Malcolm Gladwell's Sad Apology

This isn't a full blog post; it's more a response to the recent The Science of Sport podcast episode, hosted by Ross Tucker and Mike Finch, featuring Malcolm Gladwell. I can't top Sarah Barker's take or J.K. Rowling's response on Twitter (X), but below are some thoughts I've had. I really hope people take the time to click on the two previous links and absorb what Rowling and Barker are saying. 

Immediately after Gladwell, with all the panache of Alvy Singer, confessed that he was cowed --as others pointed out, he should have said "I was a coward" instead -- into supporting trans athletes in women's sport, Tucker went on social media in an effort to defend Gladwell and call him an ally. Tucker is usually a most reasonable, level-headed, fair, and considerate individual, and he wanted people to move beyond Gladwell's comment and listen to the rest of the interview. He felt, controversy aside, Gladwell made some interesting points during their conversation. I can't say I agree that Gladwell's ideas about scoring for cross country are among them, but Tucker seemed to think this and other topics of discussion were worth a listen. 

It's probably hard for men or those who favor inclusion over fairness to understand how angry some of us are for being abandoned, criticized, called bigots and other names, and penalized for standing up for women. Again, Sarah Barker and J.K. Rowling summed everything up very concisely, so I won't beat a dead horse too much more. I agree with Sarah, though, that when Tucker compared his evolution on the topic to Gladwell's, he was wrong. 

The major difference is that while Tucker has always voiced his opinion based on his knowledge at the time (as many of us have), Gladwell knowingly lied and omitted the truth. And he is considered a journalist, a prominent cultural thinker and such. Tucker changed his stance after conducting further research and after more information became available. Gladwell admitted that he knew there was a male advantage at the time he was supporting the idea of inclusion in the female category.

Several people have brought up other ways in which Gladwell either outright lied or distorted the truth. Those of you familiar with the Munk Debates may remember back in 2022 when Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg attempted to debate Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray on the topic of trusting the mainstream media. Perhaps if Gladwell hadn't been so busy trying to come up with cringy zingers to hurl at his opposition, he could have focused on the debate itself; however, not only did he fail miserably to sway the audience, he lied and got called out on previous lies as well. He has admitted bias regarding his book The Tipping Point and wrote inaccurately about Northern Ireland in his book David and Goliath. The guy is just not trustworthy. 

Taibbi addressed what happened during the Munk Debate in a Substack post and on X (Twitter). Gladwell is really good at twisting the facts, yet, at the time, he wanted to assure everyone that it's OK to trust the media. It's good to trust the media. You can trust the media. During the debate, Gladwell suggested Taibbi was longing for the days of Jim Crow because Taibbi made reference to a respected reporter, Walter Cronkite. It was so off base that I was actually surprised Gladwell had the balls to lie so blatantly in public. Why he didn't immediately apologize is beyond me, but Gladwell only seems interested in apologizing if it serves him in some way. 

Since the tide is turning and public opinion overwhelmingly supports the extreme notion that women actually just might deserve sex-based rights, Gladwell is suddenly "brave" enough to come forward and admit he was a wanker. But as a cherry on top for those of us who see who Gladwell is, think what you will about Douglas Murray, his response to Gladwell's continual disrespect during the debate was fucking brilliant. 

In The Science of Sport podcast, Gladwell also suggested that he's an authoritarian when it comes to dopers in sport, but then went on to suggest that we should welcome those who have served bans back into the sport with open arms. This is pretty much the opposite of being an authoritarian. I've stated plenty of times that I'm for lifetime bans. I realize, and Tucker also pointed out on social media, that lifetime bans wouldn't be feasible because of legal factors, but there needs to be some sort of zero-tolerance policy put into place, not just for the athletes but for everyone involved. 

The whole system is so completely fucked right now that it's almost pointless to debate the topic. More money put toward testing, better testing methods, fewer corrupt officials and athletes, and stricter punishments could possibly improve the situation slightly. I'm afraid professional and even amateur sport is so dirty that it's beyond repair. 

The way testing works now is that, as ridiculous as an excuse might be (burrito contamination), we are forced to accept the possibility that the explanation for why the athlete tested positive could be accurate and not assume the person knowingly used performance enhancers. 

It would be like watching someone in a wig and big sunglasses carrying a large bag around a store looking suspicious, and then getting stopped by employees right outside of the store. When a search of her bag reveals unpaid items from the shelves inside, we must assume that they could have accidentally fallen into her zipped-up sack. Or maybe someone else put them there! 

While most everyone knows the items are stolen, several people will actually believe they're not and defend the thief. Other people will know they're stolen and still defend the thief. Very few will both know the truth and actually condemn the thief, and even those who do will be forced to admit that there's a possibility, no matter how small, that she could, in theory anyway, be innocent. Because that's the way the law works. In rare cases, lifetime bans have been handed out for certain classes of drugs after a certain number of violations have been reached in certain sports, or for gambling or other violations. 

I'm not saying we should take anyone's right to due process away, but the way things are being run now is a farce. Technology will never catch up to new methods of doping, and money will always be too much of a factor. Organizations don't want to bust big names that draw spectators, and improved testing costs too much money. Athletes want to win, so there's also their incentive to consider. And all of this isn't even touching on the more subtle ways of cheating, like using thyroid medication or other substances that can potentially improve performance but are not on any lists of banned drugs. 

On that bright and cheery note, I say adieu until the next time. Excuse any errors. I rushed through this and might need to go back and do some editing later..or not. 

More on Ignoring The Gray

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.