Lost in Trans-lation
Recently there’s been a flurry of news around the inclusion of transgendered athletes in sports. It's an issue I hadn't had exposure to before, but my newsfeed is swarming with legislation banning trans athletes from competing.
Considering the global pandemic, it feels like an odd subject to focus on. So what gives?
On Thursday The House of Representative passed the Equality Act to the Senate. As an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, this bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Simply put, it's federal legislation that furthers the rights of LGBTQ+ people.
The Equality Act also extends the places that are protected against discrimination beyond the home and workplace. The amendment includes “public accommodations” - meaning shared spaces like stores and stadiums - and “federally funded programs.”
Federally funded programs, of course, include school athletics. By extension the bill indicates that - in not nearly as many words - trans athletes are welcome to participate in school sports. More specifically, it advocates that “all students, including transgender students, be able to learn without facing sex discrimination”
That seems like a win to me.
Giphy
The most interesting element of the bill is that it directly states it will supersede the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a tricky law that makes "religious freedom" a legal copout for going against other legislation.
The RFRA is like the "get out of jail free card" for homophobes.
The Equality Act would make it so that you can no longer discriminate against an LGBTQ+ customer based on said “religious freedom”. An example National Public Radio gives is a bakery where the owner refuses to make cakes for gay weddings. That used to be a legitimate assertion of religious freedom, and now it would be public discrimination.
Too bad, so sad. That gay couple was never paying you for your opinion, they were paying you for a cake...
Similarly, with this amendment you could no longer argue that a trans woman can't play on the girl’s school team because it doesn't align with your religious understanding of gender.
To me that's a victory, to a Republican it's an American death sentence.
Giphy
Let’s Talk About Sex
Naturally Republicans are trying to find issues with the Equality Act. Many have started screaming that there are only two sexes - one congresswoman going so far as to put signs inside the Capitol urging politicians to "trust the science."
Yeesh.
What is surprising (to me anyway) is the argument many have landed on. Conservatives en masse have accused the bill of “erasing women” and “eviscerating” women’s sports. The argument is that trans women will tarnish the sanctity of female athletics.
Seems like a reach, but let's play it out.
Lest we forget that trans issues are near and dear to the Republicans. Allowing people to use their preferred gender bathrooms caused aneurysms throughout the Bible Belt for years. The fear of women being unsafe apparently a hot-topic for Republicans when it serves them, but not when it comes to electing men to the Supreme Court. Interesting, but I digress....
In 2020 these conservative began a crusade against trans women participating in sports. Since last year 24 states have introduced legislation banning trans athletes from school athletics. Missisippi’s bill was passed as recently as March 3rd. At a federal level The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, stating that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology,” was introduced to the Senate in September.
There's also been a number of lawsuits from disgruntled high school athletes refusing to share the stage with trans competitors. In Connecticut 3 senior members of the track team claim that running with trans athletes is demoralizing. One said, “Mentally and physically, we know the outcome before the race even starts.”
That sounds like a losing attitude, but she's speaking to a popular line of thinking. This Republican anger comes from the theory that trans athletes, specifically trans women, have a physical advantage in sport since they were born in male bodies.
In reference to the Equality Act, 2020 election-loser Donald Trump claimed that women's sports will "die" if trans athletes are allowed to compete. He goes on to ask "what coach, as an example, wants to recruit a young woman to compete if her record can easily be broken by somebody who was born a man?"
As shocking as that sounds, Trump is reinforcing a common perception - that trans women are biologically closer to men in drag than actual women.
Trump (and the Republicans in general) is making a point of extremes. Just like the assertion that, if we allow trans women to use women’s washrooms, some men will jump at the chance to throw on a dress and assault victims in stalls.…..It's an intense hypothetical based in fear.
As it relates to sports, Trump is posing that a jilted male player can, with the snap of his fingers, re-identify and make it big in a women’s league. While unlikely, there are holes presented in his comments. For example, are there safety concerns because of the size and weight of some trans women compared to other players? Is self-identifying enough to switch leagues, or is there a hormone ratio deemed acceptable to be included?
These are uncomfortable questions, but points to consider when changing systems.
Giphy
I Got New Rules; I Count 'Em
Unsurprisingly, we have most of these answers already.
Take, for example, trans MMA fighter Fallon Fox. Joe Rogan, who is not my usual source for sound advice, claims her participation in female divisions is a safety issue and major advantage. “She's a transgender, post-op person. The operation doesn't shave down your bone density.”
To be clear, Rogan isn’t advocating for Fox to stop fighting. He’s claiming that, as someone who was in a man's body until relatively recently, Fox should fight men.
It’s a touchy subject. Many female fighters have embraced Fox as an opponent. Others haven’t.
