Yesterday’s post was intended to set the stage for today. Today’s topic is one that I have been battling with for some time. (I trust many have been battling with this topic.) It is one that may likely trigger the sensitivities of some, but I can no longer avoid expressing what, I hope, is a “well-centered” response.
Several times, I have been asked to comment, and I teach a chapter from David Epstein’s book, The Sports Gene (“Why Men Have Nipples”). I can honestly say that my respect for the question and my answer are ever-evolving. It is currently a hot-button topic in our society, and it is a multi-faceted question that is not easily answered. It is certainly a question that requires a “well-centered” discussion.
The question, itself, is not easily stated, as it situationally nuanced, but the broad question is “What defines ‘male’ and ‘female’ for the purpose of sport?”
I begin my lecture with the scene from Kindergarten Cop where the boy stands up and states: “Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina”. I follow this with the statement: “Except when they don’t”. We precede to talk about XY and XX chromosomes, the SRY gene, testosterone insensitivity, and, of course, transgender athletes.
Many will use the argument that there is only male and female—that one is born one or the other. Personally, I take the biological approach and agree that there can be only male and female, but nature is not always black and white.
We begin with the title of the chapter selected by David Epstein, “Why Men Have Nipples”. His simple answer: “because women do”. Embryologically, we all begin as females. The genetic coding is complex enough without having to have entirely different code for male versus female (or different species, or that matter). Whether you believe a Creation story or a Big Bang Theory, genetics are a fact. (Personally, I don’t believe intelligent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.) The SRY gene kicks in at some point and development shifts toward the development of the male anatomy or continues the path of female development—except when it doesn’t. The result can be somewhere on a continuum of male-to-female. (I leave the specifics of this discussion for the biologists and geneticists to elaborate.) The result of changes to the genetic coding can result in females who have physical attributes more similar to males and vice versa.
For the purpose of sport, there can only be “male” and “female”. Gender fluidity is a difficult subject that can have no place in sports. I do not suggest that we should treat the idea of “gender identity” without sensitivity. I do suggest, however, that for sports classification, “Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina”. I am a firm supporter of Title IX and of women’s sports. Allowing anyone who is physiologically male to compete against women (in a designated women’s competition) is unsportsmanlike, and, in some situations, potentially dangerous. I am a fan of women’s wrestling. I believe that women should have the opportunity to compete against women. Unfortunately, there are situations where the only opportunity is to compete against the men. I am fine with that. This said, I have difficulty with the idea of women competing against men in arenas such as mixed martial arts. The reason being more sociological than physiological. The idea of men being permitted to hit women for entertainment sends a horrific mixed message to young people.
Under no circumstances, I believe, should a male (i.e., a physiological male identifying as female) be permitted to compete against females (beyond the age of puberty) in the arena designated as a women’s sport—that is, a competition intended for women only. Allowing men to compete in women’s competitions defeats the very intent of Title XI and damages women’s sports.
Transgender is a reality that needs to be given a “well-centered” examination. It is not as simple as saying: “the athlete competes according to the gender on the birth certificate”. From a Title IX perspective, women get the short end of that stick. If we are to say that women who transition to male are required to compete as female, then steroid use in women’s sports should be legal, and, perhaps, recommended. If there are not strict guidelines in place for transgender female athletes, then women’s sports becomes essentially co-ed and biological women (for lack of an adequate distinction) are disadvantaged and soon pushed from the opportunity to compete.
Another issue to contend with is that of women with androgen insensitivity and/or XY chromosomes. This is actually quite prevalent in elite female athletes. It presents a challenging issue for classifying athletes. Caster Semenya from South Africa, who dominates in the women’s 800-m, is challenging the IAAF ruling that she must take hormones to lower her naturally high testosterone levels in order to compete. Personally, I liken this to excluding a basketball player from competition because he (or she) is too tall. We have to accept that sports have evolved to a point where the extremes of natural selection allow for some to have natural advantages over others in the arena of competition.
So, if we classify athletes on the basis of “boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina”, confirmation becomes a sensitive issue, but it can be dealt with respectfully. For example, most athletes have to undergo annual physical examinations by doctors to determine their health for competition. If the physician says the athlete is male or female, they can compete as such. (Of course, the stakes are higher at more elite levels of competition and fraud would need to be guarded against.) The question remains, however: What do we do about transgender athletes?
There are numerous reasons why one may transition. That is not an issue in this discussion. What is at issue is how we define gender for the purpose of sports competition. I, personally, believe it is as “simple” as asking three questions: 1) “Is the athlete fully transitioned?”, 2) “When did the athlete transition?”, and 3) “Are the athlete’s hormonal levels maintained within a normal physiological range?” The implications for these questions may be somewhat sport-specific, but they should always be addressed in the best interests of all the athletes affected.
“Is the athlete fully transitioned?” In my opinion, this is a no-brainer. It is no less a delicate subject for advocates of gender-fluidity. However, there can be no doubt that males have an overall physiological advantage in most sports over females. Simply identifying as female should not be permission to compete against women. Once a male has fully transitioned to female, nearly all of the physiological advantage is lost, though some physiological characteristics remain that could still affect the advantage the athlete has over biological females. This leads to my second question.
“When did the athlete transition?” When the transition occurs prior to puberty, there will be virtually no advantage for the athlete. When, however, the athlete transitions post-maturity, there is greater opportunity for unfair advantage. An athlete cannot change bone and muscle structure after it has been established. Thus, athletes who transition post-maturity warrant a more case-by-case sport-specific consideration. I believe this would be best left to the governing bodies of said sport, and clear and fair rules need to be in place. I would think a simple rule that the athletes should be one-year post-transition to compete is a fair starting point.
“Are the athlete’s hormonal levels maintained within a normal physiological range?” It is important that the classification of transgender athletes not be on the basis of genitalia alone. Hormones are a necessary part of the transition, and it should be expected that for most the levels will such as to maintain the physical attributed of the gender to which the athlete has transitioned. Transgender males are not likely to elevate testosterone levels high enough to have an advantage. Transgender females can, albeit likely rare, maintain higher levels of testosterone and, thus, maintain more of the male physicality. Simply, requiring that hormone levels be maintained to within physiological ranges should appease any such concerns.
It is unfair to assume that an athlete has transitioned for the purpose of gaining an athletic advantage. Why one transitions is irrelevant. How one’s transition impacts one’s abilities and rights to compete is the question at hand. It is a sensitive question that warrants a “well-centered” solution that is considerate of everyone. It requires an open heart, as well as an open mind.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!