I Don't Like The Absolute Line Of Dividing By Sex Assigned At Birth
One of my favourite childhood memories was staying up late and watching re-runs of the Twilight Zone. And in my favourite episode, “Wordplay,” a man discovers that the meaning of words is changing for everybody in the world but him.
It starts small, the word “anniversary” becomes “throw-rug,” “mayonnaise” becomes “experience,” “lunch” becomes “dinosaur.” He can mostly understand what people are saying from context. But before long, conversation became pretty much impossible. Even with his closest friends and family.
In Lost In Transition, my first ever article about trans inclusion, I pointed out that the language we use to talk about trans people is suffering from a similar problem.
It started with confusion about what the words “sex” and “gender” mean. Before long, people were talking about sex “assigned” at birth without realising how almost every word in that phrase is misused. And as for words like “intersex” and “male” and “woman” and even “trans,” well, conversation has become pretty much impossible.
Julia and I try our best anyway.
Julia:
Sex isn't binary either though, so when it comes to sports, what about intersexed individuals? And when trans people transition medically, it changes their bodies too.
I think the most important thing to consider, when it comes to children's (under 18) sports is not whether a trans person has an unfair advantage or disadvantage. If anyone is taking kid's sports that seriously then they need to relax a little. Like the quote you mentioned, pre and post pubescent bodies provide a lot of variability in that age group anyways.
Children should get to play with the gender they most identify with. No one needs to be outed or othered to play sports. Young trans people need to be affirmed for who they are and being forced to play outside their gender, especially if they have body dysmorphia around the body the were born in, could be devastating.
Steve QJ:
“Sex isn't binary either though”
Yes it is. Sex is ambiguous (can't easily be determined by external genitalia) in 0.018% of intersex individuals. A flipped coin will land on its edge in 0.016% of cases. So effectively, claiming that sex isn't binary because of intersex people is like claiming that flipping a coin isn't binary because coins have edges.
But even if this weren't the case, intersex people have nothing to do with trans people. The vastly overwhelming majority of trans people aren't intersex. In fact, in my research, I didn't find a single example of a transgender person who was intersex. Intersex people are often used to obfuscate this issue and it's completely unfair.
If we were only talking about children's sport I don't think there'd be an issue. At least not nearly as big an issue as there currently is. But as you can see in the article, there are many examples of adult trans women competing against women, and it's also all but guaranteed that there would be "concept creep" from rulings on junior sport into senior sport. I think it would be naive to pretend that the issues are separate. But even if they were, under 18 sports are still relevant for college scholarships.
I agree with you that children, regardless of gender identity should be allowed to play sports. The question is, how do you solve this problem without completely invalidating the concept of female sport? Especially when children (rightly) aren't required to take hormones at all at that age. It's simply male bodies competing against female bodies. Affirming trans children is important, I agree. But so is empowering girls. The right solution should achieve both of these things.
Julia:
Intersex is relevant to this issue though--less so the individuals you point out with ambiguous genitals and more so other intersex individuals. For example, people with an XXY chromosomal configuration will present as male if you look at their genitals. They may have overdeveloped breast tissue for males though (which as a woman with large breasts I can tell you gets in the way of sports) and usually decreased muscle mass.
These intersex individuals are expected to play with boys, where it disadvantages them. As a woman who played basketball through high school (albeit badly because I am far too small) I am not threatened by the occasional more male-presenting body in female sports. There were plenty of 6 foot females on the court that absolutely pummeled me on occasion. I am far more concerned about the wellbeing of trans girls (an extremely vulnerable demographic) than I am about the inclusion of trans women leading to the erasure of women's sports as a concept.
In the same way that you cited the relatively low incidence of genital ambiguity as a reason not to consider it, the relatively low incidence of trans females whose bodies are far stronger and larger than large cis females in competitive sports at a non-professional level makes it a non-issue to me. Trans kids often have access to puberty-blockers now that prevent the development of post-puberty muscle mass and strength. It's just not a significant enough thing to make me worried about cis girls and women being disadvantaged. The consequences of not being gender-affirming to trans girls though? That's another story.
Steve QJ:
“For example, people with an XXY chromosomal configuration will present as male if you look at their genitals.“
XXY people are male though, they don't just “present” that way. Their bodies produce sperm, albeit in unusually low levels. They don't produce eggs or have any of the mechanisms for doing so. Intersex people are another layer in the question of sports. Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand are good examples of this. But they aren't a third sex.
But intersex people are orders of magnitude rarer than trans people and once again, are completely different. So though I agree that there's more thought to be done (I truly sympathise with Caster's situtation and, from what I know, think she should be allowed to compete against women), intersex people are still a separate case.
And yes, there are all kinds of physical advantages within the sexes. Some girls are taller than others. Some boys are stronger than others. Not every boy or girl (or let's say male or female) gets to win. The overriding point is that if males compete against females, females will (as near as dammit) *never* get to win. The top 1% of females are all tall and/or strong and athletic and they're the ones competing for the gold. But the top, let's say 20% of males are stronger and taller and more athletic than *all* of that 1%.
This is the problem.
