I see a trap to this we should avoid and want not to exploit even temporarily.
The word testosterone did not come up.
For all athletes desiring to participate in girl's or women's categories, a past atypically high effective testosterone blood level is an athletic advantage over other female athletes whose T blood levels are more female typical.
While I can certainly believe that for youth or for some sports, less than the two years on effective HRT is required for "fairness" ( T suppression is the relevant part ), like what the IOC required from 2004 to 2018, is a good starting point for medically sane policy -- for all athletes wanting to participate in women's categories, whether transgender or cisgender.
We are not required to like the fact that male typical T levels provide an advantage which is readily apparent in most sports, and that anabolic steroid supplementation is prohibited in sports generally for like reason.
But it is so.
Recent overviews demonstrating MtF athletes have no advantage, but may be at a slight disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes, are overviews of data from athletes who were on T suppression.
For MtF athletes who avoid a masculine puberty starting with the start of Tanner 2, no such rules have any applicability. For those of us who underwent a typical masculine puberty, they have full applicability.
Everyone wants to include nuance, from the standpoint of biology -- to a first order and likely second order of things -- that's the nuance.
While I believe your post is overall right, testing makes me nervous because all of the responsibility is on female athletes. I think it should be enough that if someone is faking being trans to compete, then they are cheating. I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion. Especially in regards to the Olympics, the founder, Coubertin, didn't want women playing at all and created a women's category not out of fairness but rather to keep women separate. I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex.
It's complicated but the whole discussion makes my head spin because in the end it's not even about women's sports. It's about discrimination and discriminating against trans women (I know that you know that but I'm just emoting).
The screening for atypically high testosterone and it's analogs. and other PEDs, are present in sports at all competitive level with any real stakes, for both men's and women's categories.
" I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion."
I'm well aware of that history, and that in a few sports, the creation of women's categories was agitated for by men because some women were beating some men.
"I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex."
That's why I phrased that comment as I did. The general rule that some acceptably high standard deviation (please no one be triggered by the statistical term of art 'standard deviation') figure for blood testosterone levels, beyond which there must be medical lowering of that to compete in women's events, is applicable to all athletes -- transgender and cisgender, intersex or not. And there needs to be a bit more detail to it than only T levels, someone one with CAIS or PAIS may not benefit from high T no matter what the level is.
I do know the Social Conservatives are only motivated by bigotry. Focusing only on the actual biology of it in my view completely disarms them about it, and highlights their real motivation in the bad light they earn.
Thanks for this reply and highlighting the standard deviation bit. I think that clarifies things considerably for me. I am still skeptical at whether any testing should be done at a high school level but I know that certain programs are very completive and there is an amount of fairness we all want in the rules. And, yes fairness is thrown around in a bigoted way but anyone that cares about women's sports, beyond the bigotry, wants that basic concept to be imbedded in rules.
My feeling is that athletic organizations and school systems should set the rules as they see fit, and the rules should provide a path for ALL people potentially to compete as the gender with which they identify. The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me. The only thing I want is the possibility of participation if an athlete does all the right things. Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American.
"Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American."
I agree any baseless prohibition or division is evil. I think there are rules which are reasonable to make about testosterone blood level history in individual athletes, with respect to the typical bimodal spectrogram of T blood levels.
"The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me."
It is I think a proper endeavor for those details to reflect what is known of biology.
Just to add another note, with regard to human dignity: If you were to tell me I must meet certain athletic bars that I could NEVER attain in order to compete in the Olympics, I would have no problem with that. I'm an old lady with bad knees. I realize I'm not going to ski the moguls during the Winter Olympics! However, if you tell me I'm prohibited from participating in the Olympics because of who I am, we're going to have a problem, and I'm going to get in your face about it.
And from a psychology perspective, there is nothing particularly upsetting about knowing that I won't be able to meet certain qualifications to do something. (For instance, I would probably enjoy flying, but I don't think I have the time, energy, or financial means to go through all the training.) However, being told that I'm not allowed even to try is something utterly soul-crushing. It says I'm not good enough or that I'm less than someone else.
