Never one to consider myself an athlete I am extremely interested in sport, I am a very dedicated AFL, cricket and Tennis fan but also get very into the Olympics with the exposure to a range of sports. Even before coming to terms with myself as a transwoman, I have been invested and followed the increasingly ugly debate surrounding Trans participation in sport. After an endless series of events over the past year that sparked another round of hate, I thought it was about time I provided a more reasoned approach that brings in the science, some of the ethical considerations, the inherent sexism present in this topic and alternate ways forward.

Why does it matter?

Sport is an integral part of most cultures and is often integral to national identity. In addition, whether it is team sport or individual competition, sport in any form helps foster key values like perseverance and teamwork. At any level engagement in sport is also tied to the development of self-esteem, opportunities for social mobility and obvious health benefits. All of this highlights the importance for people to have an opportunity to participate in sport besides being an extension of basic human rights.

However, in the case of the LGBTIQ+ community participation in sport is direr which contributes to the well document negative mental health outcomes. In LGB teenage males for one play team sport at less than half the rate of heterosexual peers while girls experience well documented discrimination within different sport settings (Drury, 2011). Participation for trans woman is especially low, in Australia with a well-developed culture of community participation trans females have a 12% participation rate compared to 55% in the rest of the population. There are a host of reasons for this including everything from discomfort, harassment and of course limitations. Regardless of the reason the fact that participation in sport within the LGBTIQ+ community is so limited it needs to be addressed to help improve mental and physical health.

The ‘unfair advantage’ issue

The debate surrounding the inclusion of transgendered athletes’ centres primarily around the trans woman and the perception of an advantage due to a male puberty. The science is admittedly mixed recent research from Dr. Timothy Roberts amongst others clearly suggest that 1 year of HRT does not show enough of a decrease in strength and muscle mass to offset male puberty However over a larger timescale this advantage continues to decline as studies all identify that HRT treatment especially for a period of 36 months greatly reduces muscle mass, overall strength, and red blood cells but there are still others that highlight that they can’t change height or bone density and strength may remain slightly higher than a cis woman. Despite all this data the scientific and medical community are united in the condemnation of blanket bans International Federation of Sports Medicine advocating a case by case or sport specific approach, yet for some reason society is increasing resistant to listing to exports in favour of shock jocks. One thing is certain, the limited participation of trans athletes and opportunity for study means further research is needed especially due to gaps in the existing studies. One thing however is clear HRT does reduce strength well below the level of a Cis man, trans women will have testosterone levels within a cis female range which means that it does go a long way to removing the ‘benefits’ of a male puberty.

The question then remains whether the remaining advantage is unfair, as the entire premise of sport is that competitors have different advantages over others. One article on Cosmos Magazine highlighted the fact that left-handed people have an advantage in fencing, but this doesn’t prevent right-handed competitors from success. The more common example would be a 6-foot 5-inch basketballer like Lauren Jackson being guarded by a 5-foot 5-inch Heather Butler, in this example Jackson has a clear height advantage but it is not considered ‘unfair’ as it in the realm of natural variation and can be compensated for by her competitors. In relation to trans competitors, it may come down to a case-by-case test but if we look at times, records, and results across sports the achievements of trans women normally fit within the range of overall female performance.

Breaking down a case study

The outcry concerning Lia Thomas is a result of her success rather than a detailed and proper analysis of her times which clearly fit within the realm of female competition. Her performances in the Ivy Leagues caused headlines as she ‘smashed’ records as Thomas is in the top times across the 100 / 200 / 500-yard freestyle events however in the 500 especially she doesn’t hold the tops time and across all categories the times are comparable to other top performances. In contrast in the men’s side in the 200 especially Dean Ferris has absolutely dominated with his fastest times almost a whole 3 seconds better than anyone else, however there is no concern about the other men’s ability to compete. Comparatively if we look at both sets of results Lia Thomas times do not compete with the men (1:43:12 compared to 1:30.82) while still fitting within a female range of competition. Based on this data it might be possible to say she has an advantage but as she has been beaten and has times that are slower than other top performers it is not really an unfair one. There may be some sports or individual athletes were this is not the case and therefore this is why a case-by-case approach is always going to be a fairer outcome than blanket bans.