And while you might not be concerned about the erasure of female sports, female sportswomen are. Female college athletes who have scholarships on the line, are. There are far more of them than there are trans women who want to compete in sports. You're preferencing the feelings of trans girls over the livelihoods of biological females and I'm really not sure what the rationale is for that. Don't get me wrong, I care about trans girls rights too. As I said, they have just as much right to compete as anybody else. But that doesn't mean they have the right to compete aganst biological females. That's the issue here.
Julia:
I just think "biologically female" and "biologically male" is a fuzzier concept than you make it out to be, especially when it comes to trans people's bodies, because puberty blockers and hormone therapies change the trajectory of secondary sexual characteristics including size and strength.
Of course there are trans women who use no hormones as well. But this isn't as binary as you are suggesting. It isn't simple. I hear what you are saying, but I don't like the absolute line of dividing by sex assigned at birth in all cases. Especially with children. It is devastating for trans children to be singled out as "different" from other kids of their gender.
This is a group already at risk for a number of things including bullying and suicide. I am more concerned about that than the livelihood of AFAB pro athletes (and that is not to say that that doesn't matter, but I just do not see the threat level there that I think you do).
Steve QJ:
“But this isn't as binary as you are suggesting.”
I mean you can say that, but the article is littered with evidence that you're mistaken. Yes, puberty blockers definitely change things. I think if we were just talking about children who hadn't gone through male puberty then the question would be far simpler. I certainly wouldn't have taken the time to write this article. But we're clearly not talking about that. As you say, in under 18 sport, girls are being asked to complete against trans girls whose bodies are absolutely identical to male bodies. This is obviously unfair.
It's also important to be clear that sex isn't assigned at birth, it's observed. The same way that eye colour or the number of fingers and toes is observed. Again, this imprecise language makes it more difficult to talk about these issues clearly and honestly.
Gender identity can't be observed at all of course, and may well not match the sex of the person concerned. I think we agree that we should respect those gender identities. But women are in serious trouble if we indulge them to the point where one group infringes on another. There's clear evidence of that happening here.
As somebody eloquently put it recently; identities don't compete in sports. Bodies do. Surely it's also devastating for girls to have to compete in sports where they know that they have an unfair disadvantage, no? I must admit, I'm surprised that your empathy doesn't extend to females in the same way it extends to trans girls.
It’s only now, as I go back to this conversation, that I notice the conversation didn’t end here. Julia posted this final reply to her own comment, not to mine. Which means I didn’t get a notification for it. I’ve included it below for the sake of completeness.
Julia:
I am female. A cis woman. So I don't think your claim that my empathy doesn't extend to females holds much water to me. You can claim that—but you misunderstand me. That's okay. You don't know me. Trans girls and women are some of the most vulnerable among us (girls and women). I will always accept them unequivocally as one of us, and yes I will protect children over the sports careers of grown adults. It's that simple. Do you know and love any trans girls? Are you familiar with what they face on the daily? Because I do. And I am.
I’m glad I noticed this final reply. Because people are rarely this honest about their motivations.
People like Julia believe they’re standing up for the people they know and love. They treat the little “trans girl” they know as a representative of all trans girls/women. And no amount of logical reasoning or scientific evidence or even fairness towards other women is going to come before that.
Change the variables around, and this is true for any of us.
If I truly believed it would protect somebody I loved, I might well regurgitate cherry-picked, scientifically illiterate arguments. I’d cling fervently to edge cases and irrelevancies. I’d dissemble and obfuscate and do whatever it took to get my argument over the line.
And I think the only way to break the deadlock is to show them that none of this is necessary. In fact, it’s harmful to women and trans people. Because this lying and dissembling doesn’t protect trans people. It does the opposite.
The refusal to talk about the rising tide of perverts and misogynists hiding under the trans umbrella has led more and more people to see all trans people as perverts and misogynists.
The refusal to acknowledge obvious realities around male/female biological differences has led to increasingly absolutist, dare I say, transphobic, solutions to trans inclusion.
The utterly reckless indoctrination of children into permanent and very often unnecessary medicalisation has radicalised countless people against anything even remotely associated with gender ideology.
The failure to speak clearly has enabled all of this. Which is why the language we use is so important. After all, if we don’t at least try to understand each other, the only other option is to fight.
The motivations of people like Julia. Absolutely key. I do not believe her motivation is truly empathetic. Rather, she wants to be empathetic IN THE RIGHT WAY. She wants to be seen by others with whom she wants to be associated as having the correct empathy. Her mimetic desire for belonging precludes true empathy. In other words, Julia wants social
The best way to understand the trans movement is by viewing it as a religious social contagion. Reason is irrelevant. Julia wants membership among the flock with all its psychic benefits.
With the decline of organized, theistic religion, it is not surprising that the same need is fulfilled by secular, non theistic religion. Anti racism is much the same.
People have started to believe that they can shape reality with their thoughts. A man thinks he is a woman and poof, as if by magic he is transformed. A little lipstick and a dress and he is entitled to female spaces - and if you dare to question his transformation - you are a hateful bigot. Didn't you sex is not binary, blah blah, there are intersex people, blah blah, sex is assigned, blah blah.... Then you have these "be kind", "make the world a better place for the weak and fragile" brigade (ie, men/boys who appropriate womanhood). I think we need to stop expecting rational thought and understanding from ideologically captured zealots. They will keep changing the meaning of words to hear only what they want.