Sure. I know it's important to athletes and athletic organizations, and I would like to think that my colleagues in the biological sciences could provide helpful guidance (particularly from the field of kinesiology). However, I think the LAW should say only one thing - that there is no discrimination based on sex, gender, or gender identity. The law should say nothing about restrictions (e.g. based on testosterone levels). My concern is that it weakens all our civil rights laws (and not just for trans people) when exceptions are carved out to the Fourteenth Amendment and the guiding principle that we are all equal before the law. Discrimination must never be written into the law, because then the law falls apart.
Steyer is saying all the right things and I can’t help but wonder if he’s going to backtrack if elected. He only said he’s in favor of trans athletes in high school, not specifically saying trans girls playing on girls teams. We already have AB Hernandez competing but as an exception, so that scenario would still be included in Steyer’s statement. The fact that Steyer has never held public office concerns me, but I think he’s the best option we have at this point. It’s been disappointing how Newsom has thrown trans people under the bus, and Becerra’s vagueness is typical. We are beginning to see two Dem parties: progressive and establishment.
Progressive issue have to start at local level and grow to an undeniable majority, then you can vote for a progressive governor or a even a progressive president.... we are not there.... to many independent wishy washy.....furthermore, I do not like candidate buying their way to the top. You always end up with kleptocrates in the governing body....
I’ve been trying to decide between the top two dem candidates and Tom’s response to this question sealed the deal. The fact that neither Becerra nor Katie Porter could articulate support on this topic did not help them (although I will support the Dem candidate come November despite his word salad non-answer).
Again, someone voting with his heart instead of using his brain... the trans question in sport isn't black and white, yes or no... and steyer isn't all clean... but perhaps you rather have Hilton a maga than Becerra a pragmatic democrat...
When neither candidate checks all the boxes then, yes, voting with my heart. As I said, I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate in the general but for now Steyer has my vote. I’m done with the litmus test of how he made his money because he’s been putting it to good use studying & funding climate initiatives. Also I figure there’s a very good reason the utilities are dumping Super PAC money against him. Becerra is a pragmatic though unappealing candidate and I really worry about this Administration filing trumped up charges against him related to his former campaign manager that would then doom him in the general. Praying that doesn’t happen but can’t ignore the possibility either.
I was already leaning towards Steyer because of his environmental stance and Equality California had already endorsed Becerra. But after this statement I am fully onboard with Steyer and he will definitely get my vote. Now I've got to wade through this MASSIVE mail-in ballot in time for the primary.
Steyer's comments stand in stark contrast to his main opponent, Becerra , who gave a very weak non answer. Becerra is the former AG of California and should have known that legislation passed in 2014 that provided trans kids can play sports.
Compare and decide between the two main Democrats in California.
Wow! A Democrat who actually believes all people should be equal under the law - and says that unapologetically! If I were a Californian, he would have my vote. We trans people need places where we can go and be safe. California is a mostly-safe state that could be safer still under Steyer's leadership. The governor should not be vetoing civil rights legislation that his party is willing to stand behind.
That's a pretty definitive difference, and a level of clarity that one doesn't often hear from politicians. It will affect my choice for certain (I haven't dropped my ballot in the box yet!)
It also shows that being rich is not, per se, a disqualification from being human. 😏
If I had a nickel for every time I thought a billionaire might be the best candidate for the job... I'd still be $999,999,999.95 short of being a billionaire.
I applaud Tom Steyer for meeting this issue head-on.
It is amazing that politicians in both parties still have not learned that avoiding or skuting the issues surounding transgender youth over sports participation or bathroom designations is not a winning issue.
These manufactured culture wars do nothing to improve people’s lives, and election after election has shown that fearmongering and scapegoating transgender youth will not deliver the votes they think it will.
Americans are tired of politicians targeting vulnerable young people instead of addressing real issues that affect everyone.
