex is irrelevant and dismiss women who object.
Gender identity ideology is based entirely on misogyny and outmoded sex stereotypes, as if men have the right to tell women that they should not think that there is no world imaginable in which a male on hormones can elbow his way into women's sports and spaces. They do not. It's offensive.
There is nothing wrong with my thinking as it is rooted in solid, provable scientific fact. Yours is rooted in a misogynist belief that women ought to shut up and know their place. That we are ignorant and you know better.
I will not be told to put up with being relegated to an ancillary role within my own sex to accommodate men with issues. Men should accommodate their fellow men. Do not presume to lecture women or try to work around our boundaries. No means no. Consent matters. Let women decide what is fair for ourselves. You don't get a say in it, however you identify.
I think all-inclusive or all-exclusive policies are probably wrong. There's a lot of exaggeration and misinformation for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, there's not a lot of trans people playing sports (because there's not a lot of trans people), while there's not a lot of trans people dominating sports, because only like 1% of athletes are dominating in the first place.
Having said that, I think the male puberty standard is a good one to go to for high school sports, as well as limitation on contact sports. Even though there's a lot of transphobia in people talking about concerns for women sports, there *is* good reason to think safety is something to consider. For instance, where I grew up in South Carolina, 8th graders and (I think) 9th graders aren't allowed to play Varsity football, but they can run cross country at the varsity level. Again, these are boys not allowed to play with other boys - puberty and contact are important.
So, for me, the standard is simple: no biological males who have gone through male puberty in at least biological female *contact* sports at the high school level. For Olympic sports and individual sports, I say let everyone play, but then evaluate on a case by case basis. EG: often the distance runners run in the same race, and track runners care more about their times than winning their heat. I think if a transwoman is dominating the competition, it may be a situation where they can play the sport, but they may not get a recognized title (again case by case basis).
Would it suck for trans people to not get recognition for their ability? I mean yes, but that's high school. I was a great offensive lineman from elementary to high school, but I entered 9th grade at 5 '9, 165 and couldn't play OL anymore.
I think this is correct. I grew up in NC, we had the same guidelines. The point on contact sports is very important and hopefully was alluded in the piece: the sport, division, league, and other participants should determine much of the process and standards each trans athlete would need to fulfill. I would support your prescription too. Puberty is also super important but I didn't want to get too bogged down on it in the piece. I did however lay out a fairly stringent standard of at least three years of hormones to even begin the actual demonstrations. Thanks for reading and offering some interesting points to think about.
I'm no expert but others have claimed that no amount of hormone treatment will negate the advantage gained by men as a result of puberty. As an aside, I don't believe any child should be subject to pre-pubescent hormone treatment because they lack the capacity to provide informed consent and the long term effects of massive hormone treatment has not been proven to be safe.
So much of your first point depends on the sport, league, division, and other athletes. The UFC, sure. Rock climbing, not so much! Also, it doesn't need to be a total negation. We're just looking to see if they're reasonably competitive with the other athletes. So they could still be the fastest runner in the sport but if you're playing ping pong that doesn't really mean much. If you're running track, and you've completed all the requirements for HRT, then you may just be too good to make the team and need to try out for the mens or continue therapy. Like I say in the piece, my prescription isn't a mandate, it's an opportunity. A child means different things in different places, but to your underlying point: no one, even an adult, should be able to transition without a collaborative, stringent process with doctors, phycologists and supportive close ones. Children are people just like adults. Freedom and autonomy isn't given because of proof, it's valuable for its own sake.
Thanks so much for reading and genuinely engaging!
The difference in male and female hips can’t be accounted for by changes in hormone levels, nor can lung capacity differences nor the (men’s) ability to more efficiently transmit oxygen throughout the body. There is no “fair” way to do what you have proposed.
I keep hearing this criticism that hormones won't do enough to make it "fair".
We aren't looking for fairness, we're looking for competitiveness between athletes. If a male is taking estrogen, they are becoming more competitive with females, not less. This doesn't mean they are *identical* with females.
No two people are the same. Brittney Griner has a natural advantage over most females despite sharing their sex. She's competitive with females. If a trans athlete is competitive with females, then the fairness aspect isn't my concern, especially since they are actively getting *worse* at the sport by your definition of competitive (male to male, female to female), and therefore more competitive with females!
Thanks for reading!
Why can’t males, regardless of their “gender” compete with one another?
Surely you know females aren’t an idea . . . Or an identity? Or a surgically/medically altered male?
You know that, right?
No male will ever be female.
This is a fact. Let’s start from there.