A gendered debate

As highlighted the discussion around trans inclusion in sport focuses on trans female athletes which might seem logical but is really based on a gendered perception of athletic performance. Firstly, it is based on the perception that almost any man is going to be better at sport than a woman and therefor will take their position or are more likely to win. This is a deeply misogynistic way of thinking and relies heavily on the basis that men are stronger, often taller and have other physical advantages. However, these arguments one doesn’t really consider any effect of HRT but also discount the areas where females have natural advantage like flexibility, balance, coachability and endurance. Obviously, some sports are going to rely heavily on strength but in other instances like clay target shooting or fencing it is going to be irrelevant while in other sports flexibility might be more advantageous. In fact, observations in competitive shooting for instance show that woman tend to out preform males. This very suggestion would make some men uncomfortable but is again reasons for more of a case by case or looks at specific sports rather than blanket bans.

Second to this obviously sexist perception is the disparity in opportunity and resource given to female sport. Which is completely disregarded by those that have a sudden interest in women’s sport because it would once again raise the larger question of inequality. In cases where trans female athletes do excel and event dominate (exceedingly rare since there where only a total of 121 openly LGBTIQ athletes at the last Olympics out of 11 000 – 1.1% only 4 of these were trans 0.036%) no one seems to mention they fact they may have had far greater access to training and resources during their former life as male, maybe this is the advantage. The solution would appear simple, spend more on female sport so competitors can have the same access training, coaching and resources. Hell, even the disparity in pay has an enormous impact as many female athletes are not professional and need to supplement income while their male counterparts can focus on their sport. Yet, if someone transitioned in one of these sports it is their fault and not a corrupt system, scapegoating like this only protects the established norms which in this case like so many others are based on equality.

Speaking of inequality, startingly there is less coverage of trans male athletes being a treat to male sport. This is even though many trans male athletes have experienced success despite the “physical” disadvantage of being assigned female at birth; Chris Mosier made team USA for the 2016 athletics World Championship, Schuyler Bailer was ranked 443 out of 2983 division 1 swimmers among others, Kye Allums was a NCAA Division I college athletes and Ness Murby is a Canadian Paralympian. In fact, the research of Dr. Timothy Roberts which those opposing trans women seem to be quick to quote as it points to an advantage despite a year of HRT (remember this has already been stated and the ideal period of HRT prior to competition would be 36 months – 3 years to mitigate as much of male puberty as possible) highlights that transmen (FtM or AFAB athletes) have an observed advantage over cis gendered males. This would seem the smoking gun the opponents would desire however it receives next to no publicity because our society would never suggest that it needs to ‘protect’ male athletes from competition. After all the fact that trans male athletes can be successful undermines the notion of male physical superiority and detracts from their argument a little but there is perception that men should not lose to anyone one AFAB and patriarch depends on this facility, so they want to be in a rush to publicise these athletes too much. In fact, the only really time that trans masculine athletes get any airtime on conservative press is when like Mack Beggs they are forced to compete against woman as they get the visual of a masculine figure wrestling woman, this is perfect ammo for the fear mongering. The language in the whole debate says it all, “protect” women’s sport, once again this is patriarch presenting woman as helpless and in need of assistance.

Disingenuous & Biased reporting

Tied to all these ideas of ‘protecting’ women’s sport is the idea that trans women present a physical threat to other female competitors. The majority of this is biased and bigoted scare mongering which has been create through disingenuous reporting and heavily selective uses of evidence. This begins with deliberate misrepresentation of trans women as conservative papers and those pushing a ‘Gender critical’ position will always refer to MTF athletes as men, even sometimes using the term transgender man (which referrers to FTM). This is partly due to the fact it fits with their beliefs but realistically means the reader has the picture of an adult man competing against women rather than the reality of a trans women with all the physical changes of HRT. To further this these reports also often include photos of transgender men like Mack Briggs wrestling female competitors, the result of forcing athletes to compete based on gender assigned at birth. Of course, in these instances such ‘mistakes’ can always be blamed on confusion of terminology however most of these publications did not even care as their readership are so invested in this representation that they lack the willingness to question it. Finally, this will be reinforced by the selective use of scientific data as they reinforce their use of language by comparing normal cis male attributes and results with female competitors again failing to consider the changes brough about by HRT. It is no wonder with this concerted use of graphic and subversive persuasion that readers already open to these publications often buy into idea that trans women pose a treat.

