But, in the past couple weeks after the Biden administration changed some of the language to Title IX, I felt obligated to join this fight as the future of women in sports lays precariously in the balance.
Title IX of the education amendments of 1972 is a civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination against students, employees and others at public schools, colleges, and universities that receive federal funding.
The actual point of Title IX was to facilitate biological females’ ability to excel in sports. But, many feel the new regulations, which officially add "gender identity" onto the list of protections from sex-based discrimination, do the opposite.
While the new language doesn’t specifically address the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports, this federal regulation sure gives their position teeth in the legal battles currently raging over this matter.
In sports, two important goals are inclusion and fairness. At this point in history however, the two are in direct opposition. I would assume most people appreciate the need for all genders, orientations, and ethnicities to have equal access to sports. But, I would also assume that most of us can agree a level playing field is an imperative. Is it possible to have both? And if not, what is the overriding objective?
To tackle the first question, it’s critical we keep emotion out of the equation and simply ask: What does the science say? Those who are making the case that there’s no difference between transgender women and biological women are deranged. The ACLU for example has gone so far as to espouse the position that it’s a “fact trans girls are girls” and a “myth that sex is binary, apparent at birth, and identifiable through singular biological characteristics.”
Flat earthers make a better case than this. We have clear evidence of what differentiates the sexes, and the answer is chromosomes. A female is a human with two x chromosomes. A male is a human with an x and a y chromosome. It’s our chromosomes that carry information via units called genes that specify our physical and biological traits. And while you can make the case that gender is a “social construct”, physiology is not.
Sports performance is determined by a host of physiological components: musculoskeletal system, muscle structure and contraction, energy systems, phosphocreatine system, endocrine system, pulmonary system, nervous system, thermoregulation, oxygen uptake etc. All of which influence the athlete’s endurance, speed, strength, and power.
These factors differ significantly between biological males and females because of both genetic differences and differing levels of sex hormones within the sexes - (testosterone, estrogen, progesterone).
Therefore, before we address the potential of puberty blockers to facilitate fairness, we must first elucidate exactly how powerful a role genetics play in this debate. A groundbreaking genetic study published in BMC Biology done by researchers, Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni at the Weizmann Institute of Science Molecular Genetics Department pinpointed 6500 genes that are differentially expressed between males and females. It’s estimated that these genes are responsible for roughly 3000 sex-specific differences in skeletal muscle outside the effects of androgenization.
Even before puberty, when the differences effectuated by the influence of sex hormones sets in, from a purely genetic perspective, biological males are significantly advantaged.
Case in point, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine extensively researched peer-reviewed studies on the health-related fitness data of 85,000 Australian children aged 9-17. It found that when “compared with 9-year-old females, 9-year-old males were faster over short sprints (9.8%) and 1 mile (16.6%), could jump 9.5% further from a standing start (a test of explosive power), could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 seconds and had 13.8% stronger grip.”
Another study of Greek children, published in the European Journal of Sports Science compared 6-year-old females and 6-year-old. Researchers found that the “boys completed 16.6% more shuttle runs in a given time and could jump 9.7% further from a standing position. In terms of aerobic capacity, 6- to 7-year-old boys showed a higher absolute and relative (to body mass) VO2max than 6- to 7-year-old females”.
I must’ve read ten similar studies comparing the fitness of prepubescent kids across the globe and all had similar findings regarding the extent of male advantage in sports performance.
From this jumping off point, once androgenization begins during puberty the male advantage is essentially insurmountable. Circulating concentration levels of testosterone during puberty are 15 times higher than in women resulting in dramatic anatomical differences: Men have more muscle mass, stiffer connective tissue, less body fat, longer and larger skeletal structure, superior cardiovascular and respiratory function with larger blood and heart volumes, higher hemoglobin concentration, and lower oxygen cost of respiration. All of which translates into a superior physical capacity due to size, speed, strength, and endurance.
One study published in Sports Med evidenced proof of this conclusion by doing a comparison of adult elite male and female achievements in sports by searching publicly available sports federation databases. Men dominated across the board.
But what about the claim that the male performance advantage is lost when testosterone is suppressed in transgender athletes.
The same study published in Sports Med looked at this possibility in particular and found the reliance upon puberty blockers to regulate fairness have proven invalid with changes in physical capacity related to sports performance being “trivial”.
For example, the pioneer work by Gooren and colleagues published in the European Journal of Endocrinology compared the baseline measurement of thigh muscle area in transgender men to transgender women. The final thigh muscle area, after three years of testosterone suppression, was 13% larger in trans women than in the trans men at baseline. Meaning biological males taking puberty blockers for 3 years still had 13% more muscle than biological females taking testosterone.
