#125: Let's talk about trans athletes
In the (probably maybe) last newsletter before my leave.
issue #125: Feb. 5, 2025
All, this may be our last regular Wednesday newsletter for a bit. (In theory I have another week before maternity leave, but also I may not have another week because life is a magic miracle mystery and I definitely don’t have another week in me emotionally. So.) There will potentially be a short newsletter next week and then one more pre-scheduled in February while I’m out, we’ll see!
All I can say at this point in pregnancy, though, is: I am infinitely happy I do not have to go into an office or to any events right now. Thank god for small miracles, as they say.
- Kelly
A whole bunch about triathlon’s new restrictions on trans women because why not go out on this for my last(ish) pre-leave newsletter
Last week, World Triathlon, the international governing body for tri, became the latest sport to take a hard right turn on allowing trans women to compete in amateur or elite races.
Below is what I wrote for Feisty about the change, but I wanted to first say here that I’ve been covering this topic for about a decade, since well before it became the cable news talking point it is now, and I haven’t quite found a way to explain yet what it’s like to see this happen in real-time on this scale and to this degree. ‘Frustrating’ doesn’t quite capture the full emotion.
I also wanted to first start with the three questions triathletes almost always bring up and that came up again this time as responses to why I believe the new policy is bad for everyone.
Question #1: But isn’t sex straightforward: You’re either male or female, whatever you were born as? Not exactly. Separate from (and well before current) political discussions, biologists have long recognized that sex is not strictly binary or as simple as we learned in high school. There are a number of chromosomal, genetic, and genital variations that can fall outside the binary. Which is also why sex testing in sports (whether defined by genital inspections, chromosomal tests, or now testosterone) has always ended up “catching” women who had no idea they were supposedly “not women” — and it’s why we nearly universally abandoned sex testing in sports in the late-90s.
Question #2: Still, the science is clear: Trans women have a biological advantage over other women. It’s just common sense; won’t they dominate competitions if left unchecked? First, I’m always hesitant to chalk things up to common sense when for centuries it was common sense that the sun revolved around the earth (just look at it!). So, with that hubris in mind, I’d say science on trans athletes is actually somewhat mixed when you look at the full range of reviews: there are some performance measures where the gap closes after a medical transition and some where it doesn’t fully; there are also deeply mixed analyses on whether levels of testosterone track directly (in a general sense) with performance overall or if that should even be the primary marker of concern. «And there’s a slightly more complicated point about if sex determination has some gray area and so people in that grey area are selected into one group or the other at birth (male or female), then you’re essentially only looking here at the people who unselect from their original group — but that wouldn’t capture those who fell in the gray area and didn’t unselect (eg. were told they were women and maintained that selection), which changes the dataset. Unless you’re also going to start regulating from birth, which seems even more problematic.» Again, science is more nuanced than rhetoric. Mostly, though, trans people have always existed and we didn’t have sex testing in sports for long periods of time, so if they were going to dominate they would have already. If their advantage was clearly present and easily demonstrable, then the obvious extension of that logic is that we’d see not 10 trans athletes in the whole NCAA, but some number of podiums that exceeds their proportion of the population (~1%).
Question #3: But, we can’t and shouldn’t wait. Women’s sports are a protected class, and if we don’t continue to protect it by banning trans women, then won’t women’s sports just disappear? Again, if that was true, it would have happened or we’d see mathematical (not speculative) evidence of it happening imminently. And this is a personal opinion, but there are lots of things you’re born with or into that confer advantages in sports — being taller or having a better VO2 max, being born into a wealthier family probably disproportionately dictates more success than many biological traits — so if we’re going to restrict the rights of a specific group of people then the onus is on us to prove an immediate need to do so. So you just want to wait until it’s a problem? Well, yeah, if it’s not a problem then all you’ve got is a solution looking for a problem — and pretty much whenever you go around looking for problems you create more than you solve.
Here’s what I wrote for Feisty below, and don’t tell me I should objectively regurgitate press releases instead. You can click through to the press release if that’s what you’re looking for:
The previous World Triathlon policy
The old World Tri policy said that trans women could compete in the women’s category after their testosterone levels were maintained below certain limits for a certain amount of time — 2.5 nmol/L continuously for two years — and that they could not have competed in the men’s category in the previous four years.
There were people who had problems with that policy from both ends, but it was generally viewed as a compromise position. It created some guardrails for concerns about fairness, but also established a pathway for trans athletes to participate in our sport. World Triathlon’s old policy was also very much in line with most sports’ policies and with the IOC, all of which established to varying degrees some level of medical threshold or transition and timeframe.