Risk of injury

Despite understanding these trends in reporting it is important to investigate whether there is any sound basis for these claims of increased physical risk. After completing some research, it was possible to identify two recent cases. The most recent to hit the news headline the story of Payton McNabb who is blaming a trans woman for sustaining a head injury in high school volleyball is easily debugged by establishing context. As a non-contact sport there is an assumption that concussions are extremely unlikely, however 15.3% of all injuries in volleyball are concussions which equites to 3.57 concussions per 10 000 hits with 5% of this occurring in practice due to being struck. There is also documented cases of concussion trauma in women’s volleyball like Hayley Hodson without the involvement of a trans participant which suggests that realistically Payton McNabb always had a risk of concussion due to her sport and likely the result would have been the same had she been struck by any other competitor. Her outcry is therefore most likely the outcome of the sensationalism present in the media and rhetoric in North Carolina politics rather than a trans player creating a heightened risk.

In contrast to the above example, the recent injuries sustained in a rugby sevens match in Guam may have more substance. This situation looks extreme due in part to the nature of the contact in present in a game of rugby and the cluster of injuries that occurred in this specific game, however this trend has not been recreated in any other contests which leaves room for a degree of coincidence which is inherent in all sports with the timing of injuries. However once again in considering whether competitors are at greater risk requires context as female rugby-7s has a higher likelihood of injury than rugby fifteens with an incidence rate of 62.5 per 1000 match-hours with tackle events the most probable cause. This is lower than the incident rate in men’s professional rugby however the context of these injuries suggests more caution with trans female athletes primarily due to the inability of HRT to really impact the skeletal system and therefore may pause a greater chance of injury because of the nature of contact. Despite this a blanket ban from all forms of rugby seems excessive especially based on the data currently available and therefore maybe a restriction to the less injury prone Rugby 15s would be a more justifiably middle ground or a case-by-case process evaluation as bans go against the very fabric of sport and should always be a last resort.

Innovative approaches

Now with all this complexity and information at our figure tips a blanket ban is not justified but neither is allowing trans athletes to compete equally in all sports without any investigation. This is why most exports and trans athletes call for a case-by-case bases so that the existing science can be considered, and a judgement can be made concerning an ‘unfair’ advantage. Currently sports like swimming, athletics and rugby are moving away from this model which suggest that they are being overly cautious in the case of rugby but also heavily swayed by the noise around trans participation rather than putting rules or parameters in place that would mitigate most of not all an advantage like a 3-year HRT requirement. Afterall the trans community only make up a projected 1% so going to substantial effort to protect their rights instead of upholding the views of a significantly larger group of conservatives is obviously in their self-interest. To mitigate this view FINA proposed the idea of an open category (while this does at least in a back handed way acknowledge that Trans women are not men) it’s not going to be getting up anytime soon as after all currently there is a minuscule pool of athletes that would be competing against themselves so such a possibility seems like it would be decades away if ever, far too long for current athletes like Lia Thomas. One day.

The genuine answer is that many sports should be moving away from a gender-based classification for competition as it is outdated and based on the perception that men will always out preform women. In some sports like shooting, it was only every about our stereotypical and biased view of gender, a system for diverting funding from women’s sport and tradition rather than the often-mistaken belief that it helps women to succeed. For years they have been well and truly able to compete and win against men in many sports, but the gendered divide prevents us from truly witnessing this. In some sports other forms of physical classification like height, weight or equipment might be a more effective means of assuring fairer competition at the top level. This would see women and men competing against each other in sports where perhaps strength advantages can be easily mitigated by training and skill or may not be that important anyway. Of course, there would be sports with collision injuries especially that this i snot the way forward but at the end of the day what is needed is a sport by sport as well as a case-by-case basis. Perhaps if we started changing the way some of these sports are organized by breaking away from a gender binary, we might start making head way on gender equality in sport as we will no doubt have instances with women beating male competitors and therefore disproving the sexist assumptions of our society. Instead of jumping at shadows to ‘protect’ women’s sport from we should be shifting our thinking and empowering athletes to recognise that despite the views being spread in the media women can compete, they can win, and they should relish the opportunity to prove it. There is a lot of people that wouldn’t want that.

Conclusion

Anyone that tries to simplify trans participation in sport is either incapable of recognising all the complexities or closed off to engaging in rational discourse and therefore not worthy of a platform. The truth is that there are no clear answers or solutions that would be fair universally across all sports because the requirement of each sport is unique. However, in very few cases, if any, should a total ban be implemented. Science doesn’t support it; the risk is noise, and the debate is really an extension of misogyny. None of these provide surfeit evidence for inflicting the harm that these bans have on trans athletes but more importantly trans youth who feel more cut off from sport than ever. Afterall “Sport is a fundamental right for all”.