100% correct. That’s why I haven’t brought up gender identity once in this entire reply thread nor the actual article!
Why not just make it all co-ed? Why separate the sexes?
I would be surprised to see a female- biologically so - be good enough for the NBA, NFL or MLB. Annika Sorenstam, the greatest female golfer of her generation, did poorly in two tournaments she played vs men. But floor gymnastics, figure skating, synchronized swimming, diving, archery and shooting, co-ed could work.
Definitely!! I agree on both points. It all really depends on those factors I keep mentioning: the sport, division, league, other athletes participating. If co-ed is the best way to go for competitive reasons, I'm all for it. And yes, it would definitely depend on the sports!
Some leagues are co-ed. For those that aren't, typically the higher levels of competitiveness, they don't do it because it would make it less competitive. My prescription is that trans athletes should only be allowed to participate if they can prove they're competitive with the other athletes in that specific sport, league, division, etc. If a female could make the NBA, we wouldn't throw up our hands and say okay let's just merge the two leagues. We would say this one individual is good enough to make this team and is competitive with other athletes in this league and that's it. Thanks for your reading and inquiry!
This is a courageous attempt to articulate a position which has rarely been explained in open public fora. Nonetheless, as proved in this piece, it can only be described as one grounded in envy, delusion and, indeed, hatred. None of this remotely makes sense to the majority of people on this planet. It is the fruit of activist, in-group and revolutionary reasoning nurtured among social outcasts who have come to think it is their turn to be the mainstream. They don’t want justice. They want power and retribution.
I think that's true for many on both sides of this debate. Hopefully this piece gives people something to productively argue about! Thanks for reading and engaging!
Hi Jordan,
Thoughtful post. I haven’t read all the comments, but let me just say a few things:
1) I definitely think we can make distinctions for trans athletes in sports where biological sex doesn’t seem to matter, and I think nuances in the law can reflect this. But we need to make sure that biological sex *really doesn’t matter.*
2) Caitlin Clark example was a good one, and I think you’re correct that the underlying logic is about fairness in competition, not necessarily about sex. Sex is just (typically) associated with certain advantages, such as speed and strength in basketball.
To zero in a bit more: If a trans female athlete was good enough to make the team or play in the NCAA or NBA or whatever, then she would by extension be taking another female’s spot on that team or in the starting lineup, say. People would then question whether that is due to the trans athlete’s natural advantage in strength, speed, etc.
Even if she met the required medical criteria for trans females in female competition, I just don’t think it would sit well with, say, the median voter. Even if one could prove, statistically, that a trans female athlete meeting X, Y, and Z criteria puts her on a level playing field with other biological females, I don’t think many people would buy it. Statistically, one may be able to make the case, but how statistically precise can one really be? And what about the outliers, you know? There will always be doubt there, and that is why, I think, the polling is so lopsided in Republicans’ favor on this issue.
The last thing to consider is the politics and optics: This clearly requires *nuance,* and the more you have to explain in politics, the more you are losing, often times. It’s unfortunate and sad, but it’s reality. Democratic senators voting unanimously against the trans bill is just a bad look politically. They can bring up their own bill with more nuance to defend themselves, which would help, but Republicans will continue to use simplicity (and the average voter’s simplistic thinking on this issue) to their full advantage.
Of course, not every issue is just about politics, and if Democrats are willing to die on this hill, then that’s their prerogative. But I think it would be wise to push back against extremism from trans activists while trying in good faith to support trans athletes and trans people wherever they can. A similar issue for Republicans in terms of political liability that is probably more of a political liability is abortion. Many would ban abortion federally with no exception other than the life of the mother, if they had their druthers. And some anti abortion activists are indeed willing to die on that hill.
Would love to read your take on medical treatments for trans kids if you have an interest. I know all this is very, very delicate, but it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation.
Thanks for your courage to write about these things.
1. Just a quick thing: sex definitely does matter in determining competitiveness, but it's not a perfect, all-encompassing, necessary rule. It's a means of achieving competition--the best we know of so far. Trans athletes provide us with the opportunity to adjust our *means* of competitive sports. The trans individuals genetics matter too because it's the basis of many of the advantages they possess, but it doesn't mean they could never be competitive with women or other athletes in their particular sport or league. I see what you're saying I just wanted to be clear about the sex and competitiveness connection.
2. I agree with your skepticism of the political salience of this position. I think we're a long way off of seriously having these conversations as a society. But I also think some of that is due to two things: first a misconception of sports and its *end goal* (good, fun competition and not intra-sex competition). And second a misinterpretation of how wide the male and female athleticism is from one another-- I think people have this idea that no female ever has any chance against any male in any sport. But we know that to be false. We are the same species, no need to make it seem like we're impossibly different physiologically (Not you, just in general).