I am not unsympathetic to the skeptical amongst us who are queasy about Steyer's wealth and the amount he has spent to become a viable candidate. It speaks unflattering volumes about our current elections process that huge bankrolls are necessary for a credible campaign. But wouldn't it be preferable to know where the funds originate, than have to guess what shadowy group of backers will be showing up later for their payback? I mean, if Steyer is investing in his own campaign, who's going to come around demanding return on investment in the form of compromised principles? Also, it is notable that Steyer has been endorsed by Robert Reich, who is not exactly a fan of billionaires in general.
Thank you for this information. I really hate the fact that we don't really have any good choices in these big elections. While I will gladly vote for Steyer based on this one issue and the fact that there are very few issues that actually differentiate these Democrats, I hate the fact that I have to vote for someone that is just dumping incredible amounts of money to buy the election.
But, at the end of the day - the trans community needs strong protections and I want a gov that will support that unlike Newsom who has a very mixed record.
I deeply respect your work but I have a very different take. I am from CA and longtime ally/parent of adult trans kid who transitioned long ago. I have been to Sacramento to lobby legislators to pass laws protecting trans rights and will fight forever for the trans community. Since February I have been deep in the CA Governors race and decided to support Becerra, in part because of his 30 years of demonstrated allyship and legal protections efforts. Where Steyer has never actually DONE anything, he is performative and polished and trying to buy his way into the left. Becerra on the other hand, has real world chops. He has stood by trans folks as well as the LGBTQIA+ community his entire career. This is why he received Ally of the Year from Equality California -twice!! And is endorsed by them for CA Governor. I’m attaching Rose Montoya’s interview with Becerra in April. It reads to me as genuine and not performative. He has trans kids in his own family. I’ve met him and he’s the real deal. Please consider. I’m very concerned about the billionaire buying our state for his own financial goals, not our human ones. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX9pXI2PY7D/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
This is the kind of energy we need.
I love to hear it. Thank you for the reporting.
I see a trap to this we should avoid and want not to exploit even temporarily.
The word testosterone did not come up.
For all athletes desiring to participate in girl's or women's categories, a past atypically high effective testosterone blood level is an athletic advantage over other female athletes whose T blood levels are more female typical.
While I can certainly believe that for youth or for some sports, less than the two years on effective HRT is required for "fairness" ( T suppression is the relevant part ), like what the IOC required from 2004 to 2018, is a good starting point for medically sane policy -- for all athletes wanting to participate in women's categories, whether transgender or cisgender.
We are not required to like the fact that male typical T levels provide an advantage which is readily apparent in most sports, and that anabolic steroid supplementation is prohibited in sports generally for like reason.
But it is so.
Recent overviews demonstrating MtF athletes have no advantage, but may be at a slight disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes, are overviews of data from athletes who were on T suppression.
For MtF athletes who avoid a masculine puberty starting with the start of Tanner 2, no such rules have any applicability. For those of us who underwent a typical masculine puberty, they have full applicability.
Everyone wants to include nuance, from the standpoint of biology -- to a first order and likely second order of things -- that's the nuance.
While I believe your post is overall right, testing makes me nervous because all of the responsibility is on female athletes. I think it should be enough that if someone is faking being trans to compete, then they are cheating. I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion. Especially in regards to the Olympics, the founder, Coubertin, didn't want women playing at all and created a women's category not out of fairness but rather to keep women separate. I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex.
It's complicated but the whole discussion makes my head spin because in the end it's not even about women's sports. It's about discrimination and discriminating against trans women (I know that you know that but I'm just emoting).
The screening for atypically high testosterone and it's analogs. and other PEDs, are present in sports at all competitive level with any real stakes, for both men's and women's categories.
" I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion."
I'm well aware of that history, and that in a few sports, the creation of women's categories was agitated for by men because some women were beating some men.
"I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex."
That's why I phrased that comment as I did. The general rule that some acceptably high standard deviation (please no one be triggered by the statistical term of art 'standard deviation') figure for blood testosterone levels, beyond which there must be medical lowering of that to compete in women's events, is applicable to all athletes -- transgender and cisgender, intersex or not. And there needs to be a bit more detail to it than only T levels, someone one with CAIS or PAIS may not benefit from high T no matter what the level is.
