Three into two? Transgender athletes challenging sports binary system.

Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in women’s sport? With more and more athletes prohibited from competing at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, and with more and more cisgender women being beaten by transwomen athletes, and with more and more women athletes either silenced by their national governing bodies or threatened with losing sponsorships on speaking out, the debate is polarised, in some quarters turning ugly and  bordering on threatening. Women suffering abuse on social media when airing a view, invariably labelled as haters or worse.

 

The issue seemingly centres on individuality and a right to choose whereas medical science has for decades opined setting strict binary classifications for gender and sex – or has it? The defined boundaries are being challenged at an increasing pace, new definitions proffered, the adoption of which carries significant challenges for how we socialise and interact. Will three into two work?

 

 

Three into two? Transgender athletes challenging sport’s binary system.

 

Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd. That’s one way of describing sports binary sex classification system in dealing with the three sexes (female, male and intersex). For years, World Athletes (formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations, I.A.A.F) and sports’ governing bodies have struggled to maintain consistent rules allowing intersex athletes to compete.

 

Policing sex in sports is not new. In 1936, US sprinter Helen Stephens underwent an examination to verify her sex after journalists cast doubt on her victory in the 100m in the Berlin Olympics. More recently, binary sex classification is being increasingly challenged. Not only is sport continually pushed on its binary approach to sex, but in the use of sex to determine categories for competition. A growing gender identity movement has institutional decision makers firmly in its sights to develop policies to allow intersex and trans people to compete citing historic persecution and continuing discrimination as unacceptable in the modern era.

 

How will sport’s binary sex system cope with the gender movement? Can it accommodate the self-identification of people? How does it cope with a fluidity of gender? Will it satisfy the rights of transwomen athletes, sporting fairness and safety? How can sport cope with inclusivity and a raft of discriminatory challenges (quite rightly) washing through all spheres of life? Over the coming years, sport’s binary sex classification could evolve into something never before seen or comprehended.

 

This article will first explore a false dichotomy of the sex and gender characterisation, highlighting its complexity. Second, rule changes regarding both intersex and transgender athletes is presented. Next, understanding from where the debate has formed and evolved drawing on comparisons with similar debates. The five main areas of contention in allowing transgender athletes to compete in sport will then be depicted. Finally, a discussion on how the transgender athlete debate can move forward by introducing a number of solutions, clearly articulating what each solution does and does not solve. This article is about a 20-minute read.

 

What is a transgender athlete?

 

In its most basic sense, a transgender athlete is someone whose gender is different to the biological sex ascribed at birth. Typically, both sex and gender identity are seen as dichotomous, but this not true and far more complex.

 

 

Sex identity can be classified as female, male or intersex. Intersex describes bodies that fall outside the strict classification of ‘female’ or ‘male’. According to medical science, around 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits. Biological sex is multi-faceted and defined on the presence of gonads, internal and external genitalia, chromosomes, or hormones. Within these different facets a range of variation exists, thus a clear and hard boundary is not always as simple as thought. When individuals possess a mix of both female and male biological traits, they are considered Intersexual (Intersexuality) or Differences in Sex Development (DSD). Thus, contrary to popular belief, sex is not a binary classification of female and male.

 

According to the World Health Organisation gender is defined as “…the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed”.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles affilliated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, and relationships of and between groups of women and men with each other. Because gender is a social construct, it differs between societies and is thus variable between societies.

 

Whilst gender and sex are different, gender interacts with sex. Both gender and sex are related to gender identity, an individual’s sense of what they consider their gender to be. This may or may not correlate to an individual’s physiology or designated sex at birth or their gender expression.

 

What are the laws on transgender athletes?

 

 

In 2021, the IOC performed a seismic U-turn on policies regarding transgender and intersex athletes, stating there should be no presumption that transgender athletes have an automatic advantage over their cisgender counterparts. This new IOC framework, which replaces the 2015 guidelines, also states that transgender women are no longer required to reduce their testosterone levels to compete in the women’s sport category. However, the IOC has fudged the issue by allowing individual sporting bodies the right to adjudicate for their specific sport – thus sporting bodies can still impose restrictions on trans women entering the female category if considered necessary to ensure fair and safe competition. The IOC rule change has attracted vociferous challenge from the scientific community, citing the decision to be driven by an inclusion agenda and ignores medical science on sex, gender and performance.

