Trans Rights
Do trans athletes have an unfair advantage?
Response to a piece by Destynee Jones
I have thoughts on this.
But first, just a foreword saying I don't think your framework is entirely wrong. And I don’t hate you for voicing your thoughts as you did. I just think the topic is nuanced, and I think it deserves amiable conversation.
(As long as we keep Joe Rogan out of it. That man is the worst. The last thing we need is a dudebro weighing in on women’s issues.)
That said…
Thought 1:
How many trans athletes are there, anyway? Is this REALLY a big societal problem? Or just a conservative dog whistle to bask trans women with? Aren’t there dozens of true trans-related concerns? (such as fair employment opportunity, fair housing laws, access to homeless shelters, medical gatekeeping, trans women held in male prisons, bullying in schools, etc. etc.?)
Thought 2:
What about trans men in sports? By the bio-argument logic, they're at a DISadvantage. No one ever talks about trans men.
Thought 3:
Let's assume you're right. So what if the half-dozen trans girls competing in high school sports, the half-dozen trans women competing in professional women's sports have an advantage? Our lives are so incredibly filled with discrimination. Employment discrimination is rampant. Violence against us, especially Black trans women, is out of control. Most trans women live in poverty. Some turn to survival sex work to pay the rent.
So a few trans girls will get athletic scholarships. Or maybe a merch deal. What if we just LET THEM?
Thought 4:
You say the concerns of 'biological women' (could you please use cisgender women instead? Please?) are just as valid as the struggles of trans women.
That smacks of privilege. Just like Becky's hangnail or whatever is not equivalent to the Black girl's encounters with racism, a cis girl's concerns are not to be compared with the trauma of gender dysphoria, the incredible emotional labor of gender transition, the fight for survival against class bullying, systemic transphobia and exclusion. It's just not the same.
I'm not trying to entirely dismiss cisgender women's problems. They ARE valid. But making an equivalency here seems a bit entitled, and trivializing.
Thought 5:
The contention seems to be that some trans women have more muscle mass, more body mass than their cisgender counterparts, and that's an unfair advantage.
If that's the case, why would we let Serena Williams compete against average athletes? She's clearly superior genetically, even if we don't count her considerable skills. Michael Phelps? That guy is a freak of nature with a wingspan of two football fields. Doesn’t he have an unfair advantage?
In other words - and let's be candid here - once we take away the easy transphobic discourse, isn't this about the annoyance of being really, really good at a sport and then having someone with a unique advantage compete against you?
What about the arts - should we really let Meryl Streep continue amassing golden statuettes? Doesn't SHE have an unfair advantage? Think of Julie Andrews, Sissy Spacek, Debra Winger, Glenn Close, and all the other amazing actresses who have had the misfortune of being nominated next to Meryl? (I'm only half-kidding.)
Thought 6:
Has no one really thought that the flaw is in gendered sports in general? What does it matter what gonads an athlete has? Why not pit performance metrics against performance metrics, make athletes compete by class based on body mass and previous numbers?
Wouldn't that be the most feminist solution? I'm thinking of the marathon official chasing after Kathrine Switzer to pull her out of the Boston Marathon in 1967. Why would we want that?
Seems to me that making all sport classes body-mass-based, performance-based, would be the fairest solution.
