5 The Gendered Challenges for Transgender Women in Sports

Keywords: Transgender, Fairness, Bills and Laws, Patriarchal society, and Heterosexual norms.

There is a considerable amount of research accessible that pertains to the challenges that transgender women face the detrimental effects these challenges have on their psychological health. The primary argument against transgender women is that they inherently pose an unfair advantage over cisgender women due to supplemental testosterone levels, physical composition, and strength (Bianchi 2017; Jones et al 2020; McClearen 2022). Given this widespread argument, research that seeks to understand the biological differences between individuals competing in female categories has been a significant area of study (Bianchi 2017; Flores et al 2020; Hilton & Lundberg 2020; Luther 2021). It’s widely accepted in academia that transgender women face far more criticism than transgender men and cisgender individuals; however, upon reviewing the literature, there has been a minimal initiative to address the inequality transgender women experience.

Historically, competitive sports reinforce traditional gender roles through various applications (McClearen 2022; Flores et al 2020). For example, men and women are only eligible to participate in binary gender categories. Furthermore, feminine and masculine characteristics are associated with specific sports (e.g., gymnastics is more suitable for women and rugby for men) (Flores et al 2020). Even within male and female categories of sport, the regulations, equipment, and standards vary according to gender (Flores et al., 2020). The public attitudes towards sports favor hyper-masculinity and applaud aggression that accompanies outstanding sportsmanship. In contrast, feminine traits like compassion and elegance are withheld from recognition (Flores et al 2020).

Sports as a heavily gendered institution is not a new phenomenon, and perceived fairness has been debated for decades (Bianchi 2017; Hilton & Lundberg 2020; Luther 2021). At one point in time, women, people with disabilities, non-heterosexuality, and ethnic backgrounds were acceptable factors that prohibited individuals from participating in sports (Cunningham & Pickett, 2017; Luther, 2021). Since then, society has made tremendous strides to promote inclusivity for most individuals in sports. More recently, attitudes toward the LGB community have become increasingly more accepting (Cunningham & Pickett 2017). However, these advancements for LGB members in the sports world are not as welcoming toward transgender individuals.

Gender identity is not a linear process. The blanket term transgender (trans) best describes those whose gender identity does not align congruently with their assigned sex at birth (Papoulias 2006). Further, one can identify outside the bounds of gender binaries, known as non-binary. For some individuals, the journey to authenticity will include medical and surgical measures to affirm their gender identity. Notably, not all trans individuals want or need hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgeries; neither of these is required for an individual to identify as transgender (Bianchi 2017). The word transgender emerged from the contributions of Harold Garfinkel, where he first coined the term “transsexual” (Papoulias 2006). This work was a pivotal starting place for feminist sociologists such as Judith Butler, examining the social enforcement of gender norms (Papoulias 2006). Around the early 1990s, activism regarding trans people gained some traction as they challenged the hegemonic gender binaries of this era (Papoulias 2006). Today thirty years later, the queer community continues this battle to seek equality (Bianchi 2017; Cunningham & Picket 2017; Flores et al 2020; McClearen 2022).

It’s widely recognized in North America that increasingly more individuals identify as transgender (Bianchi 2017). With more trans representation available in different sectors such as music, television, and sports, individuals are becoming more comfortable in expressing their gender identity. Although this is a significant gain for the LBGTQ+ community, public attitudes have become problematic toward transgender athletes. Government officials, sports legislation, and policy and lawmakers are targeting trans individuals by implementing laws, bills, and regulations (Bianchi 2017; Luther 2021). As Luther (2021) addresses, there are 144 anti-trans bills in the United States. Approximately 50% of those bills target trans athletes and their ability to compete in sports congruent with their gender identity (Luther 2021). The recent surge in gender panic has generated strict and inhumane controls over trans bodies. In the context of sports, some states enforce bathroom bills, prohibiting transgender individuals from using the washroom that aligns with their gender identity. But this is only the beginning with bills and laws. Several states require hormone and sex verification testing (McClearen 2021). The justifiable argument for these extreme measures is “perceived fairness”.

