Crickets

At the risk of repeating myself regarding the issue of transgender women competing in women's sports categories, I'm going to go ahead and address the topic again because I see a trend in the running community, one that's telling. With both older studies and new research emerging that show transgender athletes maintain a physical advantage even after hormone therapy, those who were previously the loudest when bringing up the subject and also the most hypocritical of others are suddenly awfully quiet. Unlike simple surveys or polls, one consisting of only of eight individuals, that were passed as research previously, the studies put out by several scientists including Dr. Emma Hilton that have addressed this matter more recently are much more formal. 

From Erin Strout who insisted the research on fairness is still developing without offering any actual research to David Roche who tweeted but later deleted "Trans women are women" to Alison Wade who cheers whenever a DSD or trans athlete displaces a female athlete to Lindsay Crouse who lied about poll numbers related to what the general population would like to see happen, all have gone radio silent.

From Dr. Emma Hilton: graph showing changes in muscle strength in transgender women pre- and post-testosterone suppression vs. women 

In 2021, when Amby Burfoot wrote, "All clear-thinking individuals believe that transgender women and men should receive the same social, cultural, educational, financial, etc, rights as others. Not all agree about athletic rights," he hit the nail on the head. It's estimated that 73% of Americans believe transgender individuals should be protected from discrimination. Wanting protection for transgender people and wanting fairness in sports can both be true. Regarding women's competition, Burfoot was also correct when he mentioned that there's "plenty of science, event history, and barroom understanding that men are significantly stronger and faster than women." People who have suggested there wasn't enough evidence for ruling bodies to make decisions about excluding transgender women from competing in the women's field had no problem allowing those same agencies to make rules for inclusion, and anyone who disagreed with or even questioned this decision was immediately labeled transphobic, a TERF, or worse. The fact that these insults are so freely tossed around is incredibly upsetting.

The other day, I worked with some repeat clients who live out of state. Their son lives here in Boulder, but the parents and their trans daughter live elsewhere. After assisting them and saying our goodbyes, complete with affectionate hugs and well wishes all around, my co-worker and I talked about how much we enjoy working with them. Sometimes assisting people can be an absolute pleasure, and the warm feelings linger long after the patrons have left. I don't have the same connection to every family, even though I aim to give everyone the best service I possibly can. Some people just make a positive impression. They are the kind of great company that leave a lasting memory. In short, these particular clients mean a lot to me and are more like friends, family even, than customers. 

Typically, I prefer to leave my personal life out of these kinds of posts, but after being thrown into the "transphobe" pile because of my desire to see fairness in sport, I want those name-callers to know exactly how insulting their comments are. 

I have another close friend who transitioned a long time ago. She was able to marry her girlfriend after laws in her state changed back in 2013. She has been successful in more areas of life than most people can even imagine, from athletics to music to law. When I think of her, I see an incredible human being who's smart, witty, fearless, and incredibly generous, as is her partner. She's someone to be admired for a variety of reasons. We have sent each other care packages, and I consider both of them true friends, much more than social media acquaintances. Obviously, I want the best for them and would fight to make sure they have the same rights as everyone else. The only caveat, and I believe they agree, is that one group's rights should never infringe on anyone else's. 

Unfairness is what's happening when women are no longer allowed to have a voice and aren't allowed to retain women's only spaces. Most of us don't have a problem being in gender-neutral spaces or being around transgender individuals, but it's not transphobic for a woman to choose who offers her healthcare or who is allowed or is not allowed to be in intimate settings with her. Transphobia has a specific definition that does not include merely disagreeing, wanting fairness for women in sports, or wanting to retain some women's only spaces. Again, if one group is discriminated against in the process of trying to appease another, a more workable outcome needs to be presented, but simply asking for fairness, safety, comfort, and respect is not transphobic, not at all. 

So far, having three categories or three distinct areas for men, women, and transgender individuals seems to be the best solution, including in sports. Men's only spaces and groups that don't place women at a disadvantage have existed for a long time and still do. Those that discriminate versus exclude are generally called out, and appropriate legal action usually follows. This should also be true of women's spaces. We should have the right to create women's only spaces that exclude biological men without specifically discriminating against them.

