International Transgender Day of Visibility was March 31st this year. This day, also referred to as Trans Day of Visibility is dedicated to celebrating and acknowledging trans people around the world and is separate from Transgender Day of Remembrance, an event that "seeks to highlight the losses we face due to anti-transgender bigotry and violence." In response to the March 31st celebration, Women's Running published an article of sorts by Erin Strout in which she claims white men emailed her (I'm not sure how she would know unless she actually knows the men who wrote or they announced it in their emails, which seems highly unlikely) and requested she address "men competing against women" meaning transgender women competing in the women's category, a topic she admits she largely ignores, whether questions posed to her on the subject are worded in a less objectionable way or not.
It seems to upset people like Strout and Lindsay Crouse when men, especially white men, claim to show an interest in protecting women's sports. What they should realize is that individuals speak up about it because they care about the topic.
They care about their wives, daughters, sisters, and friends, and they care about fairness. Who is anyone else to decide what's important to others? Condemning others for showing an interest in a topic is a tactic extremists use to steer the conversation away from that very issue. Call
opponents insulting names, belittle them, block them, or ignore them, and then
make the "us vs them" lines really clear to everyone who's in your little corner. Create a bubble of like-minded individuals and boast about how you're willing to
talk about the issues when, in fact, you're so afraid of or so against hearing an opposing view that
you shut people out before a discussion can even begin.
For someone who should be interested in the topic of safety and fairness in women's sports considering her position as a journalist, Strout only rarely contributes to the conversation, and when she does, it's on an emotional level, not a scientific or intellectual one. In presenting the obvious fact that people are people, she demonstrates that she's simply not interested in the data unless it's skewed in favor of her view. That doesn't make for impartial reporting. In this case, her article that's featured specifically in a women's running journal should be focused on
some aspect of women's sport without discounting biological females. It shouldn't simply show with whom the reporter is
friendly in the LGBTQ community or feature only one side of the debate. "I know people who are....!" doesn't make for a solid argument. The truth is that you can be an advocate for transgender individuals and not deny science while looking for a suitable solution to what's fair in sports participation.
Rather than use anyone I know as a pawn, I'm simply going to address the one-sided, biased article that Women's Running published. While it's great to acknowledge Transgender Day of Visibility, a journalist writing for women's sports who turns a blind eye to female athletes who have come forward including Sonia O'Sullivan, Mara Yamauchi, Emily Diamond, and Ellie Baker, and subtly or sometimes blatantly suggests that anyone who expresses concern about transgender women competing in women's sports is transphobic or a troll isn't doing thorough research and should pull back on her extremely biased takes. This approach is destructive and divisive, and it's not surprising that Strout blocks people like me or shuts down the conversation with people on social media who disagree with her. It's easier for most people to slap others with a label or call them names than it is to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The term transphobic gets hurled around a lot and often lands on people who are simply pointing out facts or expressing concern. It's a lazy and hurtful insult, a simple way for someone to exit the scene without offering anything of value. There's so much vitriol, often from both sides, that it makes having meaningful conversations nearly impossible, but I really believe there can be a solution when it comes to addressing both inclusion and fairness in sports. Already some running races like the Philadelphia Distance Run are increasing categories to include men, women, and open or non-binary divisions. This is a start at least.
Solutions aren't often journalists' forte, though, especially when it comes to those covering running. It's admirable that Strout feels compelled to publicly show compassion for anyone potentially facing discrimination or hardship. I hope more people do so as well, especially in real life, but right at the start of her article, Strout links to a Human Rights Campaign page that incorrectly states that bills being presented around the country could end up preventing trans student-athletes from playing sports. This is a lie. The reality is that nobody is trying to ban transgender athletes from playing or competing in sports. The main issue is how to allow them to compete in whatever category is eventually deemed appropriate, fair, and safe for everyone. At the moment, though, anyone can compete in their biological sex category, and this won't change. Unlike some who think trans women should never even play women's sports, I think rules around trans athletes should focus more on competition, but, again, nobody is trying to ban participation altogether.
