We live in very strange times. When did being a feminist start making someone a bigot? Access to athletics, scholarships, education have been hard fought rights gained for women and girls over the last 50 years. Trans people deserve respect, dignity, and legal protection, but when you start talking about spots on rosters, scholarships, and national titles, now we have a problem. Lia Thomas is not now, and will never be biologically female. I believe a title nine complaint has already been filed against the NCAA related to her. Women’s sports are worth preserving.
20 Likes
Yes. I think it is useful to divide the advantages of testosterone into 2 groups: Current and Legacy.
Current advantages of testosterone (i.e. having male levels of testosterone now) include elevated hemoglobin and elevated muscle mass. Under testosterone suppression to normal female levels, it is known that hemoglobin levels drop relatively quickly and that muscle mass drops over many months time (the exact number of months as of yet unknown.)
Legacy advantages to testosterone puberty (these are permanent) include 5 inches of extra height, 5 inches of extra wingspan, larger feet and hands, broader shoulders, denser bones, narrower hips, larger lungs, wider windpipe and larger blood vessels.
So far, eligibility requirements for trans swimmers have focused only on current benefits. The normal female range for testosterone is 0.5-2.4 nmol/L. But many guidelines have allowed a testosterone level of up to a level of 10 nmol/L for trans swimmers (over 4 times the normal female range.) This is not a level playing field in the minds of many.
And so far, eligibility requirements have not reckoned with heritage effects of testosterone-dominant puberty at all. This is not a level playing field in the minds of many.
In my own opinion, there should be a protected class for athletes who have neither current, nor heritage advantages of testosterone. Personally, I would not call this class the women’s class, but rather something like “never virilized.” I am a former college swimmer --although worse than mediocre 
I do not identify with the term “woman” but I have never had testosterone advantages, either current or heritage effects. I would like to see a class where individuals of my biological reality (in regard to testosterone) can compete on a level playing field. Of note, to me it is not about chromosomes nor gender identity, nor genitalia. I think the “non virilized group” should also contain transwomen who transitioned before testosterone puberty and women with XY DSDs who are fully testosterone resistant. (Also, for what it’s worth, I’m also glad to compete against pre-pubescent boys. In all-ages club swimming, I sometimes swam with 10-11 yo boys, and it was frequently a decent match. So if there are any young geniuses out there, the kind who start college in middle school, I am cool with those dudes being on the non-virilized team.)
Thanks for listening!
1 Like
USA Swimming’s Athlete Inclusion, Competitive Equity, and Eligibility Policy changed (in Feb 2022) the allowable max level of testosterone (less than 5nmol/L) , as well as lengthened the time the athlete has to be within that range (now 36 months).
Documentation evidencing the concentration of testosterone in athlete’s serum has been less than 5nmol/L (as measured by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry) continuously for a period of at least thirty-six (36) months before the date of this Application. This must include at a minimum three (3) separate blood tests within the past three hundred and sixty-five (365) days preceding this Application, with the last test conducted within ninety (90) days prior to this Application.
The new policy also states that the athlete must also attest that “From a medical perspective, the prior physical development of the athlete as a Male, as mitigated by any medical intervention, does not give the athlete a competitive advantage over the athlete’s cisgender Female competitors”.
A panel of three independent medical experts will be charged with reviewing applicants and implementing the policy. This new policy is what the NCAA declined to put into effect mid-season this year. For NCAA purposes, this is the policy starting in Fall 2022.
USA Swimming has stated they will ultimately defer to FINA’s policy (which hasn’t been released).
2 Likes
Not a rhetorical question at all: has anyone ever heard of an athlete or team, who broke no rule, getting stripped of a title or ranking because of a subsequent rule change? I don’t think that’s possible, practically or as a matter of law. However, I am happy to stand corrected.
I personally think Lia’s champion status (and her All-American status in her other 2 races) should and will stand. As I have stated before, she won these accolades while fully following the rules as they existed at the time. I do think, however, that many people will mentally place an asterisk by her results. Again, I wish Lia well, and recognize the bravery of what she did. At the same time, I am glad for the rules tightening (and believe they need to tighten even further.)
