What constitutes fair competition, or a level playing field? Is it fair that Usain Bolt has longer legs than everyone he races against? Is it really a level playing field when Michael Phelps has longer arms than everyone else in the pool?
Diverse evidence suggests significant shortcomings in the logic of the level playing field, including the innate differences in the inherent characteristics of individual athletes.
So no, it’s not really fair that Bolt and Phelps are outliers among outliers and have physical gifts others could only dream of. But it is accepted.
Why?
Because that’s the way they are. The current way of dividing competition is men and women. They are men with long arms, they are men with big feet. We have women with long arms, we have women with big feet. Cate and Bronte Campbell (Australian female swimmers) are really big. No one suggests that that’s unfair. They’re just lucky. But they would do very poorly in gymnastics for example.
Phelps and Bolt self-selected into sports that suit their genetic advantage. Cis-females self-select into their sport based on similar genetic advantages. You would not see a short female trying out for an elite basketball team for example.
As they grow up and train in their chosen sports, they accept this as natural, or tolerable fairness. Part of this fairness is accepted because everyone tolerates natural diversity.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the term “competitive advantage” as “a condition or circumstance that puts a company in a favourable or superior business position” (Oxford Dictionary, 2019). Whilst this is a business definition, substitute a few different words in and the concept applies equally to athletes in sport.
The difference between the competitive advantages of Bolt and Phelps, and those of trans athletes is that Bolt and Phelps were born into athletically advantageous bodies. They’re lucky”. Trans women are born into male bodies. That is their physiology, & gender identity has nothing to do with this.
It’s difficult to answer exactly why people accept Bolt’s long legs and Phelps’s long arms as “fair” competitive advantages, and not the competitive advantages of a trans females over a cis-female.
However, the fact remains that males competing with females is something that has been universally not accepted as fair for the near 120-year history of female participation in elite sport. As long as the idea persists that trans females retain even a small physical advantage from previously living as men, this will never be accepted as part of a “level playing field”. This is something that only science can solve.
The trouble with what the IOC is they formulated their policy based on flawed science. When talking to people on different sides of the argument, this is the one thing that everyone seems to agree on.
I criticise the IOC for solely focussing on the SRY gene & testosterone levels as a performance indicator, there’s no science or research to show that endogenous testosterone levels or the SRY gende provide an athletic advantage performance, nor is there any research showing trans women athletes on feminising hormone treatment possess any physical performance advantages over cis women athletes. A Trans female and a cis male are physiologically not the same – they are not.
A brand new Systematic review with meta-analysis ‘the most comprehensive’ synthesis to date (52 studies & 6485 trans participants) found trans women do not exhibit significant differences in upper or lower body strength or max oxygen consumption relative to c1s women.
No one wants to see people excluded or discriminated against. But if transgender athletes are proven to keep any of their physical advantages post-transition, then it’s just as much a breach of Article 27 (1) of the UNDHR to include them as it would be to exclude them if the opposite was true.
youtu.be/2-ohQiLWWwA?si=atBt…
bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/19…