I get that men are faster but I was shocked at how many are faster than elite women – for example, Allyson Felix.
There’s an amazing visual representation of that.
In 2017, men and boys ran the 400 m faster than Allyson Felix's personal best more than 15,000 times.
That’s a classic example where, if you’re immersed in sports, it becomes intuitive. If you’re not, you do a double-take and think, is that right? Position determines perspective.
Do you think some of it is because we’re constantly told that girls and women can do anything?
It’s a paradox that is difficult for people to get their minds around because in most walks of life, we can say that women can do anything. Of course, it’s arguably more difficult for women to become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. This is a work in progress.
But sports are different. In sports, it’s not possible to directly compare male and female, and then tell girls they can be the best at whatever in the whole human race. That’s the uniqueness of sports and the reason categories exist in the first place. The biology does matter.
Speaking of biology, you’ve said that the focus on testosterone levels is a bit of a red herring.
Yes. The authorities were looking for a solution.
They grabbed onto the idea that lowering testosterone was the solution and perpetuated that as the mechanism by which we would ensure fairness. The problem is that my concentration of testosterone today is only a tiny part of the story.
I’ve been exposed to testosterone my whole life. My twin sister has not. There are many differences between us, but in terms of sports, the main biological difference is not that my testosterone is higher today; it’s that my testosterone has been higher my whole life. It’s the work done by that hormone over many years that makes a difference.
The key issue is, has this body, this physiology, been exposed to and benefited in the sports context, from male hormones – yes or no?
If your answer is yes, then that body belongs in male sports. With gender identity, we want to accommodate as far as possible, but we can’t take away that difference. That’s where we create this collision of rights between trans women and women.
Ultimately, your point is that we can’t have both fairness and inclusion.
When we sat down to do the World Rugby trans guidance, we had an epiphany: It doesn’t matter which way we go; we’re going to face hostility.
Once you accept that there are two parties that are affected and one of them will always be unhappy, then you start to see that fairness and inclusion can’t be balanced.
What about Joanna Harper’s proposal to make rules case by case and sport by sport?
First, it could be tricky legally because you’re effectively discriminating against some people within a subset of a subset. You’re going to end up saying to some trans women: “You can play because you don’t pose a safety or fairness issue.” But to another: “You can’t because you’re too strong.”
Then the problem is, how do you do that screening? It’s not like you can measure half a dozen variables and then have an algorithm spit out a performance level that tells you that this trans woman can compete here safely and fairly. It’s a theoretical solution that is practically impossible.
At a conference in Boston recently, Joanna said that when there are no medals, prize money, scholarships, or record times, we should allow inclusion. But just because a woman isn’t winning medals or going to the Olympics doesn’t mean there’s not considerable value for her if she were to make her school team, for instance.
There are only 11 places on the soccer field, eight lanes in a swimming pool. The moment you allow someone in, you potentially exclude someone else. And that happens everywhere, not only at the elite level.
Would you ever make a distinction between elite and subelite?
One of the beauties of sports is that it’s a meritocracy; it functions on a pathway system. I don’t think the level matters if you can track that this person’s presence denied a place on the team or a place at the competition to someone else.
With Lia Thomas, it’s not only denying the silver medalist gold or fourth place a bronze; it’s also the fact that there are only so many places at that meet. For some, that was their ambition and they weren’t able to realize it.
Now, a lot of sports are played outside that pathway. Say your local tennis club has a social league. There is little there to stand in the way of inclusion. Although I’m mindful that there may be a women’s league where it does matter to them.
We can try to accommodate trans women when the stakes are not high, provided that two requirements are met: One is that there’s no disruption to the selection/meritocracy pathway; and the second key point is that women must be okay with that inclusion, particularly if there are safety considerations, but even if it’s just a fairness consideration.
That’s where it gets tricky, because there are bigoted people in the world. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s difficult to tell whether people are using scientific arguments to prop up bigotry or whether they are genuine.
Joanna Harper has said that if you support inclusion, you have to be okay with trans women winning.
Winning the summer tennis league is not winning in the same sense as winning at the NCAA.
But the moment winning means selection and performance pathways, then I think we have to draw a line. The moment participation disrupts the natural order in sports, then it’s a problem.
In World Rugby, we proposed open competitions lower in contact to deal with the safety concerns. That was rejected by the trans community because they felt it was othering – that we were trying to squeeze them off to the side.
If you offered me one of two choices: no participation, or inclusion and they have to be able to win, I’d go for the former.