#383 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday June 21)
Good morning,
NUANCE
As opposed to our current “I’m always right” environment, I relish the opportunity to learn. Sometimes I am unpersuaded. Other times I am. As Ben VandeBunt points out, we are living in a world where there is far too little nuance, when a nuanced analysis of the issues is exactly what we need. In any case, I have received a fair bit of comment on my position that women who have transitioned from their male birth-sex should not be entitled to play in women’s sports. Much of it is supportive and some of it contrary, but all of it educational and forcing me to think. And some of it offers me information that points to a middle ground between what I thought and what I learned.
TRANSGENDER ATHLETES
David Mersky suggests that he would agree with my analysis with respect to those who transition post-puberty (after male hormones have kicked-in). As he states,
”…this morning’s meditation on transgender women and sports, I think, would benefit from a bit of nuance.“ Fair enough. He goes on, “There is a difference between those who choose to transition before puberty and those who do so after. A child who is born male, and takes puberty-blocking hormones, never develops as a male. Thus, they should be allowed to compete with women as “adults” on a “level playing field.” Those who transition post-pubescent should not be allowed to compete, by this logic. That makes sense to me.
Meanwhile, Adam Torson looks at the cost-benefit analysis I proposed and disagrees more completely: “I think you should consider the damage caused by forcing athletes to compete in sports designated for their assigned sex rather than their actual sex. Trans youth are something like 20x more likely than cis youth to attempt suicide, and that baseline is already too high. The evidence indicates that the best way to treat trans kids' mental health challenges is gender affirming environments and medical care. In the same way that bathroom bills reinforce their marginalization and perceived deviance, so too do trans athlete bans. I would argue that this consideration outweighs the competitive equity concerns, particularly for high school sports where the stakes for competitive success are low.
I think that is particularly true if you put the debate in broader context. There are a tiny number of trans kids trying to compete in high school sports. While debating the trans athlete ban in Utah, they could identify literally one child in the state to whom the law would currently apply. The point of these bills is not therefore to do anything meaningful on equitable competition, but rather to signal to trans youth in general that society says who they are is different and wrong. You acknowledge that such messaging is unconscionable - I would suggest that these sports regulations are part of that messaging, and fit into a broader context of dozens of laws or proposed laws around the country to try to further marginalize trans kids.”
A MORE NUANCED VIEW? COST/BENEFITS
I accept that we want to do as much as we can to accommodate trans students. That means accepting them and ensuring that the instrumentalities of our environment are welcoming (or, at least, not off-putting). When I apply my “reasonableness” standard, I see it as a relatively low bar to have single-sex bathrooms (perhaps the right term is “non-gendered”). While it might instill a degree of discomfort on the vast majority of students who accept and live the lives of their biological sex at birth, that discomfort of a few is outweighed by the acceptance of trans students, for all the reasons Adam lays out in his response.
On the question of trans participation in sports, the extreme example of only one athlete in the entire state of Utah who would qualify to participate in women’s sports, if allowed, might seem a relatively simple position to take. But upon greater examination, that student bears any resemblance, athletically, to the Penn swimmer, then that single athlete’s participation will noticeably change the playing field and render competition with them futile. I will accept the contention that high school sports is less competitive than at the college level and perhaps the full benefits of male hormones on physique are not fully realized in high school. But, again, I think the relatively minor inconvenience for one student justifies their non-inclusion. There are plenty of other extra-curricular activities open to that student. I just don’t think rendering an entire activity less competitive or fair for an entire, much larger, group of students is a fair price to pay.
Scott Stone provided further support that “there’s always a middle ground.” In a recent study, while it was determined that a year on hormone replacement therapy (involving injection of female hormones), it takes longer than one year to lose the advantage of having transitioned from being a man. Apparently, after two years, the effect is to bring the hormonal distinctions into greater balance with other women. So, maybe there is a “two year holiday” before one can compete as a woman. Here is the article: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764
Finally, on Adam’s observation about teen suicide, I am certainly empathetic. There are so many other areas schools and society need to work on to create a more accepting and non-judgmental environment. Whether one can participate in track and field seems relatively minor in comparison to the so many other issues.
Adam offers two good resources in understanding the challenges for trans students:
The lighter lift is this truly excellent podcast episode on the subject: https://know-your-enemy-1682b684.simplecast.com/episodes/trans-justice-w-gillian-branstetter
The other is Whipping Girl, a book by Julia Serrano, which is one of the more helpful books on trans issues I've encountered. The author is a trans woman and an evolutionary biologist, which helped me understand what it means to be trans biologically.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: