Transmisogyny and the sports debate frenzy
By Jack Lydon
Over the past few years, social media spaces; radio talk shows; and newspaper articles have all played a part in casting a shadow of fear on the inclusion of trans people in sport. The claim made is that some are born naturally stronger, and transitioning does not negate the advantage that this plays in certain sports. This claim is almost exclusively directed at AMAB (Assigned Male at Birth) trans women.
Male puberty is often highlighted as the factor that affects this advantage. The misogynistic undertones of this are clear, as the media focuses solely on AMAB people in sport. There are plenty of sports where cis women outperform cis men, yet these have not been a focus of the media storm and anti-trans policy. This media debate has led to many concluding that the inclusion of trans women in women’s sport is “unfair”. We will unpeel the transphobic layers of this argument and examine statistics and sports norms to show how this argument lacks any validity.
“Fairness” and sports advantage
When trying to reason for banning trans women from sport, “fairness” will generally be cited as something to protect. Trans women’s first puberty is the supposed origin of unfairness, coming from advantages of bone density and muscle mass. However, studies and reports on this topic have been widely contradictory. Some papers suggest trans women pose an advantage a year after hormone therapy and some find that there is no evidence of advantage whatsoever. Research has still not reached any consensus on the effects of testosterone on bone density in humans and generally cites other factors like diet and environment as having more significant impacts.
In March 2023, World Athletics banned trans women who have gone through male puberty from participating. World Athletics governs every major athletics competition around the world, including the Olympics. Before this decision, measuring testosterone was a practice used to determine if someone in the women’s category was allowed to participate. Even this testosterone-based restriction faced backlash as it forced a lot of cis-gendered athletes to take hormone suppressants if they wished to compete. Athletes like Caster Semenya suffered from the side effects of this treatment as well as the repeated media harassment and controversy that surrounded her success.
Hypothetically, if testosterone does give some measurable advantage, how do we approach the disagreement of fairness? Firstly, fairness from biological advantage is only a recent debate and has never been a basis for regulating sports. Many factors can play into a biological advantage that aren’t regulated by sports bodies, such as height and age. Additionally, lung capacity is often affected by the altitude at which you live, and muscle mass is highly dependent on genetics and social factors.
When we look at the wide range of factors that affect a biological advantage, the conditions of one’s hormonal development are a drop in a sea of factors. The focus on trans women is specifically targeted and in bad faith. Sports has never been about competition between people with equal advantage.
One could argue that this advantage for trans women is a ‘given’ and so it can be ‘regulated systematically‘. However, if we look at a sport like fencing, we have a group that is inherently biologically advantaged. It has been known that left-handed people have a significant advantage in fencing, as according to the BBC, 40% of elite fencers are left-handed, compared with 10% of the general population being left-handed. If we can see a clear biological advantage within fencing, then why aren’t there rules banning left-handed people from the sport? Again, this shows us the concept of “fairness” is not and has never been a universally applied part of sports regulation.
One may notice that people are categorised in boxing depending on their weight. This practice of classification came about because heavyweight boxers would almost always win against lightweight competitors, and so matchups became predictable; there is no meaningful competition. Sports Scientist Joanna Harper cites “meaningful competition” as the measure we should have instead of an unreliable concept of “fairness”. We can have meaningful competition while including a group that has an advantage. In our case, the conditions of one’s puberty do not predict the outcome of competition.
Thus, to justify any rule change, we would have to observe trans women dominating elite sports and leaving no room for meaningful competition. When looking at elite international competitions, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. The way in which these bans are enforced aligns with the rise of transphobia in the media. The ban on trans women in pro chess is enough to show this anti-trans argument doesn’t follow its own logic.
The roots of anti-trans policy and rhetoric.
TERF’s (“Trans-exclusionary-radical-feminists”) are arguably the most prominent group calling for the banning of trans women from all women’s spaces. On Facebook groups and online communities their brand of “feminism” uses one-off anecdotal stories to fearmonger and justify their discrimination. Unfortunately, fearmongering is an addictive narrative builder and conservatives all over the western world have backed TERFs in allowing the discrimination of trans women. Now, false associations and stereotypes are being attached to trans women and myths spread through social media campaigns. Much of these myths, sadly, are mirroring those spread about gay men in the 1980s and 90s during the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This new phase of recycled discrimination reminds us that we must observe statistical claims critically and understand science is not neutral but created with purpose. (Such as in scientific racism, eugenics, punitive psychiatry etc.)
Unfortunately, this frenzy of transphobia has been quite impactful. This is just another example of discrimination that weighs on the minds of young trans people. It isn’t a coincidence trans people are under-represented in sports. From being involved in the Pride Society for 2 years, I have seen the impact and fear this places on people.
In the past few years, hundreds of anti-trans laws have been proposed across the globe in both the West and elsewhere. As a community we can find solace in the fact that progress is inevitable. However, growing bigotry necessitates that those with privilege and social power must not stay neutral or complicit in oppression.
Through all this scientific and cold discussion, we need to remember that trans women are as human as you and I. We each have our own hopes and dreams and we need to be very careful to respect that. We must not pass ill-advised policy out of fear or misunderstanding. Real positive change comes from respect and fair conversation.
Edited by Luke Dunlop
Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical
Leave a Reply