 

Whilst these new guidelines certainly contain a change in attitudes towards women’s sport, policing sex has been a constant. As noted earlier, in 1936, US sprinter Helen Stephens underwent an examination to verify her sex after journalists questioned her victory in the 100m in the Berlin Olympics. In 1946, the IAAF and IOC, required medical certificates proving women’s eligibility, in 1966, women were subjected to nude inspections, in 1967, chromosome testing is trialled, in the 1968 Winter Olympics, Austrian skier Erik Schniegger – who identified as a woman – was disqualified and in 1992, the IOC introduced a test for all women, based on the SRY gene.

 

Sex verification in sport has been contested for many decades, legal battles have ensued with women such as Caster Semenya banned from competing in women’s competitions altogether and/or just in specified events. With individual sports needing to come up with their own eligibility criteria, legal challenges are on the rise. Typically, such restrictions and challenges have not arisen in men’s sport i.e. transgender athletes identifying as male (discussed later).

 

Why does the transgender athlete debate exist?

 

Not all elite sport is segregated into male and female competitions e.g equestrian, where the difference between the sexes is considered negligible, if any. However, the main justification for continued segregation is to allow women an opportunity to compete on a level footing. This is on the generally accepted basis that women have major disadvantages competing against men who are taller, stronger, and faster; have greater endurance due to the presence of larger, stronger muscles and bones; and higher levels of haemoglobin. Anatomically, men and women differ greatly. Consequently, elite female competition has evolved to form a protected and safe environment with set entry criteria defined and shaped by the relevant, and generally accepted, sex-specific physical advantage.

 

What do these [sex] differences mean in elite sport? In 82 quantifiable Olympic events, the mean difference in world records between men and women is 10.0% (plus/minus 2.94%). The research shows the gender gap (referred as the sex gap from now) ranges from 5.5% (800-m freestyle, swimming) to 18.8% (long jump). The mean gap is 10.7% for running performances, 17.5% for jumps, 8.9% for swimming races, 7.0% for speed skating and 8.7% in cycling. Notably, world records only show the sex gap between the potential outliers in such categories, however, a top ten performers’ analysis reveals a similar trend of a difference of 11.7%.

 

Whilst it was once predicted that the sex gap in elite performance would eventually close when women received better coaching, funding, experience, the prediction is now largely discredited. Despite a significant narrowing of the sex gap early on, since 1983 it has stabilised, suggesting women will never catch up with the men. As geneticist and IOC consultant Eric Vilain has emphasised, it is why “[w]e separate men and women into categories . . . we want women to be able to win some competitions… We need to categorize with criteria that are relevant to performance.”

 

 

Dr Emma Hilton, a prize-winning development biologist, highlights the size of the gap by pointing out that there are around 9 000 males between the 100m record holder times of 9.58 (Usain Bolt) and 10.49 (Florence Griffith-Joyner). A significant number testifying to the significant physical advantage of men from puberty onwards. This sex advantage is further highlighted by a 14-year-old schoolboy running faster than the current 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson. The website boysvswomen.com shows two things, first, without a protected female category, women would hardly accomplish track-and-field or swimming success (medals), and second, international age records vs women’s world records.

 

The sex gap certainly varies according to which sport males and females are compared, something which the IOC’s new policy points towards. According to recent research, women perform better at longer distance and colder conditions. For example, in open-water long-distance swimming events, women are about 0.06km/h faster than men. Going through publicly available sports federation databases and competition records, Hilton and Lundberg’s research identified the sex gap in a range of sports to consider duration, physiological performance, skill and strength.

 

Figure taken from Hilton and Lundberg. Found here.

 

The gender identity movement seeks to have institutions replace sex-based classifications with classifications based on identity. In Sex in Sport, Coleman points out that whilst the movement fronts trans and intersex people based on identity, the classification switch from sex to identity only flips the ‘conflicting signals’ regarding what makes someone female or male. In other words, does identity trump biology or does biology trump identity – is the same argument but viewed from another perspective.

 

Because transwomen and some intersex athletes biology does not match their identity, Coleman points out the sex-based classification by definition does exclude all trans and some intersex people. The movement seeks to focus on identity, categorising on similarities rather than differences, thus making it inclusive. However it has also been argued that the adoption of subjective gender self-identification as the sole criterion for sex determination would lead to a proliferation of systemic unfairness. Thus, continues the argument, the importance of proper medical management of athletes wishing to enter in female events.

