This debate would be much more realistic if there was any chance a xx person could compete at the same level as an xy person in the mens events. Quite simply, they cannot. The fastest xx person in the world would not win a high school mens track and field state championships. No xx person will even qualify for the Olympics in a mens event. This is entirely about xy people competing in womens events, and that alone should be enough to make it clear it should not be allowed.
This issue is super confusing to me. At lower levels of competition (e.g., high school, college), it appears that the trend is that a biological male can compete in female events by simply stating they identify as female. That's even without any transitioning actions (e.g., ADT/ hormone therapy). At international levels it appears transitioning activities must be completed per policies by WADA and USADA. Do I have this correct?
Roger - what science-policy role do you see yourself playing in relation to this issue? When I read your work on climate, I see you striving to embody the role of Honest Broker. Having just read through your posts on transgender athletes, I would suggest that (on this subject) you are drifting towards Issues Advocate (rationale below). There is nothing wrong with that but your own work suggests that it isn't the appropriate science-policy role for issues with high values disagreement and high uncertainty. Thoughts? Am I missing important context?
Thanks so much - I really value your work.
Rationale:
1. Discussion heavy on policy and weight of consensus vs. science. I love your climate posts because they focus on using science to inform policy. In this series you jump over science to framing the issue in terms of a constructivist worldview and making policy recommendations.
2. Focus on narrowing choice of policy instead of using science to clarify or expand policy choice. Again - where is the science and how does it clarify or expand policy choices? If it doesn't exist, what science is needed?
3. Ad-hominem characterizations. You frame up scientists and politicians concerned about current rulings/policies as being party of an "anti-trans lobby" and anti-LGTBQ. Twitter trolls are infuriating but they have nothing to do with good science or policy. You were labeled and smeared in the climate world - why label and smear people concerned about this issue?
To me, I have no issue as long as the playing field is truly fair. Has there been enough “science” done to say that a person has transitioned to the point they do not have a physical advantage (based on gender at birth) over all competitors. Strictly from an appearance standpoint, it is difficult for me to look at Lia and not at some point feel she has a competitive advantage (based on gender at birth). How can this be done to eliminate subjectivity...fact based science. I am curious, have we seen a person born female transition and be competitive with individuals born male?
Let’s cut the BS. The notion that self-identified females who are genetic males should be treated as males in athletic competition is utter nonsense. They are not. Not even close no matter when the idea took hold in them or was planted in their brains by others. This is just madness. To deny this truth is misogyny. Yes misogyny. Stop.
First, I note that this issue is not about Trans athletes competing in organized sports. It is only about transgender women competing in sports that were the province of cisgender women. Transgender men are not competitive with cisgender men in any sport of which I am aware. (The only sport I can think of where transgender men might be competitive with cisgender men is auto racing.)
That Title IX forced colleges and universities to reallocate resources from men’s sports to women’s sports is unquestioned. That Title IX can be used to force women’s sports to allow transgender women to compete is all but certain.
What is not generally acknowledged is that women’s sports, as they are configured today, for the most part require subsidies, either explicit or implicit. The fact is that only a small percentage of sports fans care about women’s sports, limiting the revenue those sports can generate. It in light of this that I ask – Will the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports increase or decrease the interest in women’s sports?
I don't understand how gender - not one's sex - determines eligibity to compete in some sports. Allowing male athletes who are trans-women to compete against females will lead to less interest in those sports as they become less competitive.
The key issues with transwomen competing with biological females (henceforth called females) are fairness and safety.
In sports where biological males (henceforth called males) have no advantage over females the fairness issue falls away and should be no barrier to transincludion. Indeed one could question the existence of male/female categories.
I reasonable starting point is to assume that, in all sports where males outperform females, there should be a moratorium on transinclusion until it is shown that transwomen do not outperform females.
In non-contact sports, the safety issue falls away.
In contact sports a reasonable approach to safety would be to have a moratorium on transinclusion until it is shown that there is no increase in risk to females from including transwomen.
“…reasonable accommodations, consistent with evidence and data…”
I predict that in a decade or two, the current social trend of allowing people with XY genotype to compete in sports against people with XX genotype will become a textbook example of the abuse of empirical methods to support a political/social agenda of a particular historical epoch.