I do know the Social Conservatives are only motivated by bigotry. Focusing only on the actual biology of it in my view completely disarms them about it, and highlights their real motivation in the bad light they earn.
Thanks for this reply and highlighting the standard deviation bit. I think that clarifies things considerably for me. I am still skeptical at whether any testing should be done at a high school level but I know that certain programs are very completive and there is an amount of fairness we all want in the rules. And, yes fairness is thrown around in a bigoted way but anyone that cares about women's sports, beyond the bigotry, wants that basic concept to be imbedded in rules.
My feeling is that athletic organizations and school systems should set the rules as they see fit, and the rules should provide a path for ALL people potentially to compete as the gender with which they identify. The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me. The only thing I want is the possibility of participation if an athlete does all the right things. Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American.
"Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American."
I agree any baseless prohibition or division is evil. I think there are rules which are reasonable to make about testosterone blood level history in individual athletes, with respect to the typical bimodal spectrogram of T blood levels.
"The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me."
It is I think a proper endeavor for those details to reflect what is known of biology.
YMMV.
Just to add another note, with regard to human dignity: If you were to tell me I must meet certain athletic bars that I could NEVER attain in order to compete in the Olympics, I would have no problem with that. I'm an old lady with bad knees. I realize I'm not going to ski the moguls during the Winter Olympics! However, if you tell me I'm prohibited from participating in the Olympics because of who I am, we're going to have a problem, and I'm going to get in your face about it.
And from a psychology perspective, there is nothing particularly upsetting about knowing that I won't be able to meet certain qualifications to do something. (For instance, I would probably enjoy flying, but I don't think I have the time, energy, or financial means to go through all the training.) However, being told that I'm not allowed even to try is something utterly soul-crushing. It says I'm not good enough or that I'm less than someone else.
Sure. I know it's important to athletes and athletic organizations, and I would like to think that my colleagues in the biological sciences could provide helpful guidance (particularly from the field of kinesiology). However, I think the LAW should say only one thing - that there is no discrimination based on sex, gender, or gender identity. The law should say nothing about restrictions (e.g. based on testosterone levels). My concern is that it weakens all our civil rights laws (and not just for trans people) when exceptions are carved out to the Fourteenth Amendment and the guiding principle that we are all equal before the law. Discrimination must never be written into the law, because then the law falls apart.
Steyer is saying all the right things and I can’t help but wonder if he’s going to backtrack if elected. He only said he’s in favor of trans athletes in high school, not specifically saying trans girls playing on girls teams. We already have AB Hernandez competing but as an exception, so that scenario would still be included in Steyer’s statement. The fact that Steyer has never held public office concerns me, but I think he’s the best option we have at this point. It’s been disappointing how Newsom has thrown trans people under the bus, and Becerra’s vagueness is typical. We are beginning to see two Dem parties: progressive and establishment.
And Becerra is definitely part of the Establishment.
Compare and Decide: Becerra vs. Steyer on trans kids
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
Progressive issue have to start at local level and grow to an undeniable majority, then you can vote for a progressive governor or a even a progressive president.... we are not there.... to many independent wishy washy.....furthermore, I do not like candidate buying their way to the top. You always end up with kleptocrates in the governing body....
I’ve been trying to decide between the top two dem candidates and Tom’s response to this question sealed the deal. The fact that neither Becerra nor Katie Porter could articulate support on this topic did not help them (although I will support the Dem candidate come November despite his word salad non-answer).
Again, someone voting with his heart instead of using his brain... the trans question in sport isn't black and white, yes or no... and steyer isn't all clean... but perhaps you rather have Hilton a maga than Becerra a pragmatic democrat...
When neither candidate checks all the boxes then, yes, voting with my heart. As I said, I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate in the general but for now Steyer has my vote. I’m done with the litmus test of how he made his money because he’s been putting it to good use studying & funding climate initiatives. Also I figure there’s a very good reason the utilities are dumping Super PAC money against him. Becerra is a pragmatic though unappealing candidate and I really worry about this Administration filing trumped up charges against him related to his former campaign manager that would then doom him in the general. Praying that doesn’t happen but can’t ignore the possibility either.