The basic problem with transgender rights in today's world is extremism. A few aggressive and hostile individuals tend to speak on behalf of or represent everyone in their community. This hostility comes out when anyone suggests caution before permanently surgically altering a young child's body, for example. Suggesting parents slow down before allowing their kids to go under the knife is not the same as denying the child healthcare, but the same people who yell the loudest say that parents don't need a second opinion for major, life-altering surgery. They insist any concern is denying the child. 

Basically, if you don't agree 100 percent, you're a bigot. Anyone who thinks, "maybe a second opinion wouldn't be such a bad idea," is again labeled transphobic and lumped together with extremists on the right. Those who suggest gender reassignment surgeries are no different than a teen getting a nose job need to explain why a parent wouldn't want a second opinion in that case, too, just to be safe and sure. A second opinion is standard, but suddenly radicals on the left think it's unnecessary for children who are considering a major, irreversible operation. 

All I'm saying is that gender dysphoria is a complex issue, and nobody, especially children, should be rushing into surgery that permanently alters an individual's body before exploring alternative treatments. If that makes me some kind of extremist, so be it. I think transgender minors need more consideration, acceptance, and emotional support before jumping into radical surgery. If surgery is what they prefer after weighing both the pros and cons, then that's a right they should have, but I don't think anyone should ever rush into surgery, especially youngsters.    

On this same issue, I wasn't surprised to see Erin Strout publicly claim that Jon Stewart gave a great interview when he confronted Leslie Rutledge, the 56th AG of Arkansas, on gender-affirming care for minors. No matter what you think of the woman's politics or views (I disagree with most of her politics and don't fully agree with her ideas on gender-affirming care or the lack thereof for minors), she should at least be given a chance to speak. Instead, Stewart talks over her and shuts her down before she can finish pretty much any of her sentences. It comes off as misogynistic and bullying. Notice the contrast in the way he allows a man to speak without interruption in this clip. The former is NOT an example of a great interview. In fact, it's a pretty shitty interview overall, a complete disappointment.

 

I can disagree with most of what Rutledge promotes and can agree with her adversaries when they say that she wasn't well prepared for the interview, but I don't condone the way Stewart addressed her with all his eye-rolling and interruptions. Imagine if someone on the right didn't allow a trans advocate to speak and kept making faces every time she tried to say anything. As much as I dislike some of the things Sam Harris has said recently about censorship, he has always been respectful of the people he interviews, even when he very strongly disagrees with them. That's how a good interview is conducted, not by bullying the opponent, but it shows how the left is as bad as the right when it comes to liking that kind of shit. They don't want a quiet, civil debate; they want to see someone they agree with ganging up on someone else.

Getting back to the topic of sports, there has been a great deal of virtue signaling in running publications in recent years, with unwavering opinions presented as facts followed by silence when new information emerges to counter the journalists' beliefs. As one conservative reporter put it regarding transgender women competing in women's categories, "This isn’t bigotry; it’s science," and he's right. But people like Strout are more concerned with what pronouns we use than with the women and girls who are forced to compete against transgender athletes. With friends like these, eh? 

All these so-called supporters of women's running are suddenly silent after suggesting those of us who want fairness for women in sports are on the wrong side of history. Why is that? Most likely because they can no longer hide behind vague statements about "evolving data" or can no longer claim that there "currently isn’t data to support exclusion" after people like Dr. Emma Hilton and Ross Tucker have spoken up and exposed any myths surrounding the debate around natural advantages of transgender women in sports. These professionals specifically address why it's important to demand separate categories for males and females. The silence is unfortunate because journalists who are incapable of admitting to being wrong in the face of scientific evidence on the topic end up doing a huge disservice to readers of publications like Women's Running and Trail Runner Magazine.

Unless you are intentionally ignoring what scientists are presenting, the data are overwhelmingly there when it comes to pointing out the fact that transgender women retain an unfair advantage even after hormone replacement therapy. Even Joanna Harper can't deny what Ross Tucker says with regard to transgender athletes retaining an advantage. 

She states, “Trans women who don’t go on to medical treatment before puberty will go through male-typical testosterone levels, a male puberty and all of that that entails greater height, greater musculature, higher hemoglobin levels … more muscle, all of the quote-unquote advantages that men have when it comes to sports,” Her approach thus far has been to point to minor differences such as arm length or a differing dominant side that occur within sex categories and suggest that "meaningful competition" is what she decides is fair, not necessarily what is actually fair. But people have been referencing her for years as if these advantages, which other scientists see as significant, are just fine and, oh, it's also cool that biological women have no say in the matter.

