You don’t think there’s ANYTHING suspicious about a white Italian crying crocodile tears after 30 seconds in the ring with an African woman, the ring of course being the fucking OLYMPIC BOXING RING, which is meant for people who are actually capable of performing well in the sport they’re there to do?
Both of them are women, one is just apparently shit at the one thing she was there to do. Can’t take a hit? Don’t go into a sport where you’re gonna get hit, overwhelmingly in the face. Euros stay seething that they can’t own Africans anymore and have to make shit up.
First, I want to apologize in advance for any grammar or punctuation errors. English is my first language, but I’m dyslexic. Regardless, I will do my best to make this response readable. Secondly, I apologize for getting back to you so late. I visited my siblings and left my laptop at home, knowing that if I tried to respond via my phone, the quality would suffer greatly. Thirdly, thank you for genuinely asking me a question. Don’t get me wrong—I love a good death threat as much as the next person, and I’ve already received plenty of those. But I suppose the way I see it is this: if you disagree with me on a topic, having a screaming match on the level of a presidential debate isn’t going to help either of us. Besides, I like learning and changing. I’m human, and that’s kind of what we’re meant to do. Talk with me so I can see and learn. If you show me why I’m wrong and convince me, I’ll acknowledge it and say, "I was wrong with the information previously presented to me. Thank you for correcting me; I appreciate it." As petty as it sounds, I like being right—not in terms of "my opinion trumps yours," but in knowing I have the correct information and now understand the right thing to do or say. Make sense?
Next order of business: my perspective. Normally, I keep my nose out of political and social issues for several reasons. Firstly, I don’t typically have enough information to give an informed opinion. I don’t see why I should preach my views if I lack the data or experience in the subject matter. Instead, I prefer to listen and learn. Furthermore, I strongly believe in the cookie/diet analogy. Most of the internet is familiar with this analogy, but to reiterate: me being on a diet does not mean you cannot eat a cookie. Similarly, my beliefs should not dictate how you live your life. In simpler terms, I drink water and mind my business.
However, let's adjust the analogy a bit. (I use analogies a lot, and I acknowledge that they are not always perfect, but they help get my point across.) If my diet forbids me from consuming alcohol, it doesn’t mean you can’t drink. I even hope you enjoy it because you’re doing as you please and having a good time. But if you decide to drink and then drive, you are actively impeding on my right to be safe. As stated in Article 2 of the American Declaration of Rights: “Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person.” Yes, I am American, so perhaps this analogy only applies to Americans. Again, a limitation of the analogy. In this case, I have enough reason to get involved. It’s not about you drinking or you driving separately; it’s about the intersection of the two. (Bet you didn’t think a dumb jock knew what that was, huh?)
For those who are younger or unfamiliar, intersectionality is “a metaphor for understanding the ways that multiple forms of inequality or disadvantage sometimes compound themselves and create obstacles that are often not understood among conventional ways of thinking.” Alternatively, intersectionality is “a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege.” Basically, when two identities (like race and gender) intersect, they create a unique perspective, thus an intersection. This concept was identified by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a civil rights advocate.
One of the first examples given to me about intersectionality involved a mechanic shop. In this shop, Black male mechanics did the physical labor, while white women worked as secretaries and in the office. A Black woman faced discrimination when she was unfairly turned away for a job. When she took her case to court, the company argued they were neither racist nor sexist because they hired both Black people and women. However, all the women in the office were white, and all the Black employees were male mechanics. It's a complex situation, right? I'm not sure of the specifics or the case name, but I believe it was real, and she ultimately won her case.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that I have a unique intersectionality that gives me specific experiences. In no way am I claiming my perspective is greater than anyone else's, but it is particularly relevant to the topic of trans women in sports and high testosterone performance. My point of view comes from my intersectional identity as an AFAB cis female, a mixed-race individual (Black, White, and Native American), a former Division 1 women’s athlete, and someone with a Master’s of Science in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, along with other degrees in Biophysics, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Psychology. I am currently deciding whether to pursue a PhD, a medical doctorate, or both.
Therefore, for anyone who thinks I am ignorant about the biological aspects of this issue, I urge you to reconsider. I was an accelerated student, graduated with departmental honors, and maintained a physically demanding job. If you have an issue with my presentation of biological and genetic information, please take it up with CHEA or the U.S. Department of Education for providing me with such "ludicrous" information and expecting me to look out for the health of the U.S. population.
Additionally, while on the topic of education and biology, one key concept was emphasized from the first day of schooling: gender is not sex, and sex is not gender. These are distinct topics. Sometimes sex aligns with gender, and other times it does not. Gender is more of a spectrum, which is fine by me. I know where I fall on that spectrum and am at peace with it. I do not claim to know what a woman is definitively. However, I have lived every day of my life—over two decades—as a woman. I may not encompass everything that the title "woman" entails, but I believe I can at least identify some aspects of what it means to be a woman. Wouldn’t it be silly to tell a woman that she has no idea what is included in the title of a woman?