 

This categorising on similarities, and self-identification, has already been tested. In 2002, having competed in wheelchair racing for almost 12 years, one of Britain’s best-known wheelchair racers, Daniel Sadler, was banned from competitions. Why? Because he wasn’t disabled. Nor did he ever claim to be. “There’s no real hard and fast rule that you have to have a disability.” Unsurprisingly, the sport was divided over his right to participate. To illustrate this, the International Paralympic Committee banned Sadler from all its competitions, yet the British Wheelchair Racing Association gave him their total support. Mr Sadler got into wheelchair racing through his father, a wheelchair racer himself.

 

Did Daniel Sadler have an unfair advantage? According to his training partner, a multi-Paralympic gold medallist, Tanni Grey-Thompson, “People assume Dan has an unfair advantage, but in fact there is none at all. He may have stomach muscles that work, but he’s carrying more weight, he gets cramp in the legs and he makes a less aerodynamic shape.” An opposing view was that Daniel could acquire performance gains through alternate training methods, such as running, which his competitors could not. With regards to his eligibility, Daniel pointed out, “In a wheelchair race, I could have minus one foot and be technically disabled, and allowed to race at Paralympic level.” Nevertheless, he did not meet the criteria, which is set by its governing bodies.

 

Despite no medical evidence demonstrating that Sadler had an adavantage, the example shows that categorising on similarities is probably not the way to go. Where does this argument stop, I have two eyes, so I have a right to compete? Notwithstanding a flawed argument, the gender identity movement has already successfully challenged governments on identity documents (e.g., birth certificates, driver’s licences), sports and educational settings on intimate spaces (e.g., changing rooms, dormitories) and triage and treatment practices on special needs (e.g., relevant accommodation in prisons and hospitals). Sport’s policy makers are under increasing pressure from the movement, with sports battling to accommodate fairness and inclusivity – something of which people argue cannot be achieved together.

 

The current focus of debate is primarily concerned with transwomen in women’s sport – in essence, it is boiling down to ‘what exactly makes a female?’ The line of demarcation to define the female category is absolutely necessary but how reasonable and proportionate it is will be always be debated.

 

Main clashing points on transgender athletes in sport

 

Debate 1: Testosterone gives transwomen athletes an advantage

 

 

Until very recently, testosterone levels have been used as the objective biomarker. The typical adult male is likely to have testosterone levels between 8-30 nanomoles per decilitre (nmol/L), whereas a typical adult female is likely to be in 0.5-3 nmol/L range. Eligibility arguments and policies have centred around the influence testosterone has on sporting performance. So, is there a scientific link between testosterone and athletic performance?

 

In short, no. The evidence in inconclusive. Why is this? First, though some studies show that giving athletes extra testosterone delivers an increase in athletic ability, this is in effect doping (see GDR scandal), critically, it does not add knowledge about hormones (e.g., testosterone) that are naturally produced by the body.

 

Second, there is no strong correlation between testosterone levels and performance. Thus, it cannot be proven that a male with 20 nmol/L of testosterone will outperform a male with 10 nmol/L. Whilst adult women, on average, have lower levels of testosterone, the same argument applies. Research on the relationship between testosterone levels and performance have been inconsistent. Some studies show no relationship, some studies show mixed results while others show a negative effect, meaning lower testosterone athletes showed better performances.

 

Despite an explicit link between testosterone and athletic performance remaining elusive, Ross Tucker, a sports scientist, argues that the fixation on testosterone levels versus performance is inherently misplaced. He apportions the sex performance gap to be ‘fundamentally’ the result of androgenisation or virilisation which drives a set of secondary sex characteristics (e.g., greater strength, more haemoglobin). He goes on to argue:

 

“… one should NOT be asking whether women with high T outperform women with low T, or that men with high T are better athletically than men with low T. This approach creates numerous “loopholes” and erroneous thinking, the main one being that you can explore this relationship, NOT find it, and then conclude that T is not important. This is what many academics have done – they will look for associations between T and performance in a group of athletes, all men or all women, and then find no association, thus concluding that T has no effect.”

 

The testosterone debate has certainly been clouded by the direct link of testosterone to athletic performance. However, it is the secondary effect(s) that testosterone has on the body that is fuelling the advantages for transwomen athletes. According to Dr Emma Hilton, a prize-winning biologist, the majority of 6 500 differences in gene expression between females and males are likely caused by testosterone-fuelled puberty, noting “it is one hell of a drug”.

 

A study this year found that in women’s middle-distance races, female (intersex) athletes with male levels of testosterone are overrepresented in women’s middle-distance races. Research spanning over a decade conducted by World Athletics, found approximately seven in every 1,000 elite female athletes competing in athletics are intersex athletes (who account for roughly one in every 2,000 births). In other words, the frequency of intersex / DSD athletes is around 14 times higher than you will find in the general female population. In regards to the restricted events (e.g., 400m, 800m), this frequency increases to around 140 times higher, with a podium finish even much more frequent. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) accepted this finding as a demonstration, in statistical terms, that such athletes have a significant performance advantage.