This article will discuss this is a valid argument and bring attention to the harmful consequences the trans community is experiencing because of these actions. There have been several approaches to better understanding the gendered challenges in sports associated with transgender women. After reviewing many studies, a common strategy when studying transgender women in sports is to compare them to cis-gendered women or biological men (Bianchi 2017; Hilton & Lundberg 2021; McClearen 2021). The fairness argument advocates transgender women should not be able to compete against or with cisgender women due to an influx of testosterone (Hilton & Lundberg 2020). This argument comes from the skills thesis, in which Bianchi (2017) states sports should decide which competitor is more skillful. One way to maintain the skills thesis is to alleviate hormonal advantages. There are several reasons why a competitor may obtain abnormal advantages, such as steroid use, genetic factors, and hormone replacement therapy. The objective for policy and lawmakers is to diminish hormonal advantages and to promote fairness amongst the players (Bianchi 2017). However, high testosterone levels within the body do not equate to improved skill or performance. The desired effect of testosterone is dependent on how the body responds to the hormone (Bianchi 2017). Rather the argument against trans women should discuss if trans women have higher levels of functional testosterone (Bianchi 2017). The use of the word “functional” describes the effectiveness of testosterone in enhancing athletic abilities (Bianchi, 2017). Currently, no evidence supports the claim that all trans women possess effective and higher testosterone levels (Luther 2021). If it were the case that trans women did, it would be an unjust advantage because cisgender women cannot train harder or change their diet to obtain equivocal testosterone (Bianchi 2017). Under the premise of this argument, there is no natural or genuine way for cisgender women to obtain similar hormone levels.

There are several counter-facts to disprove this controversial argument. One way is to discredit the merits of the skills thesis argument by presenting the potentially unfair genetic attributes that have led to the victories of many sports competitors (Bianchi 2017). For example, one of the most well-known Olympic athletes, Michael Phelps, has an extensive wingspan and hypermobility in his joints (Bostwick & Joyner 2012). Furthermore, Lance Armstrong uses and manages a surplus of oxygen, and one of the most admirable Women’s volleyball athletes, Flo Hyman, had a disease that led to her excessive growth (Bostwick & Joyner 2012). These genetic attributes are unique to the individual and likely positively influence athletic performance. These examples illustrate how genetic predispositions can potentially be unfair in comparison to their competitors, like the argument against trans women competing in female categories. The only difference is that minimal measures have accounted for genetic benefits in gender-segregated categories (Bostwick & Joyner 2012). Because genetic advantages exist within the current guidelines and regulations in sports, this argument should not solely exclude trans women. Instead, the rules must account for all genetic advantages or none. Furthermore, all human bodies produce and use testosterone, at different volumes and effectiveness. And if sports administrators would like to continue monitoring hormone levels, this should include all competitors, not just trans women.

Research has shown time and time again that exercise and participation with peers can have positive impacts on mental and physical health, self-confidence, and improved social skills (Luther 2021). These are just a few examples of how beneficial sports can be for well-being. The exact message that promotes sports to children contradicts itself if the children are not cisgender. Ultimately, creating tension between transgender and cisgender children in sports (Luther 2021). Transgender individuals are far more likely than their cisgender peers to experience bullying, harassment, depression, suicidal ideation, violence, and rejection (Luther 2021; Pascal & Devita 2022). Navigating adolescent life is challenging enough, let alone being transgender poses far too many difficulties; inclusivity of sports would surely help bridge this gap. Many seem to view fairness in terms of winning and losing, but we should establish fairness in who can and cannot compete; without excluding minority groups (Luther 2021).

Fairness is a concept that gains meaning in a specific cultural moment and is always subject to change (Luther 2021). As previously mentioned, fairness was once used to justify the exclusion of women, people with disabilities, and BIPOC individuals. Several decades later, it seems unfathomable that these rules ever existed. Historically speaking, not much has changed as another marginalized group gets silenced. This seems to be anything but fair for the transgender community.

In application to the effects these laws can have on trans individuals, I’d like to briefly discuss the experiences of two Black trans women from Connecticut named Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood (Luther 2021). These two young women were members of the high school track team and performed exceptionally at that. In 2018, Yearwood placed first in her category at the Connecticut state track meet, and her teammate Miller placed second (Murib 2022). Most accomplishments, such as Yearwood and Millers would call for celebration; however, this is far from the experience they received. The girls hardly got to enjoy this achievement before the parents of their track team took measures into their own hands to prevent these girls from competing again (Murib 2022). This petition is an example of many legal actions that have fuelled groups such as evangelical Christians, anti-LGBT organizations, and Alliance Defending Freedom. In this case and many others, young black trans women are seen as villainous rather than victims (Luther 2021; McClearen 2022).

Understanding discourse and how this concept operates within power relationships have been of central focus to many sociologists. Michel Foucault first coined discourse when describing something immersed within everyday society (McClearen 2022). Discourse conveys typical beliefs and social norms within that period, meaning that discourse is always subject to change. By applying Foucault’s discursive formation to cisgender and trans women, we can better understand how the power relationship works. The primary mechanisms for producing and reinforcing discourse are through media and government legislation. Traditionally, advertisement seeks to make viewers feel good about themselves and empower them (McClearen 2022). More and more companies are utilizing cisgender actresses, and athletes to promote the ideal image of what it means to be an empowered woman. On the other hand, political tactics bestow the view that transgender women cannot co-exist in that category. Thus, the discursive formation exists to uplift the spirits of cisgender women through media, while legislative efforts instill fear that trans women somehow threaten them (McClearen 2022).