I've scoured the internet and cannot, for the life of me, find the name of the process where you describe things around a concept to define it, despite not having an exact definition. I learned about this in philosophy; if someone could provide the term, that would be wonderful. For example, let’s say I am an elephant, and I see red and white stripes in the tent where I perform, smell peanuts, see the ring where I strike poses, the boss with his top hat to my left, the acrobats above me, and the clowns in front of me. I may not describe everything that constitutes this concept, but you can probably guess that the topic is a circus. The elephant may not be the entire circus, but it’s part of it and knows bits of it. Could you tell the elephant that it’s not describing parts of the circus correctly? I could say, “Elephant, you’re right that those are parts of the circus, but there are different angles to it as well.” Again, I’m aware that my analogies are not all-encompassing and fall short in some details.
So, while the exact definition of "woman" is ever-changing and based on societal, emotional, mental, and other criteria, I do not seek to define this term. It’s not my area of expertise, nor is it my concern. I know what I am, and I am content. I don’t place others in a box with me; I am happy in my own square. Instead, I stick to what I know: the facts and definitions of what a female is, which are based on biology—facts that have been studied with hard data for me to analyze.
Before I continue, I want to reiterate that I am a "cookie/diet" person. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security, and the pursuit of happiness. I could never hate a stranger I’ve never met. I believe everyone, regardless of race, gender, identity, sexual preference, age, or other parameters, should have peace and public respect. No one should be actively threatened for their opinions within the boundaries of universal truths. For example, if you think someone should die for their sexual preference (excluding minors, as I do not tolerate pedophilia and believe it is something a person must address immediately), skin color, or religious belief/spirituality, that is an infringement on another person’s safety. With that said, I think transgender, nonbinary, and queer individuals should live their lives to the fullest. They are people too, just like anyone else, including me.
Back to my original topic: I can define a biological female in terms of biology. A female is one denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova). (Note: not all females are naturally fertile due to genetic variations.) Biological sex is an assigned label given at birth based on medical factors, including hormones, chromosomes, and genitals. These are measurable factors assigned at birth. Hence, terms such as AFAB (Assigned Female At Birth) and AMAB (Assigned Male At Birth) help medical providers give their patients the best treatment and diagnosis regardless of gender. Because, again, sex is not gender, and gender is not sex.
It is also significant to mention that the medical factors assigned at birth are not limited to genitals. This is important because, although rare, intersex persons are real. They exist. One of the things that used to irritate me during my undergraduate and high school years was that medical professionals knew of intersex persons, but they never had a significant amount of data on them to establish the medical boundaries of what could be classified as “normal” for them. It’s like knowing dragons exist but not being able to tell you more about them—like Hiccup with the Night Fury page in the first movie. Moreover, individuals with mixed chromosomes also occur, such as those with 25% XY and 75% XX. Even if their sex presents in a binary fashion, their DNA may be ‘abnormal,’ and they may categorize themselves however they please. I use the word 'abnormal' in a scientific manner, not as a slander, but merely because it literally translates as 'not normal.' One of the genes that defines sex presentation is the SRY gene (7).
If I harp on about DNA, I apologize, but as someone who has spent so much of her life studying this specific detail of human anatomy, I can't help but carry on. I have asked a few of my colleagues with PhDs and specialties in hormone activity, mainly about regulation, because I wish to be well-informed. At a basic level, everyone understands genetic variances and that traditional male and female individuals have different chromosomes—XY and XX, respectively. Otherwise, the genome is mostly identical, with differences in SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and epigenetics (the regulation of genes typically found in the non-coding regions of DNA). DNA influences the production of chemical structures found naturally in the body, including steroids.
I'm sure most people are familiar with steroids, whether from a "don't do drugs" perspective or in the context of cholesterol. Either way, your body produces various forms of natural steroids to help regulate biochemical pathways. The interesting part is that everyone's body produces all of the necessary steroids (at least every healthy body), just in varying amounts. If you notice that these steroids are similar looking, you're right. This similarity helps us classify them and understand their behavior. They are derivatives of each other, but their varying side chains allow them to bind to specific receptors.
Granted, 'binding' is a loose term because, due to Brownian motion and other physical laws, most molecules just float around. Binding depends on various factors such as the shape of the molecules and the energy of their interactions. Additionally, protein turnover rates (which may not directly be the steroid hormones, but affect growth hormones via the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal [HPA] Axis, Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal [HPG] Axis, Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 [IGF-1] Pathway, Steroid Hormone Receptor Signaling, including the ER and AR pathway, and Cytokine and Growth Factor Pathways), which refer to the rate at which proteins are synthesized and degraded, can influence the availability of proteins for binding, though they are not directly related to binding specificity itself. Binding specificity relies more on the geometry and chemical groups themselves. (Long story short, molecules can float into a receptor, but they rarely stick around long enough for a reaction to occur unless it is the correct compound.)
Androgens are hormones that contribute to male traits and reproductive activities, although they are also present in females in smaller amounts. The main androgens include:
Testosterone: The most well-known androgen, produced primarily in the testes of males and in smaller amounts by the ovaries in females.
Dihydrotestosterone (DHT): A more potent androgen derived from testosterone.
