A Framework for Thinking About Trans Participation in Sports

Malcolm Gladwell recently published one of the most level-headed and reasonable takes on the Lia Thomas controversy that has stirred up the internet. From his article, I got sucked into a rabbit hole that included a discussion panel from the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, too many New Yorker articles, polarizing Reddit threads, and some unusual Substack newsletters.

I think the discussion around trans participation in sports is frustrating for a bunch of reasons. For starters, there seem to be two debates happening at once—trans athletes at the elite level and the non-elite level.

I want to focus on the elite level because it is more interesting and controversial. Personally, I think that recreational sports would not suffer if they were made coed or divided based on gender identity. However, at the elite level, robust divisions become more important and necessary to protect the integrity of sports.

Fundamentals

Why are there divisions?

Gladwell opened up the Sloan conference panel by asking, "why do we have separate divisions for men and women?" The answer is that men and women have physiological differences that make separation necessary for competitive fairness. I don't think this is a controversial statement. If there were no divisions, there would be very few women in sports at elite and professional levels due to large competitive gaps.

This is the first fundamental concept that informs my opinion on trans participation: a line must be drawn between men and women's sports to ensure competitive fairness.

Many years ago, the line was relatively clear and uncontested. Today, the bright line between men and women's sports is far more complicated, though a line is still necessary.

Women's sports are a closed division

An open division is one where anyone is allowed to participate. For instance, the NBA is open to anyone, no matter their height, weight, limb size, or sex (yes, women can technically play in the NBA1). In other words, there are no restrictions on biological advantages. In contrast, the WNBA is a closed league where only women are eligible to play.

Men's sports are typically open division, and women's sports are almost always closed. This is not to say that women can always compete in men's sports—they sometimes can but are often restricted for safety reasons. However, men's sports place no restrictions on biological advantages, including advantages derived from factors other than sex.

The purpose of closed divisions is to protect a class of players from other players with innate and often insurmountable advantages. Another familiar example of this is weight classes in boxing. Lighter weight classes are closed to heavier fighters because it is understood that being heavier is a significant advantage.

The concept of open and closed is essential because it clarifies why restrictions exist in some areas but not others. A common argument for trans participation is that many male athletes, such as Michael Phelps, have biological advantages, and it isn't fair to allow male athletes with biological advantages to compete while banning trans athletes. The key distinction is that Phelps competes in men's swimming, an open division where any and all biological advantages are allowed. In contrast, Lia Thomas competes in women's swimming, a closed division where boundaries exist to limit biological advantages derived from sex.

My second fundamental concept is that women's sports is a closed division and must remain a closed division to ensure competitive fairness.

Who gets to play?

If a division is closed, the million-dollar question is what criteria should determine eligibility? At the elite level, I think the criteria should be objective and not simply based on identity. My reasoning is that the purpose of the criteria is to preserve fairness, and identity does not adequately capture information about an athlete's performance and what advantages they have.

Currently, many governing bodies of sports use testosterone levels as the gatekeeping metric23. The logic is that testosterone is a primary driver of the physiological differences between men and women that give men advantages. These include muscle mass and strength, bone strength, and hemoglobin levels.

However, this method isn't perfect. A study by Harper4 et al. (2021) found that hormone transition in transgender women rapidly decreased hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen, to levels comparable to cisgender women. However, strength levels remained higher even after 36 months of hormone therapy. It is worth noting that this study was conducted on non-athletes and that preservation of strength and other factors may be higher in athletes with specialized training.

This suggests that sports with an emphasis on endurance, such as long-distance running, may see a more level playing field than sports with an emphasis on strength. This insight is representative of the whole issue—trans athletes' participation in sports is a complex issue filled with sub-issues and nuance.

Another potential problem with using testosterone as a gatekeeping metric is that it misses some important physiological differences. Men and women have biomechanical differences that cannot be adjusted through hormone therapy. The differences can manifest as advantages in a variety of ways. For example, differences in bone size and length contribute to female athletes having a two to eight times higher risk of an ACL tear5.

Overall, I think the current science suggests there are intractable advantages inherent to men that even hormone therapy cannot negate. It will be difficult to create any type of division that preserves competitive fairness as long as these advantages remain. It's possible that future therapies can better address this, but until then, allowing trans women to compete in elite women's sports doesn't preserve the closed nature and fairness of women's sports.

I am more comfortable holding this opinion because elite athletes, for the most part, are in privileged positions. As Gladwell points out, among the many existential threats facing the trans community, participation in elite sports is not one of them. There are far more overt and dangerous forms of oppression happening outside the realm of sports, but those do not change something as fundamental as how to create competitive divisions within sports.

An incident or a precedent?

After reading multiple perspectives on Lia Thomas, it seems another contentious aspect is whether we should treat Thomas's participation as an isolated incident or a chance to develop a precedent.

Much of the disagreement comes from people who treat each trans athlete as a separate case to be evaluated separately. The controversy is a sign that there is a deeper issue with the way we divide sports. Lia Thomas and her level of performance are less relevant than the overall scientific evidence regarding the performance of trans athletes.

Arguments from both sides that rely on individual performances such as "Thomas is crushing the competition" or "there are faster women out there; look at Katie Ledecky," miss the broader issue. It is not relevant whether an individual trans athlete is performing well. Their success or non-success is not a justification for banning or allowing trans athletes. Instead, we should look to develop systems that determine eligibility before an athlete begins to compete.

It doesn't make sense only to allow trans athletes who don't break all the records or use stronger performances as justification for an individual trans athlete to continue competing. Waiting for results to determine eligibility detracts from an athlete's achievements. Once someone is cleared to compete, they should be free to break records and win medals without criticism.

Problems with current discourse

An eye-opening part of Gladwell's article was highlighting "it is possible to be in favor of trans rights and against trans participation in sports." It is disheartening to see people shut down incongruent opinions and equate them with transphobia. Here are some examples of popular discourse that I feel are unhealthy:

When it comes to solving something as complex and nuanced as this, it is beneficial to have intellectual diversity in popular conversation. Behaviors aimed at de-platforming, canceling, or suppressing opinions are a sign that someone's ideas do not hold up under scrutiny.

Alternative perspectives and lenses

There are many different ways to approach the issue of trans participation in sports. I have so far chosen to discuss a very narrow aspect of the matter—trans participation in elite sports, from the perspective of creating rules to maintain the integrity and inclusion of women's sports.

Another perspective I want to explore is how the debate about participation more broadly affects trans athletes and the benefits they can experience from participating in sports.

At the elite level, meritocracy is a guiding principle of sports. The most talented and hardworking athletes deserve to experience success. While this makes sense at the elite level, it doesn't work at the recreational level.

For younger children, recreational sports are a way to form relationships, develop a work ethic, and have fun. Meritocracy is much less important than inclusion. As I mentioned earlier, I think that recreational sports would not suffer if the athletes could choose their divisions based on identity. The physiological differences between men and women are greatly mitigated pre-puberty, and the stakes are low enough that the competitive aspect of the sport would not be harmed.

However, the rhetoric and debate of trans participation at the elite level have spillover effects on sports at all levels. Opponents of trans participation often argue that they want to "protect women's sports," but protect for who? Young trans athletes are facing legislation that would force them to compete based on their gender assigned at birth6. Their participation is not being protected and this can lead to harmful consequences down the line7.

A level of consideration is necessary when discussing trans participation. The rules and principles we establish to govern pro athletes inform popular opinion and policy on younger athletes and children who just want to play basketball on the weekends.