To Hell with the Sports Ban!

Trump’s ban on trans women participating in women’s sports is a major blow to transgender rights in the U.S. How it will be applied remains to be seen, but it promises to cut federal funding to all educational institutions which allow trans women to compete as women. Many American states and sports bodies had already taken similar measures, and these precedents are sure to be repeated internationally.

However, the response to Trump’s executive order has been pathetic, with very few people ready to take a stand against it. The reality is that the trans movement has totally lost the debate on the question of trans sports, and there is strong popular support for Trump’s ban. The right has successfully used this question as a wedge to push a broader reactionary agenda. Conversely, the working class must defend trans people as part of defending its own interests. This requires exposing the bigoted and anti-scientific arguments of the reactionaries. But we must also have a frank look at the arguments of the trans movement which have so far proved ineffective in countering the reactionary offensive.

Children, Teens and Hormones

Given that childhood and adolescence are the ages at which participation in sports is the highest, trans kids will be the group most affected. Trans kids are already growing up in an extremely hostile environment, and the ban will further stigmatize and exclude them. For prepubescent children, this policy cannot in any way be justified by a difference in physical abilities between boys and girls because there are barely any. The attack on kids is the weakest part of the anti-trans argument, but also the most socially damaging. We must strongly push back and insist: let trans kids compete in the gender of their choice!

Things start getting more complicated with the onset of puberty where physical performances start to diverge between the sexes. But a big part of the problem would be mitigated if trans kids were allowed to take puberty blockers. The conclusion is simple. Lift the ban on puberty blockers! When it comes to excluding trans women who have not gone through male puberty, this is simply bigotry. Let them compete too!

While average physical performances between men and women diverge after puberty across a range of metrics, there is still a high degree of overlap. Women whose performance is above average will outperform a large proportion of men. This means that it is not inherently unsafe for women and men to compete against each other. In recreational and lower-level competitive sports, where stakes are lower and performances are average, it should generally be possible to include trans women—even those who have gone through male puberty—with minimal social conflict. This is particularly true for trans athletes undertaking hormone therapy which has a huge impact on performance.

On this last point, there is a huge amount of ignorance, and the effects of hormones are often minimized. A study of U.S. Airmen—one of the rare places where a large sample of high-performing trans people can be found—showed that after two years of hormone therapy, trans women on average did the same number of push-ups and sit-ups as cis women. As for distance running, trans women retained only a small edge. Interestingly the study showed that trans men could on average do more sit-ups than cis men. This goes to show that when we are talking about average physical performances, hormone therapy does a lot to balance the scales. Trump’s ban sweeps all these nuances under the rug and bans everyone, to hell with it!

Sports, Money and Women

But here we come to the biggest problem: high-level competitive sports are not about averages but about extremes. Athletes dedicate their lives to pushing the limits of the human body, and slight margins make big differences, both competitively and economically. Whether you come first or second in a race can determine your entire career. Generally, pro-trans activists argue there is no proof of an unfair advantage for trans women and that any potential advantage they may have is secondary to the social benefits of trans inclusion. These arguments are not convincing and are fundamentally counterproductive.

The physical attributes which give an edge vary a lot according to the sport. But if we take height for example, it is undeniable that in many sports it can make a big difference. If we look simply at averages, the differences between men and women are not too dramatic. A woman who is above average in height will be taller than many men. But if we look at extremes, which is generally what we are talking about in elite competitive sports, then the problems become obvious.

Lia Thomas, whose victory at the NCAA swimming national championship caused a huge scandal, measures 6 feet 1. Looking at the 2007-8 U.S. census numbers, 11 percent of men aged 20-29 were taller than 6 feet 1, whereas among women it was 0 percent, which is statistically insignificant. So, while Thomas before transitioning was in the high range for men, after transition she was in the very extreme range for women. Is this why she won? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that her victory provoked a huge backlash. Responding to this by saying she had no advantage when one can visibly see that she is far taller than any of the other women was considered by most people to be ridiculous. The point is simply that we should not dismiss concerns about unfair advantages.

Women face a huge uphill battle in the world of competitive sports. While cases like that of Thomas represent a minuscule minority, they are a lightning rod for broader frustrations. To respond to these concerns by stating that the emancipation of trans athletes overrides potential unfairness just throws oil on the fire and presents pro-trans advocates as being totally insensitive to the rights of women.

What To Do?

To wage a political campaign against sports bans, the basic approach must be to focus on sports for kids and teens which is the most impactful on the lives of trans people, while seeking to minimize high-profile conflicts in elite sporting. This does not mean conceding that trans athletes should be banned from elite sports, but simply that this should not be the focus of the fightback, and that when it is pushed it should be based on a tailored approach to a given sport, based on science and taking into account the sensibilities of women. As a rule, the inclusion of trans athletes should go hand in hand with fighting for more resources for the working class and women to participate in sports.

While we should fight for maximum trans inclusion and more resources for the working class and women, the reality is that sports under capitalism will always be unfair. The whole organization of sports based on rigid gender segregation clashes with the complexities of the real world where everything does not fit in a neat box. This problem was on full display during the Paris Olympics where Algerian boxer Imane Khelif faced disgusting charges that she was not a “real woman.” Ultimately, fair and emancipatory sports, where gender, race, nationality and financial resources do not limit one’s potential, requires a different kind of society. This is why the cause of trans athletes cannot be seen in isolation but must be informed by and linked to a broader revolutionary Marxist perspective.