Trans Sports: A Failed Narrative Turned Losing Issue

Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating for the legitimacy of transphobic policies or rhetoric. I’ve done my best to be as reasonable as possible, but obviously that is hard for this issue.

As you may know, trans sports is the hot button issue surrounding trans people right now. And like with all other trans issues, that doesn’t really make sense, and it really isn’t fair to have a societal debate over what to do with ~1% of the population. As a trans person, I’ve watched as these debates have slowly eroded our rights in some areas of the country, but I’m not writing this piece to add yet another voice to that discussion. No, I’m writing this because I have a bone to pick with both of the sides of the trans sports debate.

First, the obvious. The rhetoric used by transphobes against trans participation in sports is disgusting and dehumanising. Yet, they’ve made this incredible non-issue into a major political debate, and unfortunately, it’s worked. The sports issue has served as an effective vehicle in turning previously indifferent people into die-hard transphobes. Not even with the mid-2010s bathroom debate did we see this much pushback. So, what’s changed?

Unlike any other debates before it, talking about sports invited tremendous amounts of transphobic rhetoric. Most notable among this, the awful phrase ‘boys in girls sports.’ Yes, it’s transphobic and it’s ignorant, but it’s worked. And there are a few reasons for that.

The first is the phrase’s shock value; obviously, having boys in girls sports doesn’t make sense, regardless of the statement’s truthfulness(trans girls are NOT boys). Secondly, it creates awareness for a fake issue for which the counterpoints are somewhat long. Moreover, those talking points assume the person being spoken to is supportive of trans people in the first place. For example, just getting someone to agree that trans girls are girls can take a lot of work, especially if religion is involved. Finally, for someone to be able to argue against this issue, they need to be either trans themselves or be extremely knowledgeable about it. That’s not very many people. Additionally, the target needs to be willing to listen to a more complicated argument, and as such, it’s easier for them to just give up and accept a simpler, albeit bigoted take on this issue.

I used to be more strongly on the side of trans participation, but reading Renée Richards’ take on the issue has led to me wanting to adopt a less hardline solution. For those not familiar, Renée was a pioneer in trans sports. In the 1970s, she successfully managed to compete in women’s tennis. Although she was moderately successful, she never won anything major. So, on the surface, it seems like a case for trans sports participation, and that’s what I believed too. However, I left out an important detail: when she reached the doubles final in the 1977 US Open, she was 43, having transitioned in her early-to-mid thirties! That is certainly not a normal age to be competitive for tennis, let alone women’s tennis. For reference, the oldest ever women’s doubles champion in the open era was 38, and yet, Renée played at the US Open all the way until the age of 47.

Here’s my issue with the pro-trans side of the debate: it is very much like the other side in that it’s unable to take any evidence contrary to its talking point. Renée’s story is an important piece of information, but it’s already been cast out as transphobic. Moreover, just like transphobes demand “biological truth”(bigotry) from those who are allies, the pro-trans side demands political correctness from those who aren’t fully supportive of us to begin with. And if someone isn’t willing to give that total political correctness, they are promptly cast out and deemed lost causes. Evidently, there’s almost zero patience on our side of the debate, and that’s costly.

I do, however, understand the need to shut down transphobic talking points. That’s a completely separate issue and there should be no leeway given to those who clearly have malice in their arguments. The difference is most people are just ignorant, and equating them to those who are malicious makes it even worse. Better yet, they can be convinced. Just a few days ago, Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell swayed 29 Republicans to vote against transphobic bills. Patience works, and choosing our arguments is important. To discard everyone as lost causes will only result in us losing more and more ground. We have to be willing to assume that everyone is ignorant, just as they do.

Unfortunately, acceptance isn’t built immediately as much as we would all like to see a world where that’s the case. Regardless of your stance on this issue, I think there’s a discussion to be had here. Male puberty does have irreversible effects, but those are not fully understood. Seeing the evidence we have, trans women who have gone through male puberty could be at an advantage. If a trans woman has not gone through male puberty, she should be allowed to compete. That’s a no-brainer and it would be extremely unfair to exclude them.

As I said in the beginning, and believe me I will rarely say it as this is a politics blog, but there shouldn’t be legislation passed on this issue. For either side. The only ones who should make a decision about this are the sporting federations and the athletes within them. Not bigots, not the trans community at large, and certainly not the government. Then, and only then, will we be able to see public opinion start shifting on this issue.