In an interview Dr. Marci Bowers, a gender reassignment surgeon, affirmed that Fox's physique has no biological advantage. Because of her time spent in hormone therapy, Fox would test "in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart."
Scientifically speaking, other doctors agree that prolonged hormone treatments would eliminate any physical advantage a trans athlete would have being assigned male at birth.
So Donald, if physiologically we can prove no muscular advantage, what’s the huge danger to women's sports?
As it turns out, many organizations have done this research already. The Association of Boxing Commissions, to which Fox belongs, has a policy in place for trans athletes to ensure these measures are met. Fox has to produce medical documentation showing she has undergone hormone therapy for a minimum of 2 years and falls within the normal levels of other female competitors.
If you’re interested, Transathlete.com keeps an up-to-date list of league regulations that include organizations like Golf Canada, The International Olympic Committee, The International Quidditch Association, The ITF, And USA Gymnastics.
Even the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the college league that doesn’t prevent known rapists from competing, has guidelines around trans athlete participation. Their bylaws include a medical exception policy for trans men requiring the use of testosterone - an otherwise banned substance. Interestingly, the NCAA also has a framework around mixed gender teams in the event that one athlete is transitioning or doesn't yet fall within the guidelines to join the opposing sex's team.
Knowing these rules, I would argue that Fox has a major disadvantage compared to her competitors. To fit within these sport guidelines you would have to take time off, you’d be adjusting to a new hormone make-up, and, depending on the case, having undergone surgery.
I remember what it felt like getting boobs as an athlete. The new weight threw off my centre of gravity and made everything in gymnastics harder. Imagine doing that at a professional level....
There’s also the emotional component of transitioning that we can't overlook, especially when partnered with fan backlash and transphobia. There’s a widespread lack of understanding about sex reassignment, and it lends itself to horrific stereotyping. I can't say it better than this quote from the American Civil Liberties Union:
The idea that women and girls have an advantage because they are trans ignores the actual conditions of their lives.
Giphy
Keep Your Eye on the Ball
The women’s sports angle is an interesting stance for the Republicans for a few reasons. First, it’s scientifically not accurate that these women have physical advantages. Even if they did, those factors are mitigated by guidelines and policies derived from each organization.
Secondly, supporting women generally isn’t high on the Republican to do list as it is. Why are we all of a sudden 'feminists' for this cause? Women’s sports in particular has lots of issues that can be tackled - lack of coverage, financial exploitation, no funding, sexual predators - so why is this the hill that so many are keen to die on?
For instance, on the same day the Equality Act was making headlines, a former USA Gymnastics coach died by suicide following multiple charges of human trafficking and sexual crimes against minors. Surprise surprise, he was old pals with Larry Nassar, the scum-bucket-rapist convicted of sexually abusing 265 girls as young as 6.
How can you read that headline and still think trans athletes are the biggest threat to women's sports?
Lastly, the Equality Act doesn’t have anything to do with professional sports. The bill surrounds publicly funded programs, meaning high school and college programs only, so it's a weird position to claim that this amendment will "eviscerate" female athletics. Sure, maybe more trans women competing in school programs will lend itself to more trans athletes being drafted to the big leagues. That said, let’s not encourage more homophobic bakers today because we’re afraid of the unsubstantiated repercussions of trans athletes in professional sports 10 years from now.
That argument is purely distraction.
There’s a theme in this story that no legislation should pass unless it’s perfect. It's an all or nothing approach to the law. Without a complete understanding of how trans athletes are included, we’re meant to believe that the Equality Act is useless and chaotic.
Conversely, I think a certain level of risk is required for any progress. There’s a reason our highways have 100 km/hour speed limits. If we all drove at 5km/hour, we’d have less accidents. Then again, no one would get anywhere.
When it comes to equality I’d rather take some risk to include more people than refuse to try at all.
In Trumpian fashion, let's play with some hypotheticals:
20 years from now we're living in a Republican hell-scape. A black woman is president, sex education is mandatory, and all of congress is comprised of drag queens. (wow what a vision...)
At the centre of it all women's sports has become filled with trans athletes - then what?
Are those athletes more harmful than the civil rights the Equality Act would create today? Are they more harmful than having abusive coaches lurking around children? Personally, I don’t think so.
The bigger underlying issue is the acceptance of these women in general. We can't convince people to encourage trans athlete participation if they fundamentally disagree that trans women are 'real' women. Despite any science or legislation, people will continue disagree based on their own assumptions, fear, and biases. Unfortunately, it's affecting the students who want to play sports more than it will ever affect screaming conservatives.
Maybe trans athletes are a scary concept for you - hey, that's okay.
What's important to recognize is that your fear isn't more important than other people's civil rights. If the ideal spaces or regulations don’t yet exist for trans athletes, we should create them, not rally against the possibility because it’s unchartered - that attitude keeps us stuck at 5km/hour equivalent of progress forever.