Your point, "This clearly requires *nuance,* and the more you have to explain in politics, the more you are losing, often times" is SOOOO true!!! And I hate that because I'm all about explanations. But yes, this solution is really more about getting people to think about the points listed in (2), not so much winning elections. If that were the case, I'd tell Democrats to think very quietly about possible solutions LOL.
I fully agree with you about pushing back against trans activists, especially the dogmatic and authoritarian ones. Democrats should not die on this hill, they have much more pertinent matters as of now. And yes: "it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation."--- 100%!
I won't go too deep right now but I'll give my general view, however you should be aware that my philosophy on children is more radical than even this piece was! But to be brief: especially when it comes to sports, the younger the better in all honestly. If a 13-15 year old knows they're trans and has gone through all the requirements and tests and so on, and they aspire to play competitive sports fairly, then starting them as soon as possible would be the best way to keep them from even obtaining the initial "natural advantages" trans athletes typically possess. In general, not just about sports, I think as long as a child has gone through a stringent, longish process with multiple doctors, psychologists, therapists, a few tests of other treatments, all with their family and close ones as support, I think any child should be able to transition if that's really the best treatment. I know there are cases of regret, sometimes kids can obtain the therapies much too easily, and they can even be forced or pressured by others into doing it: and because of all that I think the process of obtaining it should be rather difficult. I understand we also aren't too sure of the long term effects of some of these treatments, we should continue to find new, better ones and be cautious and critical when a child comes in to receive that type of care. I think the right makes much too big of a deal about it and much of what they say is lies or misinformation, but there are real problems in this that need to be solved-- I just don't think that means some kids are lying to themsevles or others by wanting to transition.
Thanks so much for reading and engaging! This was a fun discussion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my response as well as the trans kids process in your view. Again, as you said, "it’s important for Democrats and those who support them to have the conversation." I truly appreciate your genuineness. (And sorry for any writing errors, I'm at work and typing quickly LOL).
Good points, man! Just a few additional comments:
1) I also think people use sex as a key point here because people don’t get to choose their sex. We’re all born how we are. So even though genetics and other factors play a role in the competitive process, and even though life isn’t fair regarding the advantages we inherit, trans athletes are *choosing* to transition to the gender they feel comfortable with and *choosing* to play sports in accordance with that gender. Despite their best efforts to level the playing field by taking hormone therapy, the fact there will be some degree of ambiguity means that whatever accolades they earn, people will question them. It’s like if an athlete takes steroids—even if ultimately proven to be statistically insignificant, people are often still skeptical and sometimes bitter about it. Or take the “Deflate Gate” drama with Tom Brady back in his heyday, if you’re a football fan. The Patriots played better *after* the footballs were aired up more in the second half of that game, but Brady haters always bring that saga up when talking about him as the GOAT. There’s always an asterisk next to the accomplishments in their mind. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think those scenarios are similar to the dynamic going on with trans female athletes.
2) Great point on the second half, but what do you mean about the end goal? I just didn’t catch your meaning there.
3) Re: Kids and treatment. I don’t think your view is particularly radical. I find it pretty sensible, actually. I think you and I both want the medical treatment that is best for kids and helps them thrive. I think there are cases of gender dysphoria that arise spontaneously in otherwise healthy children and households. But I think those cases are rare, and a lot of gender dysphoria in kids is social contagion that we have to get a handle on.
I also think it’s notable that American medical guidance on this is out of step with Europe’s. The Cass Report (you probably are already aware of it) showed that evidence of medical interventions for gender dysphoria in kids is remarkably weak. That is the most comprehensive study to date, and yet, crickets from the powers that be in America… It just gives already skeptical Americans of the medical and scientific establishment more reason to be skeptical.
I am open to helping kids in this way *if* there is good evidence for it because the stakes are so high. We all want kids to feel comfortable in their own skin, but we should also want to keep them safe. A lot of gender dysphoria seems to be the quirkiness of being a child and the difficulties of changing bodies and coming of age. By the way, Sam Harris is very good on this, and I highly recommend his podcast and newsletter because he’s also very good at critiquing the right, particularly Trumpism.
I am finishing up graduate school right now, but when I have a little more time on my hands, I plan to start writing more. I look forward to reading more of your takes! I’ve really enjoyed the exchange! :)
1. 100% correct. I've noticed that seems to be more of the problem and many aren't aware that that is the thing that's concerning, not necessarily the fact they're trans or that we're striving for competition in whatever form it takes.