 

Debate 2: Transwomen Athletes Retain Advantages after Hormone Therapy

 

 

As opposed to the direct link between testosterone and performance, research on hormone therapy on transgender athletes is robust in showing two things. First, a review of 24 studies of transgender athletes, shows that testosterone-blocking hormone therapy for transwomen has a significant effect on athletic performance. In a relatively short-time scale (12 months) of hormone therapy, transwomen’s strength, muscle and lean body mass had significantly decreased. Furthermore, after only four months of hormone therapy, a reduction in Hgb and HCT levels (which impact oxygen levels in blood) to equal that of non-trans women.

 

Second, studies suggest that a significant strength and muscular advantage remains even after hormone therapy. In the 24-study review, it was noted that trans women’s strength, lean body mass and muscle were still greater than the levels found in cisgender women, even after 36 months on testosterone blockers. Since 2015, there have been many more published studies, consistently drawing on evidence that whilst hormone therapy does impact transwomen, conversely, it does not remove the overwhelming male performance advantage. This consideration is no longer in doubt.

 

US college swimmer Lia Thomas performances evidence that transwomen athletes retain an advantage. Before transitioning, the 22-year-old swam as a male for the first three years at the University of Pennsylvania, making only six Ivy League swimming finals. In 2022, after taking hormone replacement therapy to lower her testosterone, she competed as a transwomen and swam the fastest 200- and 500-yard [women’s] times in the US this year, which is only 2.6% slower than the current 200-yard female record. It evidences, as developmental biologist Dr Emma Hilton has stated, that Thomas gained significant ranking advantage by switching category.

 

Ross Tucker points out that testosterone levels at puberty have already delivered biological males an advantage –consequently a snapshot in later life proves very little. He says, “Those such as Lia Thomas, who have gone through puberty as a biological male, benefit from testosterone and other male hormones that have a significant performance effect by increasing muscle mass, strength, the size of the heart and lungs and reducing body fat.” Even those who argue for transwomen athletes to compete with women, such as Harper, even acknowledge this, “…it is certainly true that as a population group, transwomen do have athletic advantages over [cisgender] women.”

 

Despite this acknowledgement, advocates for allowing transwomen athletes to compete with women argue two things. First, advantages in sport are allowed and second, it [hormone therapy] allows for meaningful competition between transwomen and [cisgender] women. The former argument is conceptually wrong and will be discussed further later. The later argument is missing the point: transwomen athletes who have gone through male puberty retain their advantage. Meaningful (however it’s defined) competition between transwomen and women athletes does not trump fair competition between two women.

 

Debate 3: Trans Women Athletes are Underrepresented at Elite Level

 

 

Currently, yes, transwomen athletes are underrepresented at elite level (though this could change in the future due to the latest IOC guidelines). But that’s not the point. The main issue here is that transwomen athletes are taking places from women within the women’s category across all levels. As noted earlier, the main issue is that trans women athletes gain improved ranking when switching to compete with women regardless of lower or similar levels of cis women’s testosterone.

 

The case of Will Thomas converting to Lia Thomas has polarised the debate. There are those that argue it has made a nonsense of the IOC’s declared notion and guidance that “no athlete has an inherent advantage.” As a man, Will Thomas did not feature in the world’s top 500, on converting to Lia Thomas, based on recent performance she is looking at a World top 20-30 place in the 200 and 400m freestyle. As mentioned earlier (Debate 1), DSD athletes with higher testosterone are overrepresented in elite women’s sport, and quite significantly when focusing on specific events and even more so regarding podiums.

 

Another case that garnered a lot of attention was Laurel Hubbard’s inclusion in the women’s Olympic weightlifting. There are two issues here, the first one being that a transwomen has an advantage over other women. At the time, she was ranked seventh in the world among women. As a boy, Laurel was a national junior weightlifter but not Olympic standard as a man. The second issue was that a Tongan woman, Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, missed out on going to her first Olympics as a consequence of Hubbard’s inclusion. Within days, a discretionary 14th slot in the women’s 87kg competition was awarded to Manumua.

 

The side lining of women in favour of transwomen athletes is likely to continue unless the IOC and other governing bodies address the issue. Nicola Williams, a biologist and the director of Fair Play for Women, sums it up, “But there is always a woman who misses out. We just don’t know her name.”