2 Likes
You are mistaking the East Germans of the seventies for the modern day Russians. They did not violate anti-doping regulations and falsify tests. They gave substances that were not known at the time to give unfair advantage. The list of forbidden substances is constantly being updated.
Don’t worry the trophies/medals/records are safe. No one is taking away anything.
Again, it’s what many of us are interested in discussing: SHOULD she have been competing in the first place? Are the rules appropriate? She finished first (with an asterisk for many of us) but should she have been on the team at all?
Put yourself on the sports stage and you and the rules that put you there are fair game for discussion and critique.
2 Likes
Science will catchup - we’re just not there yet. I think USA Swimming’s new guidelines are an improvement, but will probably still need to be modified. I actually think the length of time may be too long. A year was definitely too short for SWIMMING, and I think the 5 nm (although an improvement of the original 10) is still too high and 2.5 with is the upper range for most cisgender women is more appropriate.
For those that do follow swimming, I think you could actually see the continued effect of testosterone suppression and estrogen therapy during the year with Lia. Her early swims, untapered, unshaven were very fast. She actually didn’t swim great relative to earlier in the season at the Championship meet. I’m guessing, something like 2 years might be appropriate.
I posted this many, many pages ago, but anyone interested in following the science should read some of Joanna Harper’s research. She’s currently studying hemoglobin levels and how quickly they fall with hormone therapy. Her early research was on runners, cyclist and rowers where much of the 1 year of therapy came from for the IOC and NCAA. She will fully acknowledge that each sport needs to determine what is appropriate to prevent an “overwhelming advantage” - her words.
5 Likes
Yes, her performance (taking untapered, unshaven into account) worsened over the season. Yet by the beginning of the season she had already been on testosterone suppression for over 2 years. The fact that her performance was still worsening suggests to me 3 possibilities: 1) the process takes much MORE time than thought, not less. 2) Her hormone suppression was not adequate during some (much?) of the time she was on hormones. 3) She intentionally under-performed once the intense opposition and media scrutiny hit her (similar to how Caster Semenya, a woman with a DSD condition, “threw” races in the face of intense opposition.) I have no way of knowing.
3 Likes
I believe this is directly on point with your quote: Doping in East Germany - Wikipedia
More importantly and relevant to the OP, the issue, plain and simple, is that Lia Thomas won her NCAA championship under the existing rules. It’s good to see folks here acknowledge that and that she won’t be stripped of her title if the rules change going forward/in the future.
I hope we all can agree that this is not a “doping” issue, which clearly implies an illegality. The rules are what they are, and perhaps they will change. That’s a different issue and perhaps the one most are focused on in this thread. She won under the then-prevailing rules, so the “doping” point is wholly irrelevant IMHO to the discussion.
1 Like
I have trouble understanding how anyone arguing for “fairness” could simultaneously argue that Ms. Thomas, a competitor who worked hard, sacrificed much, and followed the rules should have her victories invalidated. That strikes me as more vindictive than fair.
If the rule was changed to require transgender females to maintain testosterone levels “within the normal range for biological women in order to compete,” would you approve of transgender females competing with cisgender females?
But the primary advocates against transgender inclusion are not trying to make competitions “as fair as possible” to all participants. As Nancy Hogshead-Makar explained in your linked article, they do not believe it is fair to allow transgender females to compete as females at all. In other words, their “fair” solution is to ban transgender females from competing as females. Further, they don’t to be criticized for wanting the ban, especially if those criticisms might make they feel like they are being called intolerant.
But while the advocates are entitled to push for a ban, those who disagree are likewise entitled to push back and criticize their idea of a “fair” solution. For example, those who disagree are entitled to point out that, among other things:
- Banning transgender females is discriminatory on its face, and further marginalizes an already marginalized group.
- Whether intentional or not, banning transgender females because of “biology” further reinforces and emphasizes negative and bigoted stereotypes, including the stereotype that there is something wrong transgender people, and that their very existence is somehow against nature. (Not surprisingly, the latest letter allegedly from Penn parents even alluded to the “mental health” of transgender athletes.)