You have to start with the reason sports are separated into men’s and women’s in the first place. Humans have known for hundreds of “generations” that men are stronger and faster than women. That is the reasonable starting presumption. Philosophically speaking it’s a Chesterton’s Fence. Medically speaking it’s a First Do No Harm. Statistically speaking it’s a Burden of Proof.
Statistically, we know that athletic attributes of men vs women exist on normal distributions that overlap to varying degrees; the fastest women sprinters can beat many men. Add to that, we now have a speck of history on the human time-line where we can manipulate the effects of the hormones most associated with post-pubertal phenotype differences, androgens and estrogens. Manipulating these hormones at varying times in development will change the characteristics of the normal distributions. The main point is that we have vastly insufficient data on the effects of androgen suppression.
Furthermore, on the very day they are born, little XY will be on a different distribution of relevant behavioral characteristics than their little XX fraternal twin sibling--- aggressiveness, risk-taking, competitiveness, socialization strategies.
Consider the task of doing a power analysis on how many years of sports outcomes would be needed to prove that androgen-altered XY has no statistically significant advantage over control XX. And what level of statistical significance do you choose to say androgen-altered XY can compete?
Your use of the pejorative “blunt discrimination” implies that the burden of proof has shifted onto women’s sports to compete against XY people. Are you claiming there is statistically robust data to support that? I'm happy to be educated.
Roger, you’re a world’s expert on capture of academia by motivated reasoning in the climate domain, which you describe as “a sort of bizzaro world” of embracing incorrect science. There is every sign that this is what is happening in the trend to allow transgender women compete with XX people at all levels of sports.
It amazes me how such a simple and basic issue is made some complex. Your competition gender category is defined by your chromosomes and your plumbing, not your imagination, nor your “feelings”.
I look at this issue from a ‘least harm, most benefit’ perspective. For purposes of this argument there are three categories of men who have, or want to transition to men:
1. Those who have no desire to compete in athletic events
2. Those who want to play sports, but aren’t competitive in either men’s or women’s sports
3. Those who aren’t competitive as men but would be competitive as women.
So it is obvious that the way to accrue the most benefit and the least harm is very simple. Allow transgender men to compete freely in women’s sports, but only on the condition that they cannot ever win a medal at any level as an individual, and a team cannot ever win a medal at any level if any of its members are transgender men.
This policy would immediately and forever separate the ‘wheat’ (those individuals born as men who wish to become women and still compete in sports but aren't competitive at the top levels) from the ‘chaff’ (those men who only or primarily wish to become women so they can win in women’s sports). This policy is beneficial to women’s sports in general and is only harmful to those few transgender men who can’t win as a man, but could as a woman. Do we really want to destroy all of woman’s sports just so a few ex-men can walk away with all the medals?
Gender identity dysmorphia (or "disorder") is a known and defined mental issue (or "disorder"). I wonder how we even got to this stage of arguing about whether a "transgender" person is really a different sex, given that it's basically a mental problem. Are we also supposed to accept that an anorexic person is indeed as fat as they think they are? Should the taxpayers be liable for gastric-bypass surgery for anorexics? Should we be forced to call anorexics "fatty" or risk legal penalties? It's a mad, mad world.
As a conservative, I could get behind cap-tie policies like the ones Roger suggests. I’d be inclined to include them at the high school level, not just the collegiate and professional levels, but it’s a pragmatic approach to a thorny problem, and ensuring hormonal regulation could level any competitive imbalance. I suspect that hormonal regulation would also deter those male athletes who perceive competing as a female to be a path to athletic glory that might elude them as males.
I personally am opposed to what the swimmer at UPenn has done. It is truly unfair to his born-female competitors. However, a combination of the Ohio High School rule and "cap tie" would satisfy me. As long as there is no unfair advantage, "laissez le bon temps rouler!"
This debate would be much more realistic if there was any chance a xx person could compete at the same level as an xy person in the mens events. Quite simply, they cannot. The fastest xx person in the world would not win a high school mens track and field state championships. No xx person will even qualify for the Olympics in a mens event. This is entirely about xy people competing in womens events, and that alone should be enough to make it clear it should not be allowed.