2. The end goal is competitiveness. Sex is used as a means to achieve this by segregating sexes to induce competition. The required level of competitiveness entirely depends on the specific sport, league, division, and set of other athletes we're talking about. So I think part of the reason for the disdain of it politically is due partially to a misconception of what sports is all about: competition in itself not intra-sex competition, though we do that in certain leagues only for competitive reasons like Olympic boxing or something but if a male wanted to do interpretive dancing I'm not sure why they shouldn't be able to so long as they were competitive.
3. Yes, Yes, YES! And I am aware of it but I think the bigger problem isn't necessarily the guidance, we have different problems than others do, but that we simply don't study it at all-- it seems! Like you say, we have scant studies on this and we really need to be doing more work here, I hate Trump is doing away with so much NIH funding and university research funding. But yes, that lack of understanding and of the risk makes Americans queasy.
Absolutely love Sam Harris, glad to see another follower of his!
Wow, congrats on graduate school and almost being done! That's a huge accomplishment. I'll definitely be on the lookout for your writings, I'm sure we have a lot more to discuss! I truly appreciate your engagement, hopefully we're making some progress!
Thank you, and thank you for the reply! Will be talking to you!
Won’t you elaborate?
Lia Thomas is 6'4" and has a HUGE advantage over shorter female athletes. The fact that Thomas was a mediocre male athlete and then became a women's champion should tell you all you need to know about why this person's participation in women's collegiate swimming is unfair.
Suppressing testosterone does not change the fact that, on average, men are larger, have greater lung capacity, can jump higher, and can run (and swim) faster than women. Sure, SOME women are faster and stronger than SOME men, but that's like saying that some days in Cheyenne are warmer than some days in Miami. How many women's medals have been claimed by people who were born male?
Trans men are not barred from men's sports because they would never make the team. Imagine a WNBA player transitioning and trying to play in the NBA. They would be laughed at. To me this is an issue of fairness. We have separate women's sports so that women can compete fairly against others who were born female and whose bodies are female.
I have no problem with people living as they wish, but your rights end where mine begin. And as the father of 2 daughters, if a natal male beats my daughter out for a spot on a team, you're damn well sure I will be angry about it.
Can we celebrate the fact that Riley Gains tied the dude? Freaking tied him. That’s impressive.
Indeed!
I don’t think Thomas should’ve competed, but while winning one race Thomas did lose two others.
Suppressing testosterone does change the fact that the one doing it is steadily becoming different than the average male. And it’s in the direction of fairer competition, not worse— unless they want to still play with males. I don’t know the answer to how many medals males have won in women’s sports but I’d guess not many. Maybe a handful.
If trans men cannot make the team, as I say in the piece, they are essentially barred from competition entirely. *If* a female could play in the NBA, then she should be allowed. If you agree, you have zero argument against trans athletes. I understand why women’s sports was created.
You, like many others, claim to not care how others live their lives but you’re against even contemplating a method of separating athletes based on their skill and not necessarily their sex or gender? Hm. I don’t believe you. If a trans athlete takes your daughters spot on the team, either the standard of competitiveness is faulty and should be improved (not ban trans athletes outright, or your daughters should work harder to make the team next year. As I say in the piece, welcome to competitive sports!
Thanks for reading and engaging.
Jordan, I see your points. I am trying my best to keep an open mind. That is my general approach to life. That, and to be respectful to everyone I meet (online or in person).
About the trans men issue, while Lia Thomas was competing on the women's team, a trans male named Isaac was also on the women's team! This setup led Riley Gaines (whom I'm sure you have heard of) to remark that women's sports was now a catch-all for anyone and everyone.
The unfairness is not limited to the competition itself. Are you okay with fully intact males undressing in the women's locker rooms and showering naked with biological women? Lia Thomas was well known to walk around the locker room naked in front of the other women, not caring that these other women did not want to see a penis and testicles in their locker room. Indeed, one of these women (Paula Scanlan) indicated that she had been raped and that seeing exposed male genitalia traumatized her.
Why is it that the feelings of the one trans person always seem to come before those of the 30 or 40 women who are uncomfortable? I just don't get it.