Androstenedione: A precursor to both testosterone and estrogens, produced in the adrenal glands and gonads.
Androgens are responsible for male characteristics such as facial hair, a deep voice, and increased muscle mass. They also play a role in libido, bone density, and overall health in both males and females (8).
Estrogens are hormones crucial for the development and regulation of the female reproductive system and secondary sexual characteristics. They are present in both males and females but are typically found at higher levels in females. Key types of estrogens include:
Estradiol (E2): The most potent and predominant estrogen during the reproductive years.
Estrone (E1): The primary form of estrogen produced after menopause.
Estriol (E3): The weakest form, mainly produced during pregnancy.
Both androgens and estrogens are essential for maintaining a healthy and functioning body, though they operate in different amounts and have distinct functions in males and females. While individual hormone levels can vary due to genetic differences, standard distributions are often used to represent general populations. It’s important to note that athletes, for example, may fall outside these standard distributions in areas like skill levels and genetic traits such as height. Hormone levels also vary depending on the specific aspect being examined, and studies have established typical ranges for these hormones.
Estradiol (E2) is the estrogen most involved in muscle health and building in women. It plays a key role in muscle growth and maintenance by enhancing muscle protein synthesis and influencing muscle mass, especially during periods of hormonal change like menopause. I found this straightforward information on a website, but I’m hesitant to cite this since it doesn’t come from a formal medical paper or research journal.
Results are given in picograms per milliliter (pg/mL). Normal levels for estradiol (E2) are:
30 to 400 pg/mL for premenopausal women
0 to 30 pg/mL for postmenopausal women
While these values provide a general reference, I would not rely solely on this information without formal publication backing. For more reliable data, Frederiksen et al. have a formal publication that aligns with these numbers (1). However, it's worth noting that their research was published around 2019-2020, and the publication process can sometimes extend over several months. Additionally, the E2 levels measured in these studies refer to blood serum. Since estrogens and testosterone are also present in other tissues, such as muscle and genital tissues, these values should be interpreted with some caution.
Moving on to testosterone, here are the normal measurements according to a straightforward website I found (uncited here since it’s not from a medical or research journal):
Male: 300 to 1,000 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dL) or 10 to 35 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L)
Female: 15 to 70 ng/dL or 0.5 to 2.4 nmol/L
Fortunately, I found research that supports these values. For example, a study by S. L. Davison et al. measured androgen levels in 1,423 cis-women of varying ages, excluding those at the extremes of the distribution curve to minimize misjudgment (2). Their findings align well with the cited measurements of blood serum testosterone and provide additional details, such as measurement averages, ranges, and a box-and-whisker plot for various androgens. Their comprehensive analysis is quite impressive.
However, it is worth noting that Davison’s study is considered relatively old by research standards, having been published in 2005. Further supporting evidence can be found in research by Zitzmann et al., which also aligns with the previously mentioned male normal ranges (3). Additionally, Mohr et al. conducted a separate study on males that supports these general numbers (4). It should be noted that Mohr's study did not include men under 40 years of age, which may limit its applicability to younger populations.
Besides this point, what practical usage does this information have? These are just ranges of sex-specific hormones. However, when diving deeper into the performance enhancement effects of these hormones, particularly testosterone, we find a plethora of research dedicated to understanding its impact on athletic performance.
Testosterone affects physical abilities, with one of the main differences being height. For instance, Schappi (11) found that "women were, on average, 166.2 cm (SD 6.5) tall and men 179.2 cm (SD 6.5)." While this study was limited to a population in Geneva, its findings are consistent with data from Medical News Today and Our World in Data, both of which conclude that males are roughly 12-13 cm taller than females on average. Interestingly, this 13 cm difference is two standard deviations outside of the female average. Additionally, a person's wingspan is typically equal to their height, meaning that males not only have a height advantage but also a reach advantage when extending their arms overhead. However, height isn't everything; in some sports, like diving or gymnastics, excessive height can be detrimental.
Still not convinced? Let's talk about strength. Although this study is old, it highlights a well-documented difference. Bishop, Curton, and Collins found that "percentage mean differences in absolute strength between males and females of each group ranged from 75% to 173% for the curl and bench press strength measures, whereas differences for the lower-body strength measures were smaller, ranging from 20% to 64%" (12). This indicates that males are distinctly stronger in the upper body and only partially stronger in the lower body. It's important to note that these data reflect both non-athletes and collegiate swimming athletes, meaning the height categories align well with our previous discussion.
Now, let's touch on VO2 max, an important measure in endurance sports like running, where muscle mass and height may not play as significant a role. Recall the SRY gene I mentioned earlier, which is involved in the differentiation of male and female reproductive tissues. During the first six weeks of development, the reproductive tissues of males and females are identical. Around week seven in utero, the SRY (sex-related gene on the Y chromosome) initiates the development of the testes. In the absence of a Y chromosome and the SRY gene, ovaries develop instead. Fetal ovaries do not produce adequate amounts of testosterone, so the Wolffian ducts do not develop. Additionally, the absence of Müllerian Inhibiting Substance (MIS) leads to the development of the Müllerian ducts and female reproductive structures.