Plus, it should be pointed out, it seemed to be working fine?
There were not huge numbers of trans women dominating amateur races. While there are some examples, trans women simply were not and do not win or podium in triathlon at rates higher than the proportion they make up of the population. Neither Ironman nor USAT could confirm private medical records, but of note USAT did say that out of their entire membership there were 63 athletes who selected the “non-binary” box (which is a different point, but for a sense of scale). And World Triathlon did confirm there are NO pro or elite athletes who were born male or were previously told they were male or who competed as men now competing as women. Zero.
This didn’t suddenly become a huge problem or change this month. So what happened?
The new World Triathlon policy
World Triathlon, under new president Antonio Fernández Arimany, abruptly changed course and now says that — effective retroactively to Jan. 1 — amateur or age-group trans women can never ever compete in the women’s category. No matter if they’ve fully medically transitioned, when they transitioned, if they did it before they hit puberty. Never.
Instead, World Tri has renamed the men’s category the “open” category and all amateur trans women must compete in the men’s open category.
The new policy also creates a kind of medical review board for elite/pro trans women athletes to (in theory) gain approval to compete as women. They must maintain testosterone levels below 2.5 nmol/L for four years, compete in the men’s “open” category during that time, and submit all of their medical records to a panel that will determine if “transgender female eligibility conditions” have been met.
There are, however, a few obvious logical problems with these plans.
Why the new policy is a bad idea
1. First, this new policy literally creates a stricter ban for amateur athletes than for elite athletes.
Which seems to run counter to claims that anti-trans advocates are only concerned about fairness or to suggestions that amateur trans women are still welcome to participate. While I have my doubts any elite athlete will ever be approved by this new medical review board, at a minimum the option should be available for the regular average age-group athlete who’s just looking to do their best, too.
But, most importantly, it needs to be pointed out:
2. Regardless of what anyone says, simply renaming the men’s category “open” is not the super welcoming inclusive move people want to pretend it is.
I’ve had a number of people argue that trans women are not actually banned now, and it’s wrong for me to say that they are because they can still compete against men.
Guys, come on. Call a spade a spade and be honest about what you’re doing.
Because in reality, how this policy will play out in amateur races, on the ground, is that “open” will still be the men’s category, with all men competing, and then very occasionally a woman, or two women, who look and present as women will be forced to line up and race with all men. And I’m sure everyone will be super chill and cool and welcoming when that happens…
The choice those women (in addition to women who see how they are treated) will inevitably be faced with is: Do I stick around in a sport that doesn’t want me or us? And what many of those women will actually do, because it’s what I would do in their situation, is simply quit triathlon.
And, whether we admit or not, isn’t that really the ultimate inevitable outcome and goal of policies that eliminate trans people’s participation from sectors of life? To push them out. If we make policies that say they can’t participate in sports unless they medically transitioned before puberty and then we make laws banning kids from transitioning, what we’re doing is effectively banning people entirely from a part of society. No matter what we call it.
3. The third (and in some ways the biggest) problem, though, is how this will be enforced. Because it inevitably leads to policing of who seems or looks feminine enough.
Since it’s in no way realistic to require medical records for all amateur athletes who do large mass participation events, World Triathlon has said they’ll enforce the policy if and when athletes report other athletes. (Crossfit recently adopted a similar problematic plan, which is leading some gyms to end their Crossfit affiliation.)
What that means is that triathletes can turn in other triathletes who they “suspect” of being secretly trans for reasons like: looking too masculine, having too many muscles, being “too good.” Already we’ve had countless examples of this happening in other sports and locker rooms and gyms, of kids being harassed and booed by parents who “suspected” some 8-year-old was trans because they were too big or too much better than their own kid; we’ve had women, those who were and those who were not trans, accosted or attacked in bathrooms simply because they didn’t look feminine enough. This is a terrible precedent to set and one that hurts ALL WOMEN. This kind of social self-policing has never gone well, ever.
When we adopt a “report on your neighbor” approach — whether that’s “so and so looks like they might be Jewish,” or “he seems homosexual, arrest him” — it has never worked out. These do not ever turn out to be bright spots in our collective history.