As for the idea that my daughter - or any other natal female - should have to "work harder" to beat out a natal male with clear physical advantages, that does not seem reasonable. The record for the fastest female runner ever is regularly broken by high school boys. A team of WNBA all-stars was soundly beaten by a team of male college basketball players. If you put Tiger Woods on the LPGA, he would win every major - even at 49 years old and with a bad back. Even if Tiger were to be on testosterone reduction therapy, you don't think he would still dominate? He is still physically stronger than almost all the women in the LPGA
As for segregating sports by ability, isn't that why they have weight classes in boxing? Mike Tyson would have KILLED Sugar Ray Leonard had they ever gotten into the ring together. Youth sports are segregated by age so that 16-year-olds don't destroy 12-year-olds. But if you have a group of 15-year-old runners on the girls' track team, the unspoken assumption is that none of them have unfair biological advantages (such as longer strides, greater muscle mass, larger hearts, and greater lung capacity) associated with being male. No amount of testosterone suppression is going to change any of that.
Do you think Isaac presented an uncompetitive environment? How did they perform? How long were they on hormones? What sport was it? -- all questions I'd ask before making a judgment on this. But again, I'm perfectly fine denying athletes of any kind a "right" to play, given I don't think the right exists.
I think it's strange for anyone to change together in the open unless they're in a relationship. An easy solution to this is adding private areas in the locker rooms. And I don't think the trans person's rights come before anyone else's. But I do think there's too much emotion around these problems when, like I explained, it could be easily solved with some critical thinking and funds. I'm sure some females feel uncomfortable around other females in the locker room too but no one is arguing in support of their rights. So to me it seems people only care about rights when trans people start getting some, but that's just my general speculation not a criticism of you or your points specifically.
No, not saying your daughters need to work harder to beat a male. I'm saying they should work harder to become so good that they make the team either way. If a male who has undergone hormone therapy and transitioned is found to be competitive in this particular league, then either the standards need to be harder to pass or your daughters need to work harder to play next year. This is just how competitive sports works and I don't think one should be able to whine about another athletes "natural advantages" because those arguments would hold true for other females too. If we care about competition and not participation trophies, then it shouldn't matter the genitals of the athletes--only their competitiveness.
Yes, correct. And it's also why I stressed the point of the league, sport, division, and other athletes competing: they *determine* the competitiveness, not the sex or gender necessarily. There are coed leagues, for instance. Some sports males just don't play as much. Also, youth sports being segregated by age is the same MEANS as using sex and gender to the ENDS of fair competition. I think that's roughly fine. My argument here is that it shouldn't be all-encompassing given sex alone doesn't always determine competitiveness: I cannot compete with LeBron even though I'm a male. I think it'd be better to end the age restrictions and let anyone who can compete play: if a 10 year old is good enough to play with 15 year olds, let them!!
And I'm sorry but you're just wrong about the testosterone point. *Even if* it didn't negate all the natural advantages, that shouldn't be the goal. Males differ in testosterone levels and sometimes they take it or estrogen to make their competitiveness fairer. It's not about "matching", per se, with females. It's about getting it down enough to display competitiveness with other athletes in that sport. I don't care if they have a billion more testosterone levels, if they can beat Bron 3-7 out of 10 times I couldn't care less about their hormone levels. The same goes with trans athletes.
Any argument you have against trans athletes, it seems I'm able to come up with the exact same one for intra-sex competition. That's because sports isn't about sex or gender or age or natural advantages or women or anything like that. It's about competition. That's it. Once you acknowledge that, allowing individual trans athletes compete based on their competitiveness should be an easy second step. Of course there will be problems, and again I'm not saying let all of them play whenever they want wherever they want... no! I'm just saying I value competition more than what the athletes have between their legs.
Jordan it is way more than “a handful”. Especially as the carefully supervised supportive & cautious approach to gender transition in kids (or adults now) is NOT what is happening. See this listing. https://www.shewon.org/
I'm not sure what this link is supposed to show. The first athlete I clicked on was a 15 year old boy who was decent but not great at high school golf. Is this really the major issue we're making it out to be?
The point is that there is actually a flood of trans athletes now & in women’s sports (but only women’s sport) there are increasing spots, awards, records & medals going to these. If it were rare I don’t think we would be hearing so much about it. The lower levels of competition are needed to ever get to the higher levels. Look at the totals on that list.
The problem is I don't care about trans athletes winning medals. I care if they're not being competitive with other athletes in their sport. If trans people make up less than 1% of the population and even less of the student-athlete population, then I find it hard to imagine how they could "take over" anything. If your link is supposed to be evidence of trans athletes doing that, I don't think it suffices.
In the world before social media transgendered people made up less than 1% of the population. In the age of social media contagion we have had 3000% (yes, that is the number) increase in referrals to transgender clinics for CHILDREN. We have actually only seen the leading edge of this tide of trans athletes.
And doesn’t it prove that they aren’t competitive (in the manner you’re using the word) if they have gone from no trans-female record holders, medals, etc. to long lists of them in such a short time?