This issue is super confusing to me. At lower levels of competition (e.g., high school, college), it appears that the trend is that a biological male can compete in female events by simply stating they identify as female. That's even without any transitioning actions (e.g., ADT/ hormone therapy). At international levels it appears transitioning activities must be completed per policies by WADA and USADA. Do I have this correct?
"Transgender Athletes are Winning" makes me laugh. Of course they are winning, they're men!
Meanwhile, yes, law and politics are done by consensus but science is not.
New data in Europe has put the brakes on transgender affirmative therapy.
Roger - what science-policy role do you see yourself playing in relation to this issue? When I read your work on climate, I see you striving to embody the role of Honest Broker. Having just read through your posts on transgender athletes, I would suggest that (on this subject) you are drifting towards Issues Advocate (rationale below). There is nothing wrong with that but your own work suggests that it isn't the appropriate science-policy role for issues with high values disagreement and high uncertainty. Thoughts? Am I missing important context?
Thanks so much - I really value your work.
Rationale:
1. Discussion heavy on policy and weight of consensus vs. science. I love your climate posts because they focus on using science to inform policy. In this series you jump over science to framing the issue in terms of a constructivist worldview and making policy recommendations.
2. Focus on narrowing choice of policy instead of using science to clarify or expand policy choice. Again - where is the science and how does it clarify or expand policy choices? If it doesn't exist, what science is needed?
3. Ad-hominem characterizations. You frame up scientists and politicians concerned about current rulings/policies as being party of an "anti-trans lobby" and anti-LGTBQ. Twitter trolls are infuriating but they have nothing to do with good science or policy. You were labeled and smeared in the climate world - why label and smear people concerned about this issue?
To me, I have no issue as long as the playing field is truly fair. Has there been enough “science” done to say that a person has transitioned to the point they do not have a physical advantage (based on gender at birth) over all competitors. Strictly from an appearance standpoint, it is difficult for me to look at Lia and not at some point feel she has a competitive advantage (based on gender at birth). How can this be done to eliminate subjectivity...fact based science. I am curious, have we seen a person born female transition and be competitive with individuals born male?
Let’s cut the BS. The notion that self-identified females who are genetic males should be treated as males in athletic competition is utter nonsense. They are not. Not even close no matter when the idea took hold in them or was planted in their brains by others. This is just madness. To deny this truth is misogyny. Yes misogyny. Stop.
First, I note that this issue is not about Trans athletes competing in organized sports. It is only about transgender women competing in sports that were the province of cisgender women. Transgender men are not competitive with cisgender men in any sport of which I am aware. (The only sport I can think of where transgender men might be competitive with cisgender men is auto racing.)
That Title IX forced colleges and universities to reallocate resources from men’s sports to women’s sports is unquestioned. That Title IX can be used to force women’s sports to allow transgender women to compete is all but certain.
What is not generally acknowledged is that women’s sports, as they are configured today, for the most part require subsidies, either explicit or implicit. The fact is that only a small percentage of sports fans care about women’s sports, limiting the revenue those sports can generate. It in light of this that I ask – Will the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports increase or decrease the interest in women’s sports?
I suspect the subsidies will need to increase.
I don't understand how gender - not one's sex - determines eligibity to compete in some sports. Allowing male athletes who are trans-women to compete against females will lead to less interest in those sports as they become less competitive.
The key issues with transwomen competing with biological females (henceforth called females) are fairness and safety.
In sports where biological males (henceforth called males) have no advantage over females the fairness issue falls away and should be no barrier to transincludion. Indeed one could question the existence of male/female categories.
I reasonable starting point is to assume that, in all sports where males outperform females, there should be a moratorium on transinclusion until it is shown that transwomen do not outperform females.
In non-contact sports, the safety issue falls away.
In contact sports a reasonable approach to safety would be to have a moratorium on transinclusion until it is shown that there is no increase in risk to females from including transwomen.