Another study published in the journal, Endocrine Connections, measured grip strength (which is a maker indicative of overall strength) in both transgender males and transgender females. The researchers found that transgender women (biological men on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones) retained a 17% advantage over transgender men (biological women on puberty blockers and testosterone).
The authors of all the above referenced studies concluded that testosterone suppression in transgender women does not reverse muscle size to biological female levels even when testosterone is within biological female range.
It would be remiss to not reference the study recently commissioned by the IOC in advance of the Paris Olympic Games, which claimed to find that transgender women had less lower body strength than biological women and performed worse in cardiovascular tests.
Many have found numerous problems with the study from sports scientists to Olympic athletes themselves. The study collected data from 69 volunteers, who had responded to social-media ads for participants in the research. None of the subjects were competing in national or international sport and critics were quick to point out that the pool of transgender women was significantly deconditioned in comparison to the biological women from onset. For example, Dr Ross Tucker, a sports scientist and high-performance sports expert noted the V02max for the trans athletes put them in a “mid-range of untrained or moderately trained adults”, whereas the group of females were in “a significantly higher category of training status”. The transgender women had a body fat percentage average of 31.6 per cent while the biological females averaged 26.6 percent. On top of this there was a wide variation in the age of the participants. Put simply, the trans athletes chosen weren’t in great shape and the biological female athletes chosen were. For the study to hold water the athletes would need to be in the same category of athleticism. A fit 20-year-old woman could easily run a 5k faster than an out of shape 40-year-old man. It needs to be apples to apples for a reliable outcome.
That said, there are 19 other studies which compared different aspects of fitness in biological females and transgender females, and all found that transgender women maintained their fitness advantage over the biological women.
Studies aside, the proof is being borne out in real time. We are seeing fast rises up the rankings by biological males who, on transition, go from average rankings among the men to champions among women. Transgender athletes are in the news more and more breaking record after record in a variety of different sports. Along with several incidents of significant injuries to biological females along the way.
Fallon Fox (a transgender female) gave her biological female opponent, Tamikka Brents, an orbital bone fracture resulting in a concussion and seven staples to the head after fighting for only one round. In another instance a six-foot-tall transgender female playing for the KIPP Academy girls’ basketball team, injured multiple players on the opposing team, eventually forcing them to forfeit. A North Carolina volleyball player was knocked unconscious after a transgender athlete spiked the ball at her head.
It’s not “transphobic, bigoted, or right-wing extremism” to worry that the future of biological women in sports hangs precariously in the balance as a generation of would-be sports heroes go from athletes to activists and litigants. Riley Gaines being a perfect example. Or April Hutchinson, an elite biological female powerlifter who criticized a trans inclusion policy adopted by the Canadian Powerlifting Union after a trans athlete broke the national record for total weight lifted in squat, bench, and deadlift. The CPU suspended April for voicing her opinions and using the term “biological male”.
It’s entirely unacceptable that the rights and opinions of all stakeholders, explicitly including biological female athletes are not being considered. The punishment and reprisal of these women for voicing their feelings on the matter is bordering on fascistic.
Their concerns should be closely considered as an entire generation of upcoming girls may never get the opportunity to fulfill their dreams no matter how hard they work. The scholarships, titles, world records, prize money, Olympic opportunities, endorsement deals could all eventually become out of reach. This looks like a world without Serena Williams, Lindsay Vonn, Megan Rapinoe, Simone Biles, Ronda Rousey and many more. Serena herself said in that famous interview with David Letterman that if she had to play Andy Murray she would refuse because she would get beaten 6/0 6/0 in under ten minutes. One doesn’t get labeled “the G.O.A.T” if they never become number one.
It’s imperative the responsible governing bodies for each sport have the courage to acknowledge the facts along with the feelings. It’s draconian to think bans need to be unilateral. There’s room for nuance. But when it starts to count the science must be considered, especially with the numerous sports where muscle mass, body size, strength, and power are key performance determinants. As well as in elite sports, where events can be decided by the smallest of margins. Arguably in these instances it may be advantageous to create a third category to accommodate access and fairness.
It would also be advisable to avoid precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions where there isn’t sports specific research to support it and or a factor like technique in dance is the primary skill. If research is lacking, the governing bodies have an obligation to commission it!
There are solutions here, but to arrive at them we need to inject some common sense as well as empathy.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sold opinion of the writer.