- The "biological difference” justification is not new, and those offering the justification are in pretty poor company, as it has been offered to justify almost every instance of discrimination and exclusion against marginalized groups throughout history.
- Like with those offering up the “biological difference” justification in other contexts, many of those advocating for a ban on transgender females competing as females have relied on misleading, out-of-context, and exaggerated statistics, images, and predictions to try evoke an visceral, emotionally negative reaction toward transgender athletes.
While you and others may disagree with some or all of these points, there is plenty of factual support for each one, regardless of whether or not they cause discomfort.
Of course the middle ground would be to try to come up with a standard that is fair to cisgender and transgender athletes, but the primary advocates want a ban, not compromise.
In case anyone believes the Editor of Swimming World Magazine speaks for the entire swimming world, here are a few excerpts from a letter to the editor by Erica Sullivan, a cisgender female swimmer and Olympic medalist. She is one of “more than 300 NCAA, Team USA and Olympic swimmers who signed an open letter . . . in support of Lia and all transgender and nonbinary swimmers.”
- “All athletes—including transgender athletes—deserve to be respected and included, exactly as we are.”
- “I can’t sit silently by as I see a fellow swimmer’s fundamental rights be put up for debate. All swimmers embody a diverse set of identities and characteristics. What makes us each unique also contributes to our success in the pool. Yet no one questions the validity of how cisgender athletes’ unique traits and skills, or who they are, contribute to their success.”
- “Many of those who oppose transgender athletes like Lia being able to participate in sports claim to be “protecting women’s sports.” As a woman in sports, I can tell you that I know what the real threats to women’s sports are: sexual abuse and harassment, unequal pay and resources and a lack of women in leadership. Transgender girls and women are nowhere on this list. Women’s sports are stronger when all women—including trans women—are protected from discrimination, and free to be their true selves.”
- “I’ll be cheering on Lia and all of the amazing swimmers that make this sport great by being authentically and proudly themselves.”
1 Like
The point of that link was to show that Thomas’s competitors feel there is a fairness issue. In the article, that’s one person’s opinion, as we all have varying opinions. Many advocates for transgender inclusion believe no limitations should be placed on transgender athletes. I myself am somewhere in the middle. I do believe that there should be stricter guidelines regarding transgender participation in women’s sports. I believe the current guidelines aren’t appropriate in the name of fairness. In the end if someone gains a potentially unfair advantage then someone else loses out who didn’t get that advantage.
1 Like
For some reason, I thought Lia began hormone therapy a year ago, if 2 years is accurate, I agree that USA Swimming’s 3 years may be more appropriate.
She said May 2019.
I think it is fair to say that, at least with regard to competitive swimming, her views are pretty much in line with those most actively involved in trying to ban transgender women from competing as women. She’s one of the primary advocates, an Olympic medalist, activist, and civil rights attorney who speaks on behalf of, among others, the influential Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, which also calls for classifications based on biology. She is also pushing legislation that would prohibit transgender females from competing head-to-head with cisgender females in swimming and some other collegiate sports, and drafted the letter signed by the 16 teammates., etc.
You may not agree with her in this, but it is views like hers that are driving this issue.
Please correct if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall a single poster ever taking that position here. Not suggesting such advocates don’t exist, just pointing out that in this conversation their position seems to be offered as more of red herring than anything else.
Reportedly Ms. Thomas had begun her hormone-replacement therapy in May 2019, just short of three years ago. Perhaps not coincidentally, if adopted the USA Swimming rule would have left her a less than two months short of being able to compete in the NCAA finals.
Now that you know she started almost three years ago, do you think she should be allowed to compete with cisgender women, come May? Or would you like to change your preferred rule to four years?
This thread has been flagged SO many times. From what I can see, it’s become a circular, unfriendly and unpleasant debate. Debating is not allowed per forum rules.
The main focus of this thread centers on one individual who has been singled out. I’m trying to think of threads in the past that have been allowed to endlessly continue about a single individual in such a negative way, especially given that the individual is a college student.
As such, I am closing this thread for review.
11 Likes