Divisions and categories in sports competitions are there for a reason. There are sex, weight, class, and age categories. Ross Tucker notes that "women’s sport exists to exclude people who do not experience androgenization during puberty and development.” I'll add that this kind of exclusion is fair, otherwise, why have categories at all? Inclusion of one group shouldn't mean unfairness to any other group of athletes. You would never want to see someone from the heavyweight category compete against someone much smaller in boxing, for example. Is it possible that a lightweight could win against someone in a different category? Possibly, but it wouldn't be a fair fight. It's a point that some people are resistant to acknowledge, that having an advantage doesn't always mean winning. Regarding sex categories, any displacement of a cis woman with a selection of a transgender woman in her place in a limited space is unfair. Some of us are trying to defend women's spaces while others like Strout promote inclusion over fairness but refuse to admit it.
Strout states:
"The thing is, we can talk about the fairness, the policies, and the still-developing research when it comes to inclusion of transgender women in elite sports, but in the process, it’s unnecessary to misgender people or show them an utter lack of dignity. I won’t allow it in any space that I occupy—nobody should. And we can stand up for kids who can’t stand up for themselves by learning more, voting, advocating on their behalf, and showing them that there are adults out there who care about their wellbeing. It doesn’t take much to show a child what love looks like in the face of so much hate, just as it doesn’t take much to approach complicated issues with curiosity instead of confrontation."
It must be tiring being everyone's moral superior, but, as a journalist, you need to at least attempt to understand the other side. I will do my best to call people by their preferred pronouns, but, even if it makes me uncomfortable and I don't agree, I accept that other people won't, not because they are transphobic, necessarily, but because they are determined to keep women's sports from becoming an open category and don't want changed language to cause confusion or interfere with that. By the way, slinging insults and calling people transphobic and blocking them without knowing who they are or what they stand for is also unkind. I'm going to keep saying that.
Back to the issue, either Strout and others like her don't know about the research that shows there is a definite hangover benefit from having been born male or they are intentionally ignoring it. There are thirteen different studies supporting the fact that trans women retain a biological advantage, and if you're going to challenge the science that addresses this, do so. Don't just claim that research is ongoing without specifically addressing what about the published studies would lead anyone to believe it's not accurate.
As far as Strout's take on depression in trans individuals, the statistics she presents are similar to those for anorexia. Both communities are at higher risk for suicide and suicide ideation and at similar percentages. This is troubling, but we can't draw specific conclusions based on general statistics around mood. What she presented doesn't reveal if this is a baseline feeling as is often the case with other conditions or if it's unique to certain situations transgender individuals face. She's also relying on additional statistics that are universal, not unique to transgender individuals. For example, most people benefit academically when they are allowed to exercise or participate in sports. It's the same with violence, which has increased overall. In fact, the murder rate in the United States increased by 30 percent in 2020. Statistics taken out of context don't really illustrate much.
Avoiding exchanges relevant to women's running and focusing on more trivial aspects of running actually takes attention away from the sport rather than contributes to it. It's difficult to understand why the same writers who demand we avoid all "body talk" encourage audiences to look at the sexual preferences of athletes and influencers, their overall appearance, and what they like to eat. It's a distraction from what these athletes are doing in their training and their performances and any deeper messages they're trying to share. There's a way to successfully cover lifestyle, advocacy, and running, but too often the running itself or important messages get dropped in the process. The perfect example presented itself on Instagram recently where Latoya Snell addressed issues around feeling safe, and one commenter ignored the post entirely and said, "You look fucking amazing!" which is a compliment, but discounts the content of the post. It's a shame because there is so much incredible women's content that actually relates to sport in a more substantial way, but our attention is drawn elsewhere.
I actually believe that most rational people want to see transgender individuals treated fairly and with respect, and as hostile as any dialogue around inclusion can be, I believe we are gradually moving toward workable solutions in sports. I just don't think that we will get there if we remove cis women from the conversation.
