I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
There are a number of reasons bills like these are wrongheaded. One is that it tries to implement the same kind of one-size-fits-all solution that opponents of trans inclusion claim to oppose.
But let’s get nuanced for a minute...
NEW: Hawaii Rep. @TulsiGabbard introduces bill called \u2018Protect Women\u2019s Sports Act\u2019 \u2014 would clarify Title IX protections to be based on biological sex, which would impact transgender athletes participating in athletic programs for women and girls @KITV4 pic.twitter.com/VcDDgO1mFL
— Tom George (@TheTomGeorge) December 10, 2020
I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
How old are people competing in it?
What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?
Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.
Take the case of Mack Beggs.
A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.
He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.
He wasn’t allowed.
Now, here’s where you might go “wait, wait, isn’t it unfair for someone taking testosterone to wrestle girls?” and the answer is yeah, it is.
1. Don’t wrestle at all
2. Wrestle against girls, keep taking testosterone, have an advantage
3. Wrestle against girls, stop taking testosterone even though it’s something he, his family, his doctor see as necessary
But he couldn’t. Because of a blanket rule meant to ensure “fairness.”
He dominated. Obviously. He won the state championship twice in a division he never wanted to compete in in the first place.
And yes, it was. But it wasn’t his fault. It was an anti-trans rule meant to ensure “fairness” that caused the unfairness.
Here’s a story about him from this year. He’s in college now:
https://t.co/sAdkUN6SgC
Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) December 11, 2020
I\u2019m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
It’s a topic that often gets looked at with zero nuance. Bills like Gabbard’s in the House or Loeffler’s in the Senate look to codify zero nuance.
Look, here’s a 1976 letter to the editor sent to NYT: “women’s sports will be taken over by a giant race of surgically created women.”
44 years ago!
But, as I’ve said before: this isn’t actually about sports.
Something I wrote for Vice in 2014: https://t.co/VsFjdDRtwn
More from Parker Molloy
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
This is what happens when the Trump cultists refuse to acknowledge anything outside their extremely insular bubble: they can’t grasp that the majority of the country thinks he sucks and voted him out.
Not once in 4 years of Gallup’s 3-day tracking of Trump’s approval rating was it ever higher than 49%.
He was the least popular incumbent since Carter to run for re-election. It’s not shocking that he got his ass kicked in the election. https://t.co/7BSCQR2vI2
But if you do nothing other than consume conservative media, you’d be under the false impression that he’s popular, that his ideas are popular, and that the people who oppose him are a small group of haters.
In Gallup’s last update before the election, Trump had a -6 net approval rating. The last time it was a net positive was in May when it was +1.
And here’s how you get numbers like that: you do absolutely nothing to try to win over people who aren’t already part of your base. Look at those numbers among independents.
Check out the framing of this question from Fox News host @DavidAsmanfox. Embarrassing. pic.twitter.com/rchZqSV4n1
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2021
Not once in 4 years of Gallup’s 3-day tracking of Trump’s approval rating was it ever higher than 49%.
He was the least popular incumbent since Carter to run for re-election. It’s not shocking that he got his ass kicked in the election. https://t.co/7BSCQR2vI2
But if you do nothing other than consume conservative media, you’d be under the false impression that he’s popular, that his ideas are popular, and that the people who oppose him are a small group of haters.
In Gallup’s last update before the election, Trump had a -6 net approval rating. The last time it was a net positive was in May when it was +1.
And here’s how you get numbers like that: you do absolutely nothing to try to win over people who aren’t already part of your base. Look at those numbers among independents.
Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an election should be allowed to do so in whatever way is most convenient for them. If that's in-person on election day, great; by mail, great; in-person in the weeks leading up to an election, great.
That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:
- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.
They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."
No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:
- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.
They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."
No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
Sen. @JohnCornyn on budget reconciliation: "Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now. But you're sure to regret that someday." pic.twitter.com/12wwUkq43r
— The Hill (@thehill) February 1, 2021
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