Harper and others may suggest that hormone therapy in transgender women significantly reduces their athletic advantages, but, as Hilton points out, despite a reduced advantage for transgender women in competition, the data still show that transgender women are and remain bigger and stronger than their female competitors, even after three years of hormone therapy. Additionally, many in the science community feel that Harper's initial small collection of anecdotes from 2015 that people reference as a study because it somewhat supports what they want it to is heavily flawed, but, whether she likes it or not, it still shows that there are obvious and significant differences between transgender women and women and also women and men. It's more that Harper deemed these differences between transgender women and women not significant enough. Why can't women just buck up and smile, take it on the chin? So what if competition is unfair and science proves it. Oh hey, that's basically the same stance as Alison Wade of Fast Women.

 

Image from Kevin Beck

In the end, I truly believe that the majority of people in the world would like to see a workable and fair solution for everyone. We want transgender individuals to be treated fairly and to be protected from any discrimination, but we also don't want to see women get the short end of the stick like they have so often throughout history. 

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.

Women's Running And Transgender Athletes

I'm going to drop a little trigger warning here and note that this post discusses transgender athletes, and some might find it offensive, even though it's not my intent to cause anyone harm. 

******

There's an image an author once described of a clean stretch of sand, no footprints, with the caption, "Do I dare?" Do I dare rock the boat, risk rejection, put myself out there, disrupt the sand or snow? Do I make tracks? I've been thinking about this post for a long time, years actually, but every time I go to write it, it's overwhelming. Where do I even begin? 

When I first started running, I had this naive idea that maybe eventually women could run as fast as men. I was a young teenager and occasionally beat the boys, but as I improved, I realized that a woman winning a race outright wasn't as simple as her training and working hard. 

When I set the record at the Pikes Peak Ascent (clean), my time placed me just slightly outside of the top 15 men that year. After being blocked by an arrogant guy on the trail for a short stretch early in the race, specifically because I am a woman -- actually a 16-year-old girl at the time -- I finished not too far behind Scott Elliott, who later went on to win the race something like eight times. We are both still listed in the top 20 all-time bests. If you look at the all-time records, the top woman's time is 2:24:58, while the man listed as 20th on the list ran 2:09:28. This is not unlike the comparison between men and women using flat marathon times. There is a gap between what the best men and the best women can run. On a side note, the woman who is listed as the second-fastest at Pikes was given a little slap on the wrist for using a fertility drug a few years earlier because she was trying to get pregnant at the time, and drug testing was implemented for the mountain race a year after the women's record of 2:24:58 was set. 

Over the years, it became more apparent to me that men have an advantage. There will always be "Yeah but," exceptions, a woman winning a race outright, especially in longer distances, for example, but generally speaking a man will almost always run faster than a woman, even if their training is basically the same. It bothers me that this is so, but it just is. Some characteristics that people don't often address when discussing the difference between men and women are lung, leg, and heart size. In addition to having more muscle mass and longer legs, in general, men's oxygen consumption is higher due to both bigger hearts and bigger lungs. And, of course, there is testosterone to consider. According to Healthline, by adulthood, a normal, healthy man will have a testosterone level of at least 300 nanograms per deciliter as compared to an adult woman whose normal range will be between 8-60 nanograms per deciliter. This article does a good job of going into the biological advantages men have over women and how testosterone plays a role. I'm sure readers can figure out where I'm going here, and I should note that in this post, I'm only addressing running, not other sports in which there are even more concerning issues when athletes with great physiological differences participate. 

Author Kathleen Megan mentioned the division transgender sports has caused among women's advocates. I'll add that the division is quite apparent in the general public, too. In one article, Kathleen quotes Donna Lopiano, sports consultant associated with the Women's Sports Foundation:

I don’t know of a woman athlete who doesn’t want trans girls to be treated fairly,” said Donna Lopiano, who led the Women’s Sports Foundation for 15 years and now runs a Shelton-based consulting firm that works with clients on Title IX and other sports management issues. “But the cost of treating her fairly should not come at the cost of discriminating against a biologically-female-at birth woman.