Testosterone also stimulates erythropoiesis, which results in a higher hematocrit (the proportion of blood volume occupied by red blood cells) in males compared to females (13). Erythropoiesis, the production of red blood cells (RBCs), plays a crucial role in determining VO2 max because RBCs are responsible for carrying oxygen from the lungs to the muscles during exercise. RBCs contain hemoglobin, a quaternary structured protein that binds to oxygen in the lungs and carries it through the bloodstream to the muscles and other tissues. The more RBCs you have, the more oxygen can, in theory, be transported to your muscles. During exercise, your muscles require more oxygen to produce energy. RBCs deliver this oxygen efficiently, enabling your muscles to sustain activity. VO2 max measures the maximum amount of oxygen your body can use during intense exercise (14). Since RBCs are responsible for delivering oxygen, the number and efficiency of RBCs directly influence your VO2 max. A higher RBC count generally means more oxygen can be delivered, potentially increasing your VO2 max.
In the past, some athletes have tried to enhance their performance by increasing their RBC count through methods like blood doping or using erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone that stimulates RBC production (14). Others prefer altitude training to stimulate the same effect. At higher altitudes, the body responds to lower oxygen levels by producing more RBCs to improve oxygen delivery. This adaptation can lead to an increase in VO2 max when the athlete returns to lower altitudes.
What’s the point of all this research? These numbers represent facts that were measured and observed. While research is ever-changing, these findings were scientifically validated at the time the data was collected. Is it the same today? Maybe, but that's why new research is always conducted—to update and refine our understanding of the facts.
So, if we establish that there are differences in testosterone levels, why is this important? Recently, while traveling, I met a young man named L. We began by discussing his interesting keychain, and our conversation soon expanded to broader topics. Eventually, we touched on my experiences and perspectives on a contentious issue I had been involved in on Tumblr. I shared my background with L and asked for his views.
L, who had no previous experience in sports but expressed a desire to participate, and I both developed similar theories on how to make sports more inclusive without the need to define categories such as "woman" or "man" or to address issues like non-binary participation. We proposed eliminating gender classifications altogether and instead focusing on identifying the 'strongest' or 'best' athletes based purely on performance.
I mentioned that increased muscle building due to androgen effects (as previously explained) would naturally favor individuals with XY chromosomes in muscle-reliant sports. Eliminating gendered sports entirely might render Title IX ineffective, which serves as a protective measure for sex equity in athletics, as well as the amendments to protect gender identity and sexual orientation. However, I will discuss my concerns with Title IX's clumping of these categories later.
L suggested exploring sports events that are more sex-specific, such as gymnastics, where events are designed to accommodate general differences in the center of gravity. He proposed categorizing events based on the center of gravity or allowing athletes to choose from a limited number of events (e.g., four out of eight). L also suggested that weightlifting could be divided into weight classes to ensure fairness.
Overall, L's ideas were creative and thought-provoking, offering innovative ways to address fairness and inclusivity in sports. However...
I want to clarify that my comments about L are not meant to be critical of him personally. L has never participated in competitive sports, so his ideas about sports regulation are not informed by personal experience. For instance, Olympic weightlifting already uses weight classes for both males and females, making L’s suggestion to split events by weight class not a new concept.
To use an analogy (and I apologize in advance for this), if I were a programmer with no background in art, I might develop a program that generates artwork. While I could claim to have created art through the program, it would not make me an artist in the traditional sense, nor would it make my program the originator of any art movements. This comparison highlights that expertise in one field does not automatically translate to expertise in another. Artists of Tumblr, I am sorry I used your craft in vain, but I’m trying to make a point.
With this in mind, I asked L whether my viewpoints made me an "asshole" or a "transphobe." I strive for self-awareness and constantly reassess my perspectives to ensure they are fair and respectful. L, a fan of philosophy, reassured me that my views, while not aligned with his own, did not reflect poorly on my character. He appreciated that I had well-reasoned arguments and was open to discussing and understanding different perspectives. L valued my willingness to engage in dialogue and my intention to support an institution that is important to me while respecting others.
Thank you, L, for your thoughtful feedback and for contributing to a constructive discussion.
Shifting focus away from DNA-related topics, I'd like to discuss another area relevant to my perspective: college sports. College athletics vary in competitiveness and rewards and are governed primarily by two bodies: the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
The NAIA generally aligns with the competitive levels of NCAA Division 2 and Division 3, with Division 2 being more competitive than Division 3. NCAA Division 1 represents the highest level of competition, with the most demanding physical and legal requirements. Notably, Division 1 athletes often face legal issues related to the intense demands placed on them by coaches, including overworking that affects their academic performance and personal well-being.
For instance, Division 1 athletes frequently deal with legal contracts that dictate their commitment levels, including the number of hours they can be required to train during the offseason and academic breaks. These contracts, often presented as voluntary, are perceived more as mandatory. Athletes are expected to sign them, and while participation in collegiate athletics is a choice, the reality often feels like being caught between economic or physical hardship. With student debt already so high, the stakes are incredibly high for student-athletes.
