The Discriminatory Costs of Preserving Women’s Only Sports
Separate categories for men and women in sports will become a relic of the early 21st century. Here is why we will go backwards to go forwards:
In much of the world, we have become accustomed to having gender segregated categories for competition in sports. But the past 50 years mark a bubble which is popping as we speak. The past half century will be looked back on as the golden era of women’s sport, where segregated categories gave women a chance to compete on a playing field that excludes men, transgender people and intersex people.
Generally, men are not allowed to compete in women’s categories, but women ARE allowed to compete in mens. We have for decades allowed men, transgender people and intersex people to be discriminated against when it comes to sports. And this discrimination is now being highlighted as the discussions surrounding the inclusion of transwomen and intersex people intensifies.
This gendered bias is highlighted by the embarrassing “gender checks” of the previous century where genitals were inspected and/or genetic testing done. The IOC (International Olympic Comitee) stopped using that policy in 1999, recognizing its inherent ineffectiveness and discriminatory nature. In 2004, the IOC also made new provisions for transwomen to compete in womens categories at the Olympics. Those regulations were lightened in 2015, but recently tightend a bit for the 2020 games. (I will be talking more about these regulations later in this article). Either way, we see a very powerful regulatory body forced to publicly contend with the fairness and legality of the 20th century gender discrimination practices.
My choice of the word “discrimination” might seem strange, but it doesn’t change the fact that we indeed discriminate against men, transgenders and intersex people based on categories which are a social construct (as defined by the ommisions within the guidelines of the IOC and NCAA, for example). You may personally LIKE the fact that it gives girls and women a protected space where they are free to compete with women/girls only but your like for it does not change the accuracy of my chosen terminology.
This discriminatory category more and more seems to be indefensible from a legal perspective as well. As gender identity and gender expression have become more and more broadly protected categories at varying state, federal and international levels, the realities of discriminatory separations in sport will be higlighted further.
A bit of history of women-only sport: The monumental Title IX passed in 1972 which basically states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX does more than that, but it is often viewed as a document that’s passing signified a radical shift towards equality for women in a man-dominated sports world. “Today, women earn more bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees than men, and they make up 54 percent of all NCAA college athletes. Girls’ participation rate in high school sports is more than 10 times what it was when Title IX was passed.”
In 2003 the IOC in reference to male-to-female transgender people “listed three conditions for participation. First, athletes must have undergone sex reassignment surgery, including changes in the external genitalia and gonadectomy. Second, athletes must show legal recognition of their gender. Third, athletes must have undergone hormone therapy for an appropriate time before participation, with two years being the suggested time.” Link 1 Link 2. In 2015, the IOC radically modified these guidelines such that: “The new guidelines require only that trans woman athletes declare their gender and not change that assertion for four years, and demonstrate a testosterone level of less than 10 nanomoles/liter for at least one year prior to competition and throughout the period of eligibility.” Link. For the 2020 games that testosterone limit will be made stricter at: 5 nanomoles/liter. Current IOC guidlenes listed here.
The current NCAA guidelines are here, and are less strict than the IOC guidleines: NCAA requires “A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.” [The bolding is my edit to highlight the relevant information.] One calendar year of testosterone suppression is required by the NCAA or “A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.” The NCAA does not specifically outline a nanomoles/liter limit but says: “The request should include a letter from the student’s physician documenting the student-athlete’s intention to transition or the student’s transition status if the process has already been initiated. This letter should identify the prescribed hormonal treatment for the student’s gender transition and docu-mentation of the student’s testosterone levels, if relevant.”
So, the only remaining physiological barrier between men and women when it comes to competing in sports at the highest echelons is testosterone levels as measured by a blood test. The 5nm/L “is still far above levels in most women, including elite female athletes, whose levels range from 0.12 to 1.79 nanomoles per liter, states a 22 page IAAF document defending the organization’s decision. Meanwhile, the normal male range after puberty is much higher, from 7.7 to 29.4 nanomoles.” It remains unclear to me how this remaining physiological barrier will remain in the guidelines for much longer. First off, it reduces gender to a single factor (testosterone levels) and then, proceeds to selectively test “suspicious” athletes only (which was problematic per the pre-1999 gender checking as evidenced by the elimination of gender checks). Furthermore, the 5nm/L seems somewhat arbitrary as evidenced by the change from 10 to 5 within 2 years by the IOC. If the nm/L limit meant anything, why be so cavalier about it? Lastly, these two articles nicely demonstrate the reasonable objections that will likely push testosterone limits the way of the dodo: NPR, The Guardian. From The Guardian article for example: “Of all the physiological factors relevant to athletic performance, the two for which there are the most abundant and convincing links to T are skeletal muscle mass (also sometimes called “lean body mass”), and physical strength — something those who oppose trans women competing have deployed. But studies of T levels among athletes fail to show consistent relationships between T and performance. As one example, some studies show a correlation between higher baseline (endogenous) T levels and either speed or “explosive” power, but many other studies show either weak or no links. Quite a few studies even find that higher baseline T is associated with worse performance.” Regardless of the validity of these and other claims regarding testosterone and performance, the effects they have on future policy will be very real.
It appears we have three paths: keep the current status quo, which, in attempting to serve two gods, fails them both, OR; we choose one of the following. Eliminate gender restrictions all together or embrace the “necessity to discriminate”.
Eliminating gender restrictions would make sport a open, genderless meritocracy. It would have a crushing effect on women athletes, especially those who currently compete to earn a salary or a scholarship. In a gender-free meritocracy, almost every scholarship would go to men. Although I could write a treatise on the current differences between men and women in sport performance, it is not the perview of this essay. This article does a nice job of highlighting the gulf that seperates performance in sports as a simple starting off point. I’ll not deny that some sports and some women would buck this trend, but by and large; sport would be dominated by self-identifying men.
On the other side, we have the “necessity to discriminate” which would enforce strict categories of gender via hormonal, genetic, genital and other measurements. This option has recently come up in reference to editing Title IX itself. The Trump Whitehouse has suggested changing the document to say: “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence,” the administration proposed in a memo obtained by The New York Times.” If we choose to pursue the necessity to discriminate, it seems likely that genetic evidence alone will not be enough to “confirm” a persons biological sex, but it does represent a clear opposition to “inclusion as highest value”. Also, inclusion in sport would not be made illegal per this “genetic evidence” proposal, but it would force some individuals to compete in gendered sports as a gender with which they do not identify.
“Traditional” womens-only sport is at a confounding impasse: eliminate the restrictions to compete in an act of “inclusion as highest value” OR accept the necessity of discrimination in an attempt to protect the status quo.