This is basically my stance. People are so concerned about not offending anyone in the LGBTQ community that many shut down and don't say anything. I did for years. Others who think that there should be a different way to approach trans athletes in competition are often discounted or attacked. Anyone who's not fully supporting trans women competing against the gender they identify with is called transphobic or worse. After recently saying that I donate to the ACLU because they support racial equality, I'm rethinking where I will put my money after one of their lawyers lied, posted questionable tweets, and also suggested on Twitter that trans women are biological women. In the linked article, Glenn Greenwald notes:

ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio decided to spew this extremely grave accusation about J.K. Rowling and Abigail Shrier, both of whom oppose the inclusion of trans girls in female sports: 

As I’ve written before, I’m not in agreement with those who advocate this absolute ban. I’m open to a scientific consensus that develops hormonal and other medicinal protocols for how trans girls and women can fairly compete with CIS women in sporting competitions. But that does not entitle you — especially as an ACLU lawyer — to just go around casually branding people as “closely aligned to white supremacists” who have never remotely demonstrated any such affinity, just because you feel like it, because you crave the power to destroy your adversaries, or are too slothful to engage their actual views.

Saying shitty lies about women aside, Strangio's take on biology is not accurate either. Kevin Beck will always get to the point more creatively than I, but I’ll press on here. 

There is a biological component when it comes to gender identity, but that isn't the same as addressing an individual's biological sex. I'm not suggesting that one should call those who identify as women anything other than what they prefer, but when it comes to competition, I would like to see fairness. I see quite a few people quoting an open-access neuroscience article from 2019 that states, "gender is multi-dimensional" without fully understanding what this means. It's complicated, no doubt, but, when it comes to biology and neurology, there is a distinction between sex and gender. In very general scientific terms, sex is based solely on biological factors including chromosomes (DNA) and gonads (testes or ovaries). Gender is far more complex and is based on how an individual identifies, how genes are expressed (epigenetics), and how the brain is influenced in the long- and short-term by experience and epigenetics. In short, one (sex) is determined by biology while the other (gender) is influenced to a degree by biology. There's a big distinction there, and gender identification is not the same as an individual being born with a specific kind of genetically determined advantage like a runner with exceptionally long Achilles tendons. 

Examining testosterone or the biological influence on gender reinforces the fact that transgender athletes who identify as female have an advantage, one that lasts over a year after hormone therapy has been implemented. Hormone therapy does not address other characteristics like lung size, leg length, and oxygen consumption. Recently, three young girls filed a lawsuit in Connecticut in an effort to block transgender athletes from competing in girls sports. One can imagine how difficult it must be for these youngsters to come forward with their concerns, simply asking for a fair chance in their sport.
From the Associated Press article, attorney Christina Holcomb states:

 

 “Forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics,” attorney Christiana Holcomb said. "Connecticut’s policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.”

When it comes to transgender athletes, what I would love to see is a solution, one that's fair to both biological females and those who identify as female. I think there's a way to do this, but I don't know if it will ever happen, partly because there's not a whole lot of excess money in running and also because most people take a win-at-all-costs approach to life, meaning few people want to have a civil conversation if you disagree with them. I find it shocking that many who claim to want inclusivity are so militant when it comes to others holding a different opinion. 

Some ideas that have been presented include:

• Let it be a fucking free-for-all with everyone competing against each other with no divisions at all between the sexes. This wouldn't be fair, especially to biological women, and I don’t think it's really what most people want, though, oddly enough, this seems to be a goal of some.  
• I think I saw this on the Ultrarunner Podcast Twitter feed at one point, though I could be mistaken, but the idea would be to compete as your sex; identify as your gender. As much as I agree here, this might not seem fair to trans women or trans men, for that matter. Unfortunately, trans men are so often left out of the conversation when it comes to competition in sports.
• Measure testosterone levels, and make sure that trans women are competing with levels of hormones that are considered normal for female athletes. I also agree with this, but it seems like a tricky task in terms of privacy and implementation of testing. Also, this doesn't address physical characteristics that give transgender women an edge (see above).
• Compete as how you identify but rank and award money in three or even four separate categories. For example, transgender women would compete against other women but would be scored separately and awarded equal pay for placement. This is actually my suggestion, but, again, it's unlikely when it would take money and effort to make these kinds of changes in sports.  

I honestly think that most people in the running community would like to see a solution that is fair to everyone. The problem is that bringing up transgender athletes is kind of like bringing up religion or politics. Few people are willing to see anyone else's point of view, and if you express even the slightest dissatisfaction with having transgender athletes compete against girls and women, be ready for some harsh criticism.