I also want to touch on something that came up in a Tumblr discussion. I expressed my concerns that men might enter women’s events not out of genuine reasons but rather for athletic achievement. I was told I seemed paranoid and somewhat transphobic for thinking this way, but let me share a personal insight: very few people truly understand what it’s like to be a college athlete. I'll discuss the actual numbers later, but once you sign that contract, you lose a lot of autonomy over your own life.
Before college, I had a healthy body and made my own choices. But once under the coaching staff's control, they dictated everything—my weight, sleep schedule, dietary habits, and even how much sun I got. I had no say in these decisions; it was all up to them. Any college athlete would tell you the same.
Given the differences in hormones, genetics, and epigenetics that I’ve discussed earlier, a coach’s main goal is to win, often by any means necessary within legal boundaries. Transitioning is not off the table. The athlete’s role is to comply with the coach's demands or face the possibility of being released from the team. If you think I’m being dramatic, consider the media’s sexualization of college athletes. Some coaches will have their women drop to dangerous weights to gain attention from the male audience. You should probably look into Tennessee’s women’s teams. I’ve seen coaches who, desperate to turn around a losing streak to keep their jobs, might consider extreme measures, and since the legal case of Lia Thomas was won by her, this would not exclude pushing athletes to transition. Coaches have been known to dope athletes without their consent, track their location illegally, and manipulate their academic schedules to benefit their athletic careers. The latter happens far too often. But an athlete cannot argue—it’s so easy for the school to find a way to make you ineligible. With a long line of people happy to take your scholarship, you sit down and shut up.
How do I know? I was there. I’ve seen the situations that have happened. Very few of you have the same insight.
I bring up my experience as a student-athlete because I’ve faced the reality where a poor performance could jeopardize one’s ability to afford an education. You might wonder, "So what if you get cut from the team? You can just take out a loan or get an academic scholarship like anyone else." As I mentioned earlier, I was an accelerated student, which meant I qualified for significant academic scholarships—hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have covered tuition, board, housing, and more. If I had taken the academic scholarship, it would have deprived someone else who genuinely needed it. That would have been silly, especially since I had other means to fund my education.
Contrary to media portrayals, most athletes aren’t as academically challenged as they might seem. To participate in high school and collegiate sports, you must maintain a minimum GPA. And while sports outside the major men’s sports—like football, basketball, and baseball—don't offer much financial reward, the reality is frankly more stark from an insider’s perspective. For instance, Caitlin Clark, despite being a top draft pick, earns significantly less than a male athlete in a comparable position. This disparity is something most athletes are acutely aware of.
In many countries, sports like golf or tennis might offer better financial prospects, which could explain why over 60% of NCAA tennis players are international. The point I’m making is that many student-athletes pursue sports to avoid college debt. At least 90% of my teammates were in the same situation, with many majoring in pre-med or health-related fields. It’s almost like understanding the body’s functions can indeed enhance performance.
Sorry for the snark, but this is something that has bothered me throughout my college years. The persistent stereotype of college athletes has been evident from the moment I met my academic peers. Being unfairly judged and excluded based on preconceived notions about my extracurricular activities has been frustrating. I made it a point to excel academically, partly in response to this bias. Contrary to what some may believe, athletics often integrates cutting-edge research. For example, many training programs are designed to align with circadian rhythms—lifting in the morning when testosterone levels are highest and practicing in the afternoon when coordination and reaction times are optimized. It’s about applying principles of biochemistry and biophysics to enhance performance.
I want to discuss being a college athlete for another important reason. It seems reasonable to address the issue of lawmakers and other individuals making decisions about areas where they lack firsthand experience. Take, for example, women’s reproductive health and abortion. It’s a well-known issue where decisions are often made by those who don’t experience the consequences firsthand. Similarly, when it comes to transgender athletes in sports, the situation is analogous.
To illustrate, let’s look at some statistics. According to the NCAA, in the 2021-2022 year, there were over 520,000 collegiate athletes. This number is consistent with this link's reports from the NCAA and NAIA combined. In high school, there were approximately 3,850,771 male athletes and 2,954,034 female athletes. It’s important to note that these figures might include multiple team members and varying grade levels, and some high school athletes participate in multiple sports.
The likelihood of playing at any collegiate level, not just Division 1, is much lower, with about 298,424 male athletes and 239,611 female athletes making the cut. This translates to approximately 7.74% of high school males and 8.11% of high school females having the opportunity to offer an informed opinion on this matter. According to theKids Count Data Center, in 2021, there were 258,418,544 people over the age of 18. This means that for every college athlete, there are roughly 500 individuals who can impact their experience.
This approach highlights an important issue: ensuring equality for nonbinary athletes. They deserve the opportunity to showcase their talents and pursue college sports without facing prejudice or having to conform to the standards set for men’s or women’s teams.