For discourse to work, society must adopt the belief that white cisgender women are weak and require protection to validate prejudiced opinions against trans individuals (McClearen, 2022). Furthermore, trans women must be seen for only their biological makeup as “real men” and can therefore endanger the safe spaces and opportunities of cisgender women (Murib 2022). Ironically, the belief that trans women are men is not only transphobic but a contradiction. The argument that “men” when referring to trans women, shouldn’t be allowed in the same changing rooms and restrooms because it’s unsafe implies that women need to be taken care of (Murib 2022). But who else could protect these women other than men themselves? In other words, benevolent sexism and infantilization function to reinforce a heteronormative patriarchal society (McClearen 2022).

One critical component to address is the lack of media and policing of transgender men. Because the very patriarchal structure that has kept women out of sectors like education, sports, and the workforce is still seen to be effective. Much like the views concerning trans women, trans men are viewed as “real women” (Schilt & Westbrook 2015) Thus, it’s comical to government officials that they’d be a threat to someone assigned male at birth (Luther 2021). The discrimination trans people face is influenced by the observer’s belief systems attached to gender.

Bathrooms and sports are two heavily gendered sectors (Murib 2022). Both mechanisms attempt to maintain sex-segregated functions to enforce gender binaries within the bounds of society. Recently, bathroom bills have not seen as much success (Schilt & Westbrook 2015). A possible explanation for this failure is that bathrooms have never been sex-segregated. Take, for example, restrooms in households, for those with disabilities, or on airplanes. The biological differences between individuals aren’t a valid argument for who can and cannot use a toilet. However, in the context of sports, sex characteristics are presented as the premise for the exclusion of trans individuals. The basis of this argument resorts to science to grasp any relevance. As Murib (2022) states, “gender, in this conceptualization, is not a social construct, but instead being in possession of certain genitals, or the more updated form: specific chromosomal configurations.” From a sociological lens, the foundation of segregation and discrimination comes from physical and biological characteristics.

Although transphobic rhetoric is still very prevalent today, combating this discourse can be achieved through learning, teaching, and gradual acceptance of gender as a spectrum. The agenda to erase trans individuals has taken on many forms before. For example, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals threatened this system for years. The gradual acceptance of these individuals illustrates that social progress is attainable. There is nothing fair about the experiences trans people undergo; however, continuous advocacy, education, and the alliance of other demographics will help to bridge inequality.

References

Bianchi, A. 2017. “Transgender Women in Sport.” Taylor & Francis Online. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2017.1317602 (Accessed: 2022). 

Bostwick, J.M. and Joyner, M.J. 2012. “The Limits of Acceptable Biological Variation in Elite Athletes: Should Sex Ambiguity be Treated Differently From Other Advantageous Genetic Traits?” Mayo Clinic proceedings. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538474/

Caudwell, J. 2012. [Transgender] Young Men: Gendered Subjectivities and the Physically Active Body. Taylor & Francis Online. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/doi/full/10.1080/13573322.2012.672320. 

Cunningham, G.B. and Pickett, A.C. 2017. “Trans Prejudice in Sport: Differences from LGB Prejudice, the Influence of Gender, and Changes over Time.”
SpringerLink. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0791-6. 

Flores, A.R. Haider-Markel, D.P. Lewis, D.C. Miller, P.R. Tadlock, B. L. Taylor, J.K. 2020. “Public Attitudes about Transgender Participation in Sports: The Roles of Gender, Gender Identity Conformity, and Sports Fandom.” SpringerLink. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-019-01114-z. 

Hilton, E.N. and Lundberg, T.R. 2020. “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage.” Springer Link. Available at: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3. 

Jones, B.A. Arcelus, J. Bouman, W. P. Haycraft, E. 2016. “Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies.” Springer link. Available at: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y. 

Luther, J.W. 2017. “Anti-trans Bills Purport to Address “Fairness” in Sports. But Sports Have Never Been Fair.” Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22423132/anti-transgender-bills-women-sports-fairness. 

McClearen, J. 2022. “If you let me Play”: Girls’ Empowerment and Transgender Exclusion in Sports”. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.viu.ca/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2022.2041697. 

Murib, Z. 2022. “Don’t Read the Comments: Examining Social Media Discourse on Trans Athletes.” ProQuest. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2706246070?pq-origsite=summon&parentSessionId=Wtx3WbkePpQ1bME%2FcbdfK%2BGK7soGUyKROhyGaO1lfuY%3D. 

Papoulias, C. 2006. “Transgender.” Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/026327640602300250. 

Pascal, A.B. Blakewood, A. Devita, J.M. 2022. “Transgender College Students’ Mental Health: Comparing Transgender Students to their Cisgender Peers.” Taylor & Francis Online. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2021.2024212

Schilt, K. and Westbrook, L. 2015. “Bathroom Battlegrounds and Penis Panics.” Sage Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504215596943