Two caveats to know about
For triathletes, there are, however, two big asterisks to this global cultural hard turn:
Ironman’s policy remains as it was for now: Which is what World Triathlon’s policy used to be, that trans women can compete in the women’s category after a certain amount of time maintaining testosterone below established limits. And, if they don’t meet that criteria, Ironman allows them compete in a separate “open” category that is distinct from and is *not* the men’s category. Ultimately, Ironman may fall in line with World Triathlon’s changes — they have said they are waiting to see how national governing bodies react and what the regulatory landscape looks like — but for now it remains as it was.
In the U.S., the USA Triathlon policy also remains as it was: For races governed by World Triathlon — ie. if you want to represent your country in your age-group at the world championships — or by the NCAA or other elite eligibility criteria, then rules have to comply with World Triathlon or the governing body. But for all other races in the U.S., which is most races, most grassroots show-up-to-your-local-park-and-just-do-the-thing races, the rule is if you go to packet pick-up and present your ID to check-in, then the volunteer handing out registration is going to believe you. Because why the hell wouldn’t they.
The -ish
With still so few (ie. no) pro races happening yet, we’re skipping the results & calendar section for now. The next big one coming up: WTCS Abu Dhabi next weekend. In the meantime, the rest of things from around our sports worth knowing about:
Probably even more controversially, World Tri banned watches (and jewelry) during the swim — but only for pros/elites. Whew. (Tri247)
Defending champ Beth Potter will be back at the E Tri World Champs. (Supertri)
I’m split on this whole Morgan Pearson v. Jelle Geens rivalry thing. Like, as we know, I’m all for more shit-talking in triathlon. But also, the way T100 is pushing it feels very tacky & manufactured. (Instagram)
Lucy Hall (now Buckingham) is pregnant. (Instagram)
Sam Laidlow says he’s been having health problems pretty much ever since the Kona implosion. And I’ll say, having talked to Sarah True a lot about some of her health issues after her massive heat stroke, you can really fuck yourself up for awhile. (Instagram/NBC)
It sounds like Robert Wilkowiecki had an ablation (with some complications) for the arrhythmia he was experiencing last year that caused him to withdraw from Kona. Fun fact: I’ve also had an ablation and it also had complications, but did not work out as well as it does for most people (and as it sounds like it is working out for him now). (Youtube/Tri247)
Katie Zaferes’ new AUXO training group is hosting this year’s USAT Foundation camp, which is fun. (I went to the one at the San Diego Olympic training facility one year.) (USAT)
Fem van Empel beat Lucinda Brand at the cyclocross world champs and it seems to have all come down to the passes. And, also, it was quite emotional. And, Mathieu van der Poel took his 7th (!!) title. (Instagram/CyclingNews)
Eurosport is disappearing in the UK (and Ireland) and being replaced by TNT Sports, which is massively upping the price for cycling coverage. And it sounds like: There will be no free-to-watch Tour de France coverage this summer. So that’s great and definitely totally how you grow a fan base. (The Guardian/Escape Collective)
Ineos is looking to development pipelines in the U.S. to nurture the next Tour winner. (Velo)
Cyclists in a race in Mallorca stopped after just 25km and refused to continue because it was unsafe and now everyone’s fighting about it. And, I have to say, cycling may be the one sport that seems even more shitshow-y than triathlon these days. (CyclingNews/Velo)
Wait, actually: Registration for the Crossfit Open (their big annual *thing*) is down and people seem to be generally pissed at the organization — and at least a couple of big pros won’t be participating in the Games this year. And around here some gyms are ending their affiliation. For a number of reasons. So, if I was a Crossfit exec I’d be worried on a lot of levels. (Barbell Spin/Instagram/Morning Chalkup/KQED)
Grand Slam Track will air on the CW, Peacock, and highlights on NBC. (Athletics Illustrated)
The battle for the Chipotle segment in Tucson (and free burritos after 735 miles) got a lot of attention. (Instagram/Matter of Brand)
“We found a systematic bias toward less energy and carbohydrates in the gels compared to their labels.” (Canadian Running)
They bury the lead a little bit on this story about how much it actually costs to do doping tests, but the numbers in the bottom section line up with what I’ve been told by USADA & Ironman: It’s a little over $1,000 to test one athlete out-of-competition one time, though it’s more if they’re located somewhere that’s hard to get testers to. (Triathlete/Triathlonish)
This is a crazy weirdass “smart” integrated handlebar cockpit system, which I can’t decide how I feel about. (Instagram)
And this is Kilian Jornet just doing what he does, which I also can’t decide how I feel about. (Twitter)
One last thing
A corollary to the fact that no one who’s in a great place proactively does Dry January.