One key aspect of Title IX that many people may not be aware of is that college sports programs must reflect the sex distribution of the student body. When there is a significant imbalance in sex representation—such as more females than males at a school—the ratio of sports scholarships and teams must be adjusted accordingly. As a result, many universities are now adding more female teams to meet these requirements, rather than cutting male programs, which often generate more funding. Interestingly enough, I find it odd that the sex ratio is what influences gender opportunities in athletics, because as we’ve learned, sex is not gender and gender is not sex. Why does sex ratios influence gendered sports?
I propose creating a nonbinary category in sports, with Title IX regulations adjusted to reflect this inclusion. This would ensure that schools offer fully funded nonbinary athletics teams with the same benefits as traditional teams, including scholarships, housing, media coverage, and outreach programs. This way, a trans woman or gender-fluid athlete would not face issues related to hormonal treatments or eligibility, as they would have a designated team that understands their unique challenges. By doing so, we can provide a supportive environment where nonbinary athletes can thrive and connect with teammates who share similar experiences.
If I didn’t care about the well-being of nonconforming genders, I wouldn’t have invested hours researching NCAA guidelines and the CFR to develop solutions. I’m committed to finding resolutions rather than merely voicing complaints.
Now, you might be wondering if I’m advocating for a "separate but equal" approach. Let me clarify: as a Black woman in sports, I’ve experienced firsthand the disparities in treatment and opportunities. Women’s sports often receive far less attention and funding compared to men’s sports. The funding for most college sports programs primarily comes from men’s teams—football, baseball, and men’s basketball being major examples. Additionally, women’s games are frequently scheduled at inconvenient times, like mid-day on a Tuesday, while men’s games are typically held on Friday evenings, attracting more viewers and creating fewer conflicts with academic commitments.
Despite my frustrations, I was thrilled to see the South Carolina vs. Iowa women’s basketball game in 2024 become one of the most-watched college basketball games in ESPN’s history. It felt like a long-awaited recognition for women’s athletics. While the 9.9 million views from the previous year were a notable achievement, it’s clear that women’s sports still have a long way to go in terms of equality and visibility. I’m getting beside the point. Those who would argue that sports are completely based on being unequal, that there are those who are genetically taller or stronger than others, make the point of regulation seem completely unjust.
I assume everyone here is familiar with the standard distribution curve, or the normal z-distribution, which is based on deviation away from the ‘normal.’ Athletics can be understood within this framework. With the Olympics at the very right side of the curve, the top 0.1% of their sport. Top-performing college athletes are well beyond three deviations from the mean. In fact, they are so far above the curve that they are considered outliers. If we examine the case of Lia Thomas, I ran the numbers, comparing her swim performance to the previous top three medalists of the 500-meter freestyle for the 2016-2024 seasons. Lia almost fell perfectly on the mean for the top three medalists, even landing slightly higher within the first deviation of the previous gold medalists within the past eight years.
A "freak of nature" would fall into the +2 or +3 categories. This is also what helps tip off the NCAA about drug enhancement usage. Again, what really threw most of the nation off about Lia Thomas was that she won in her first year in the women’s category. But what fails to be recognized is that her numbers were in the normal range for winning. Granted, this led to other speculations about her being ‘too perfect’ in the category of normal, but that’s not the point nor does it have any data relevance. She did lose a valuable 15 seconds from her personal best after undergoing hormone therapy. I won’t call Lia, when she swam in the men’s category, a bad or prime athlete. Lia, like many athletes affected by COVID, had an extra year to compete, which happened to be her last year of collegiate athletics. Looking at Lia’s numbers and rank alone is not a good indicator of her potential as a swimmer. Lia was always a good swimmer in longer-distance freestyle, even before she transitioned. Looking at Lia’s ranking as a sophomore pre-transition, she was ranked 65th among males for the 200 free that season. For a sophomore, that is not bad at all. I personally ranked a bit higher my sophomore year, but there’s always the number of people in your sport to take into account. I would estimate that if Lia had continued to swim with the males without hormone therapy, she most likely would have been on the national podium nonetheless. What irks me is the lack of data that I can find on Lia’s junior season when she was undergoing hormone therapy while competing in the male category. I know many statements place Lia as ‘bouncing’ from a low-ranking male to a top-ranking female, but I don’t believe that is the case. If someone could point me to the data set, I would love to examine it. Regardless, Lia’s lower rank in her junior year would be explained by the lower levels of testosterone, mitigating towards that of an AFAB (assigned female at birth) woman. If Lia was an ‘average’ champion her senior year, then that low rank position in her junior year is where a women’s average national champion would rank among AMAB (assigned male at birth) men.
Now, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt that much of Lia’s shift in rank her junior year could be attributed to a change in technique. She did lose muscle mass and gained the typical body composition of a female. So, really the only significant alteration was her testosterone suppression. Clearly, testosterone does something. Granted, due to the private policy of athletes' health, I don’t think much of the public has access to her health records, including her T levels. But if they were under 5 nmol/L, the NCAA would not have allowed her to compete, which she did. So clearly, they were above that level. Regardless, Lia lost muscle mass and bone density post-hormone therapy. Granted, for a non-contact sport in water, how prized is bone density?
