Transgender women in sport

Abstract

This paper considers whether transgender (trans*) women should be permitted to compete in female categories in sports. Trans* women are often criticized for competing in female categories because they are seen as having an unfair advantage. Specifically, they are seen as having high levels of testosterone that unfairly enhance their performance in comparison to cisgender competitors. In this paper, I argue that trans* women should be permitted to compete in female categories. I suggest that if we want to maintain the skill thesis as a guiding principle of sports and allow trans* women to compete in female categories, then we need to take relevant genetic advantages into consideration by introducing a handicap system. I claim that a handicap system should consider both cisgender and transgender women’s effective testosterone levels.

Keywords:

• Transgender
• trans*
• testosterone
• genetic advantage
• gender binary
• skill thesis

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Matt Doucet, Patricia Marino, and Shannon Dea for their helpful guidance on earlier versions of this manuscript. Also, many thanks to the anonymous referees for their constructive feedback and to Paul Gaffney for his valuable insight and recommendations.

Notes

1. The term trans* or transgender refers to individuals whose gender identity differs from their gender assignment/phenotypic sex (Dea 2016). Trans* is sometimes used ‘in place of “transgender” in order to signify inclusivity and a broad openness to the full range of trans identities, in particular non-binary trans identities’ (Dea 2016, 102). I will be using these terms interchangeably.

2. According to Dea (2016, 83), ‘the kinds of features that we count as markers of biological sex include both genotype (genes and, in particular, chromosomes) and phenotype (an organism’s observable physical characteristics)’.

3. For instance, between 20 and 40% of the 1.6 million homeless youth in the United States are transgender, most often because their families oppose their transgender identity (National Center for Transgender Equality 2016).

4. Many of my arguments apply to all transgender persons. My arguments are not meant to exclude others who identify as transgender.

5. ‘Cisgender’ describes individuals ‘whose gender identity accords with their gender assignment or phenotypic sex’ (Dea 2016, 101).

6. Prior to 1967, women in sports were examined to ensure that they had no hidden testicles (Schultz 2011, 230). In 1967, lab-based tests were introduced (Schultz 2011).

7. Gender verification testing is the same as sex verification testing. The term gender verification was used in Semenya’s case.

8. Thanks to Paul Gaffney for providing me with some incredibly helpful feedback to strengthen this part of my paper.

9. It is worth noting that trans* men should also be permitted to compete in male categories irrespective of biological interventions. However, if there are advantages that extend beyond effective testosterone levels that trans* men or trans* women would need in order to fairly compete in the category of their gender identity, then certain interventions might be more easily justifiable.

10. As noted by one referee, the attribution of 1% seems arbitrary. McKinnon says 1% ‘is the degree to which Bill is skilled at making long-distance basketball shots’ which is based on the expected outcome (2013, 505). This percentage could potentially be determined through less arbitrary means, such as allowing Bill to try to make the shot 100 times on multiple occasions and determining a percentage of skill based on the amount that he succeeds.

11. This theory is especially relevant for sports that are comparatively unmitigated for unfair advantages, such as running. I understand that some sports are already mitigated (e.g. weight lifting).

12. This system might only apply to individual sports because it is more complex to evaluate sports where athletes compete against one another (e.g. tennis) and team sports. Although this means that my thesis applies to a narrow range of sports right now, it is worth considering as a first step if we want to maintain the skill thesis. Also, given that genetic testing is expensive, starting at the most prestigious level is reasonable.

13. The element and the way that results would need to be adjusted would differ depending on the sport.

14. One important consequence of my account is that if we retrofit our current binaristic system by allowing transgender women to participate in female categories, then it might suggest a way forward to more radical changes to the system. My account might abolish the need to separate sports in a binaristic way since any unfair genetic advantages will be mitigated irrespective of athletes’ gender identities.