 

Debate 4: It’s Not Safe for Trans Athletes to Compete with Cisgender

 

 

Understandably, the main focus on safety has been with regard to contact sport. One of the sports that has provided transgender guidelines, alongside evidence, is World Rugby. It says a duty to prevent an increase in risk for women means that transwomen, who transitioned post-puberty, may not play full-contact rugby on women’s teams due to the force and power advantages conferred by testosterone to play with and against those who do not.

 

Regarding transgender men, World Rugby say they may play men’s rugby provided confirmation of physical ability is provided to ensure that ‘they are not putting themselves at an unacceptable level of risk when playing against men’. It points out this situation arises in various scenarios, such as permitting youth or junior players in different age categories where the differences in size, strength and speed are similar to the differences between men’s and women’s rugby players at any given age after puberty. World Rugby also has guidelines on non-binary athletes, inclusivity and is currently developing guidelines for players with DSDs. However, World Rugby covers international matches and thus far, the national rugby federations have not followed its lead.

 

More dangerous and even more contentious are the combat sports. In 2021, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, Alana McLaughlin became the second transwomen athlete to compete in mixed martial arts (MMA). In this already polarising debate, Fallon Fox, who was the first, likely added further fuel to the debate after her fighting license went under review as her transgender status was not known for her first three fights. Also, Fox broke an opponent’s skull who later said that she had never felt strength like it before. Fox retired after this fight, recording 5 wins and 1 loss. Some female fighters said they would never compete against transgender athletes like Fox due to safety concerns. Recently, research has found that average punching power is 162% greater in males than females.

 

Whilst acknowledging the limited examples given above, it shows that transgender athletes’ rights are being trumped by safety concerns for themselves and others. However, it’s important to note that these safety concerns are brought about due to the irreversible effects of testosterone during puberty.

 

Debate 5: Sport is Not a Level Playing Field Anyway

 

 

Critics of the sex driven categorisation are, of course, able to argue that there is no level playing field within sport generally so why can’t people like Semenya with high testosterone be included. They commonly point out the existence of far superior athletes such as Michael Phelps’ whose muscles produce half the lactic acid of a normal person, allowing him to push harder for longer; or an inherited mutation in Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta that increases his oxygen-carrying capacity by 25 to 50 percent; or simply that Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps had really long limbs.

 

In this context ,the arguments can descend to the absurd, questioning what is a level playing field. It is true that sports organisations DO NOT classify by length of arm or leg, capacity of lung or size of foot, no matter how such attributes might have contributed to the physical prowess of the likes of Bolt, Biondi, Phelps or Thorpe or indeed anyone else. Sports organisations DO differentiate by sex – and men and women do not compete for reasons as outlined.

 

At times, these two sex categories are sometimes further broken down to age group and weight classifications, e.g., in wrestling, weightlifting, boxing, rowing),to reflect the marked differences in strength, power, and speed with the aim of ensuring fairness of opportunity to win and, arguably more importantly, the safety of the individual in contact sport. Age and weight classifications rely on objective criteria (birth date, weigh-in weight) for eligibility, and so should sex classification. Nevertheless, some power sports dependent on explosive strength and power (e.g., throwing events, sprinting) do not segregate weight classes, whereas other sports where height is an advantage (e.g., basketball, jockeys) do not have height classifications. These sports disproportionately attract athletes with greater weight and/or power-to-weight ratio or advantageous stature, respectively.

 

Transgender athlete supporters such as Eric Vilain argue there are a myriad of factors that give some athletes advantages over others and therefore, “within the female category, testosterone should be ‘de-gendered.’ It is a hormone present in both genders, which is why continuity of gender should trump levels of testosterone.” Differences between athletes will of course always be present, that’s one of the purposes of sport: to differentiate athletes (i.e., rank them). World records in running tend to be set by black athletes and in swimming by white athletes with research [add link] showing this phenomenon to be predictable by physics. However, as considered earlier, the adoption of subjective gender self-identification as the sole criterion for sex determination would lead to a proliferation of systemic unfairness. Thus, continues the argument, the importance of proper medical management of athletes wishing to enter in female events.

 

How to move the transgender debate forward?

 

Before looking at ways to move the debate forward, let’s look at issues within the current method.

 

Described in Craig Lord’s article A Waking Nightmare for Women’s Sport, it is not fair for women (XX) athletes to compete against undeniably heightened levels of maleness proven to make a difference to performance. Futhermore, banning athletes for taking performance enhancing drugs yet requiring others to take drugs to meet a given criteria is an absurdity that cannot be sustained. To argue otherwise implies a warped view of societal fairness.