If you really want to get into the chemistry of it, females with higher fat content float more easily due to buoyant forces. “In fact, it is the density of lean muscle tissue that differentiates it from fat. The density of mammalian skeletal muscle tissue is about 1.06 kg/L. This density can be contrasted with the density of adipose tissue (fat), which is 0.9196 kg/L” (Etchison). Normally, in any other sport, this is a hindrance, as fat adds to resistance via pulling in a downward motion, which your muscles would need to act counteractively to not only keep you up but also move forwards. Back to distributions, sorry for the weird tangent.
These physical attributes that are so valued in sports—heights, testosterone levels, skeletal structure—have distribution curves among females, or at most people have heard of as percentiles. This is a natural distribution. I don’t think I need to explicitly state that, in general, males are taller, stronger, and faster (due to testosterone). As a female athlete, these are facts I accept without feeling inferior. However, a height of 6’4” or 193 cm will land very differently on the distribution scale of males and females. I mean, Lia’s own teammates wrote a letter urging the school not to pick a fight with gender and sex, as they classified the two as separate and unrelated. While others wrote that Lia was a perfect example that transgender athletes should have an equal opportunity in a safe and positive environment (which I’m not disagreeing with), they are no longer biologically in the binary. Lia’s gender was not the same as her sex during her years of competition.
Next, my other issue with how Lia was regulated was that the NCAA measured her blood serum testosterone. "Evidence that the concentration of testosterone in the athlete’s serum has been less than 5 nmol/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 application" (NCAA Guidelines 19.4.6.C.2). As we have already discussed, 5 nmol/L is already double the standard maximum amount for females, but half the amount males have.
Then let’s discuss the paradox presented. Clearly, testosterone plays a role in performance. However, Lia’s gender and hormones matched those of a female, even though other aspects of her sex did not match that of a biological female (genitals and chromosomes). However, if women’s sports shouldn’t be policed by hormones, genitals, or chromosomes, what defines the original intent of Title IX by the separation of sex? Even when cases in the past have disqualified cis women, whose genitals also align with their sex, if their hormones were too high—cases like Caster Semenya, Dutee Chand, Francine Niyonsaba, Margaret Wambui, and Annet Negesa. Did you know about those cases? Did anyone care then? The typical causes were hyperandrogenism, more common in women of African descent. As a mixed woman, I’m well aware of this. And how have those cases been handled before Imane Khelif? The IAAF, now World Athletics, required these women to either undergo surgery or take medication to bring those T levels down. So, do we go back and award those women their medals and prize money?
Taking this tail-chasing a step further, Lia Thomas didn’t undergo a sex change (understandable, as surgery and hormone therapy would be a lot while competing and preparing for law school), but we regulated her hormones. Her testosterone was just as natural as Imane Khelif’s. If hormones don’t define what a woman is, why was it okay in this case? To further complicate matters, Imane Khelif is a boxer, which is high-contact. Fine, sure, sports sometimes include contact; it’s just part of them. But as you read earlier, testosterone affects tissue, not just blood serum, strength, VO2 max, and other factors like bone density. It definitely affects net force for strikes. One major reason the sports were originally separated wasn’t because women didn’t deserve an equal stage, but to account for the natural differences in anatomy and physiology, such as net strike force and bone density.
People get hurt in contact sports nonetheless; however, those injuries occur along the standard curve due to natural differences between athletes. Without regulation, there is a shift in the curve that would make serious injuries far more common, with death being on the far-right side of the distribution.
Genetic differences and unfair genetic advantages occur all the time in sports. All the time. I was a Division I athlete; do you think I didn’t recognize that? That I wasn’t used to craning my neck up to talk with volleyball or basketball players? That is laughable. But even between the same sports, with men and women, there is a natural distribution. Females are 95% of the time shorter and less muscular. Swimmers, divers, runners, jumpers, throwers, rowers, basketball players, tennis players, fencers, and water polo players—it's all the same.
So, what do we regulate? Hormones? Chromosomes? Genitals? Gender? All of these are out of the question.
Once again, I propose an enhanced visibility program for equal opportunities for non-conforming individuals. The interpretation of Title IX is problematic. The LGBT+ community and others agree that gender is not the same as sex. But for some odd reason, gender and sexual orientation are protected under the title of sex. We should not pick and choose when definitions are convenient. We need to make a distinction and protect these categories individually with more specific definitions. Women: Chromosomes, genitals, gender, and hormones align. Men: Chromosomes, genitals, gender, and hormones align. Non-Conforming: None of the categories need to align.
This model would allow parents to feel more at ease about their children participating in primary education without worrying that their children’s opportunities are being stolen. Every category can have distinct role models. Yes, there can be a genderqueer Simone Biles. This reduces the backlash from societal norms. There would not need to be heavy regulation of sex or gender for the non-conforming group. Thus, they would not have to change to compete. And there would be respect for athletes who do not want to compete against non-standard competitors. Some athletes are fine with whoever is in the competition, while others are not, and whether we like it or not, we have to respect their wishes as well. They are people too, just like trans athletes.
