Idaho holds the dubious distinction of being the first state in the nation to institutionalize transphobic prejudice in sports. The Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (signed March 2020) prohibits transgender women and girls, from kindergarten through college, from competing on teams (including intramural and club teams) when such participation aligns with their gender identity. This law contrasts sharply with national and international athletic bodies including the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the International Olympic Committee.
Most opposition to inclusive athletics focuses on oversimplifying assumptions about testosterone levels, but children younger than 10 are essentially equal in testosterone level regardless of biological sex. By including prepubescent children in the Idaho law, the true transphobic agenda is blatantly visible to the world.
In his injunction against this Idaho law (Hecox v. Little), the presiding judge (Judge David C. Nye) wrote, “The Proponents’ failure to identify any evidence of transgender women causing purported sexual inequality other than four athletes (at least three of whom have notably lost to cisgender women) is striking.” Indeed, the court concluded that there was an “absence of any empirical evidence” to justify the law.
And yet, whether from bigotry or misunderstanding, a recent Gallup poll (May 25, 2021) shows that the majority of Americans (62%) feel that transgender people should compete on teams consistent with their “birth gender.” And while bigotry is clearly driving the Idaho law, much opposition derives from basic confusion about what “fairness” means.
It is important to remember that the greatest athletes in the world, with or without a Y chromosome, are typically endowed with genetically encoded traits that provide significant advantage for their chosen sport. These genetic advantages are certainly not “fair” in the strictest sense (they weren’t “earned”). Should fairness be judged by the presence or absence of a chromosome, or is there a better way?
Incidentally, the chromosome argument is dreadfully patronizing to cis girls and cis women in general. Not only are there sports for which not having a Y chromosome is an advantage, but there are individuals lacking a Y chromosome who can whip the competition without difficulty.
Any valid definition of fairness can’t be binary, particularly considering what we know about natural variation. If, for example, weight is a key correlate for success in a sport, we can examine the population frequency distribution of weight by age. What we will find is a bell curve for biological males and for biological females … and the curves overlap substantially. That is, there are many biological females who are larger than biological males.
Another way to think about this is to consider demographic data from the CDC for body mass index (weight divided by height squared). At age 16, high school males have an average BMI of 20.5 and females have an average BMI of 20.4, or essentially equal values. More importantly is the overlap of the distributions. For males, the 95% percentiles are 17.1 and 27.5 while the 95% percentiles for females is 16.8 to 28.9. I could not find complementary data for transgender people, but there is no reason that their distributions would be significantly different from these ranges. That is, in every population there will be some individuals with inherent advantages and disadvantages for different sports. Fairness defined by simply having or not having a Y chromosome ignores the biological reality of being human.
One way to potentially move past this controversy is to have more mixed gender sports where the chips fall as they may. In some years cis women or cis men will take the championship, while in other years LGBTQ+ individuals might be the champions, but natural variation will guarantee that it is never one category that wins all the time.
Another model comes from wrestling where weight can offer a huge advantage. This is managed by matching opponents by weight class. In doing so, the competition boils down to being about flexibility, endurance, and strategy … that is, things that the athlete actively works to improve. The athlete, whether heterosexual or LBGTQ+, who trains hard will have the biggest advantage regardless of their gender identity. And in the end, that is fundamentally fair and that happens to be what all athletes should want.
Call (he/him) is a microbiologist and father of three, including a trans daughter who is dearly loved.