 

Also, sports that go against the new IOC policy and continue to ask transwomen athletes to have 5 nmols/L or less, causing them to be unwell, are leaving themselves open to legal challenges. Currently, the way policies are going is paving the way for more trans-identifying males, not just transsexuals, being eligible to compete against women with a simple gender declaration and perhaps some testosterone suppression. A yellow brick road with more males declaring as female without changing anything and taking a gold medal. Is this fairness?

 

Whilst there have been many suggestions such as eliminate the women’s competition or let the athletes decide, only three will be discussed here as they [we believe] are the most likely / promising. The first solution is to create a third category. However, what that third category should be differs considerably depending on who you talk to. One suggestion is to create a third sex category for intersex / DSD athletes. It has been pointed out that such a grouping would be both unfair and unethical by alienating athletes with DSDs, some not knowing until puberty or even during adulthood. Additionally, the wide biological variations within this third category would make it problematic to standardise regulations. However, on this last point, it is worth noting similarities of divergence within the disabled category.

 

The second solution is to turn the men’s category into an open category. Dr Nicola Williams, a spokeswoman for Fair Play For Women, suggests the best solution would be for men to “budge up and be more inclusive” thus allowing trans women and trans men to compete in an open/universal category and thereby retain a separate and distinctive category for natal females. An open category delivers on many fronts: it protects natal female’s sport; allows transgender athletes to compete; protects the grooming of transgender athletes; protects transgender athletes from unwanted side effects of testosterone suppression; and it allows intersex athletes to compete.

 

The third solution is physical test screenings. This has been put forward on the presumption that no two transgender athletes are the same, nor is there one definitive objective measure that can be used across all sports. As mentioned earlier, for a transman to compete in men’s [international] rugby, they must have confirmation of the physical ability to compete and to do so safely. Australian Rules Football has similarly adopted policies whereby a trans person must undergo physical tests to measure speed, strength, endurance and physique.

 

Several issues are likely to arise if sports go down the physical screening path. From an ethics standpoint, would it encourage transwomen athletes to underperform on such tests? There is a notably difference in transmen athletes being asked to demonstrate they are not a danger to themselves compared to transwomen athletes showing they present no danger to their opponents. Thus, one is incentivised to their best in the test whereas one is not. From a scientific standpoint, it only further complicates (which is not bad in itself) with more and more lines needing to be drawn. In other words, is a difference of 15% in muscle mass an advantage in one sport but not the other? What factors, and by how much, do they influence the outcome of different sports, i.e., is CO2 max or height or haemoglobin levels the biggest? Which combination of factors? Do these lines differ for transgender athletes who have had gender reassignment surgery than those who haven’t?

 

Conclusion

 

There is certainly no easy answer for sport’s current binary sex classification system to accommodate all of the sexes and gender identities / rights with sporting fairness. What is clear is that men have a clear performance advantage over women, around 12% for athletics. The average man is taller, stronger, and faster, has greater endurance, larger, stronger muscles and bones as well as a higher circulating haemoglobin level. Whilst a direct link between testosterone and athletic performance remains elusive, the impact of androgens (such as testosterone) on puberty is undeniable and irreversible giving the biological male a distinct advantage. Despite hormone therapy reducing strength, muscle and lean body mass; transwomen athletes’ bone density and size do not change. Consequently, they retain greater innate strength relative to cisgender women.

 

Transwomen athletes gain a significant ranking advantage when switching category. And regardless of the fact that transwomen are underrepresented at elite level, women (and girls) are missing out at all levels due to the inclusion of transwomen – we don’t hear their names – they are drowned out by the shouts of others. Conversely, intersex athletes are significantly overrepresented at elite level. Regarding contact sports, it is dangerous for transwomen to compete.

 

The Stat Squabbler says:

• The natal female sex category has always been, and needs to be continually, protected to highlight and celebrate women.
• Sport is competed on a level playing field provided the binary sex categories are upheld.
• The classification switch from sex to identity only flips the ‘conflicting signals’ regarding what makes someone male or female’. Thus, does identity trump biology or does biology trump identity – is the same.
• Transgender athletes who have been through male puberty maintain unfair advantages that are conclusive in both medical and ranking gains evidence.

 

Do you agree with the Stat Squabbler? Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in sport? How do you think the transgender debate in sports can move forward?

 

Comment below.