“…reasonable accommodations, consistent with evidence and data…”
I predict that in a decade or two, the current social trend of allowing people with XY genotype to compete in sports against people with XX genotype will become a textbook example of the abuse of empirical methods to support a political/social agenda of a particular historical epoch.
You have to start with the reason sports are separated into men’s and women’s in the first place. Humans have known for hundreds of “generations” that men are stronger and faster than women. That is the reasonable starting presumption. Philosophically speaking it’s a Chesterton’s Fence. Medically speaking it’s a First Do No Harm. Statistically speaking it’s a Burden of Proof.
Statistically, we know that athletic attributes of men vs women exist on normal distributions that overlap to varying degrees; the fastest women sprinters can beat many men. Add to that, we now have a speck of history on the human time-line where we can manipulate the effects of the hormones most associated with post-pubertal phenotype differences, androgens and estrogens. Manipulating these hormones at varying times in development will change the characteristics of the normal distributions. The main point is that we have vastly insufficient data on the effects of androgen suppression.
Furthermore, on the very day they are born, little XY will be on a different distribution of relevant behavioral characteristics than their little XX fraternal twin sibling--- aggressiveness, risk-taking, competitiveness, socialization strategies.
Consider the task of doing a power analysis on how many years of sports outcomes would be needed to prove that androgen-altered XY has no statistically significant advantage over control XX. And what level of statistical significance do you choose to say androgen-altered XY can compete?
Your use of the pejorative “blunt discrimination” implies that the burden of proof has shifted onto women’s sports to compete against XY people. Are you claiming there is statistically robust data to support that? I'm happy to be educated.
Roger, you’re a world’s expert on capture of academia by motivated reasoning in the climate domain, which you describe as “a sort of bizzaro world” of embracing incorrect science. There is every sign that this is what is happening in the trend to allow transgender women compete with XX people at all levels of sports.
It amazes me how such a simple and basic issue is made some complex. Your competition gender category is defined by your chromosomes and your plumbing, not your imagination, nor your “feelings”.
I look at this issue from a ‘least harm, most benefit’ perspective. For purposes of this argument there are three categories of men who have, or want to transition to men:
1. Those who have no desire to compete in athletic events
2. Those who want to play sports, but aren’t competitive in either men’s or women’s sports
3. Those who aren’t competitive as men but would be competitive as women.
So it is obvious that the way to accrue the most benefit and the least harm is very simple. Allow transgender men to compete freely in women’s sports, but only on the condition that they cannot ever win a medal at any level as an individual, and a team cannot ever win a medal at any level if any of its members are transgender men.
This policy would immediately and forever separate the ‘wheat’ (those individuals born as men who wish to become women and still compete in sports but aren't competitive at the top levels) from the ‘chaff’ (those men who only or primarily wish to become women so they can win in women’s sports). This policy is beneficial to women’s sports in general and is only harmful to those few transgender men who can’t win as a man, but could as a woman. Do we really want to destroy all of woman’s sports just so a few ex-men can walk away with all the medals?
Gender identity dysmorphia (or "disorder") is a known and defined mental issue (or "disorder"). I wonder how we even got to this stage of arguing about whether a "transgender" person is really a different sex, given that it's basically a mental problem. Are we also supposed to accept that an anorexic person is indeed as fat as they think they are? Should the taxpayers be liable for gastric-bypass surgery for anorexics? Should we be forced to call anorexics "fatty" or risk legal penalties? It's a mad, mad world.
As a conservative, I could get behind cap-tie policies like the ones Roger suggests. I’d be inclined to include them at the high school level, not just the collegiate and professional levels, but it’s a pragmatic approach to a thorny problem, and ensuring hormonal regulation could level any competitive imbalance. I suspect that hormonal regulation would also deter those male athletes who perceive competing as a female to be a path to athletic glory that might elude them as males.
I personally am opposed to what the swimmer at UPenn has done. It is truly unfair to his born-female competitors. However, a combination of the Ohio High School rule and "cap tie" would satisfy me. As long as there is no unfair advantage, "laissez le bon temps rouler!"
To the tune of "Doing what comes naturally" from Annie Get Your Gun:
My favorite Uncle Harry
He never read a book
Knows one sex from another
All he had to do was look