I was already leaning towards Steyer because of his environmental stance and Equality California had already endorsed Becerra. But after this statement I am fully onboard with Steyer and he will definitely get my vote. Now I've got to wade through this MASSIVE mail-in ballot in time for the primary.
Steyer's comments stand in stark contrast to his main opponent, Becerra , who gave a very weak non answer. Becerra is the former AG of California and should have known that legislation passed in 2014 that provided trans kids can play sports.
Compare and decide between the two main Democrats in California.
Becerra vs. Steyer on trans kids
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
Wow! A Democrat who actually believes all people should be equal under the law - and says that unapologetically! If I were a Californian, he would have my vote. We trans people need places where we can go and be safe. California is a mostly-safe state that could be safer still under Steyer's leadership. The governor should not be vetoing civil rights legislation that his party is willing to stand behind.
That's a pretty definitive difference, and a level of clarity that one doesn't often hear from politicians. It will affect my choice for certain (I haven't dropped my ballot in the box yet!)
It also shows that being rich is not, per se, a disqualification from being human. 😏
If I had a nickel for every time I thought a billionaire might be the best candidate for the job... I'd still be $999,999,999.95 short of being a billionaire.
But it's weird that it ever happened at all.
I applaud Tom Steyer for meeting this issue head-on.
It is amazing that politicians in both parties still have not learned that avoiding or skuting the issues surounding transgender youth over sports participation or bathroom designations is not a winning issue.
These manufactured culture wars do nothing to improve people’s lives, and election after election has shown that fearmongering and scapegoating transgender youth will not deliver the votes they think it will.
Americans are tired of politicians targeting vulnerable young people instead of addressing real issues that affect everyone.
I would not trust him enough to vote for him on this one issue.
Compare and decide. Listen to both Becerra and Steyer.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
I am not unsympathetic to the skeptical amongst us who are queasy about Steyer's wealth and the amount he has spent to become a viable candidate. It speaks unflattering volumes about our current elections process that huge bankrolls are necessary for a credible campaign. But wouldn't it be preferable to know where the funds originate, than have to guess what shadowy group of backers will be showing up later for their payback? I mean, if Steyer is investing in his own campaign, who's going to come around demanding return on investment in the form of compromised principles? Also, it is notable that Steyer has been endorsed by Robert Reich, who is not exactly a fan of billionaires in general.
He’s got my vote. If you’ve seen our options you would choose him too. So glad he supports the trans community.!
BRAVO!!!
Thank you for this information. I really hate the fact that we don't really have any good choices in these big elections. While I will gladly vote for Steyer based on this one issue and the fact that there are very few issues that actually differentiate these Democrats, I hate the fact that I have to vote for someone that is just dumping incredible amounts of money to buy the election.
But, at the end of the day - the trans community needs strong protections and I want a gov that will support that unlike Newsom who has a very mixed record.
I deeply respect your work but I have a very different take. I am from CA and longtime ally/parent of adult trans kid who transitioned long ago. I have been to Sacramento to lobby legislators to pass laws protecting trans rights and will fight forever for the trans community. Since February I have been deep in the CA Governors race and decided to support Becerra, in part because of his 30 years of demonstrated allyship and legal protections efforts. Where Steyer has never actually DONE anything, he is performative and polished and trying to buy his way into the left. Becerra on the other hand, has real world chops. He has stood by trans folks as well as the LGBTQIA+ community his entire career. This is why he received Ally of the Year from Equality California -twice!! And is endorsed by them for CA Governor. I’m attaching Rose Montoya’s interview with Becerra in April. It reads to me as genuine and not performative. He has trans kids in his own family. I’ve met him and he’s the real deal. Please consider. I’m very concerned about the billionaire buying our state for his own financial goals, not our human ones. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX9pXI2PY7D/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==