Title IX, enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, represents a critical piece of legislation designed to prevent discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (9). Since its enactment, Title IX's scope has broadened to incorporate evolving understandings of sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and I’m not opposed to protecting each category. This evolution reflects both judicial interpretations and regulatory updates aimed at providing comprehensive protections. However, this broadening also raises concerns about the implications of conflating sex, gender, and sexual orientation under a single legal framework.
Title IX mandates that no person in the U.S. shall be excluded from participation in, denied benefits from, or subjected to discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity based on sex. This includes provisions for ensuring non-discriminatory practices in areas such as athletics, admissions, and employment. Again, this is completely reasonable.
The phrase "Scope of Title IX" refers to the range and extent of Title IX's applicability, including its limitations and exceptions. It outlines the contexts in which Title IX's provisions apply, such as educational programs and employment practices. However, societal changes and legal developments have prompted a broader interpretation. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County recognized that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex discrimination. This ruling has influenced the interpretation of Title IX, leading to protections that encompass sexual orientation and gender identity. This is where I have questions about the interpretation. As we have discussed several times, sex isn’t the same as gender, nor is sexual orientation. So why does this fall under the same category? We have early distinctions between the two by John Money in the 1950s and 60s. We also have the Transgender Rights Awareness movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which emphasized that gender identity is not strictly determined by biological sex. Let us not forget the academic development and recognition between the 1970s and 1980s, where gender studies emerged! Scholars like Joan Scott and Judith Butler explored and expanded the idea that gender is a social construct distinct from biological sex. Butler’s work, particularly in the 1990s, was influential in articulating gender as a fluid and socially constructed phenomenon.
I agree completely that the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton was a step in the right direction. Gerald Bostock being fired due to his sexual orientation was discriminatory. His being gay had no impact on his job performance as a child welfare coordinator. However, the court’s ruling that firing someone for being gay or transgender is inherently tied to their sex contradicts the concept that sex and gender are not related. It’s not about sex; it’s about presentation. They aren’t being discriminated against based on sex but rather on sexual orientation and gender identity. How do you know I care about this topic? You have me reviewing 172 pages of Supreme Court files….
So, to put it plainly, sexual orientation and gender identity need to be protected but should not be classified under Title IX as they are unrelated to sex discrimination, as seen in the code of federal regulations; 34 CFR 106.61(10). Additionally, Bostock’s case was related to employment, where it is clear that no sex difference would affect job performance. As an asexual individual, I find it important to recognize and protect distinct sexual orientations alongside gender identities. I was raised in an environment where it was firmly believed that women should be barefoot and pregnant on the farm, and homosexuals needed to ‘repent’. I think that’s all poppycock. But this regulation of Title IX doesn’t align with the previous information on sex and gender.
So now that that’s all said and done, let me review my arguments clearly: Gender and sex are not the same thing. Testosterone affects performance. We have cases that regulate gender as if it’s the same thing as sex and then contradict each other, such as Lia vs. Imane. Are we policing testosterone or not? Why is a large group not directly involved in this debate having such a significant influence over the voices that are actually affected? Title IX shouldn’t protect sexual orientation and gender identity because these topics are unrelated to sex. Finally, we need to address this issue by creating a third, non-conforming category that has equal rights and access to both male and female sports. And crocodile tears? I know this sounds silly, and nepotism happens, but doesn't it strike you as odd, that a trained fighter, some one who should be use to getting hit goes down in under a minute? I'm not saying she was or wasn't dramatic or not, but I am saying that's not normal.
Once again, I’m not an asshole, nor am I transphobic. I drink water and mind my business and, as so lovingly pointed out by other accounts, I do like to write fanfiction because I find it a good way to escape the real world. But if you think you can judge a person’s entire personality and intelligence based on a hobby, I seriously believe you should reevaluate yourself. Do I find the case of Imane suspicious? Yes, for the reasons previously discussed. Would I find the case of Imane suspicious if we had a third category for athletes to compete without needing to conform to the standards of each sex? No. Furthermore, I find it very disappointing that Russia’s whistleblowing on Imane, which could directly endanger her life, is unacceptable. Also, I enjoy learning. If you think I’m wrong in my stance, please, by all means, provide me with some papers to read so I can be better informed. Show me your data and how you’ve interpreted it. It’s important to communicate ideas so we, as a collective people, can move forward. As you might have noticed through my essay, I lean towards a moderate political stance and am always open to hearing other perspectives.
Last note: If you write an insulting or derogatory letter to me, just know I have siblings. “KYS”? “TERF”? Really? Please, get a little more creative with your insults; I want to feel something. I have a father who disowned me for believing it’s okay if people aren’t heterosexual. So, up your game. If you post a death threat with an anonymous tag, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is unbecoming, and you know it. If you’re going to hate me, do it with a tag; let everyone know you disagree with me. I wouldn’t hate you for it. In fact, I’ll ask for your opinion because I think understanding different viewpoints is important, and I want to see what you see. But if you hide, I cannot see you as anything more than a ‘liberal blue-haired’ screeching.
Hanne Frederiksen, Trine Holm Johannsen, Stine Ehlern Andersen, Jakob Albrethsen, Selma Kløve Landersoe, Jørgen Holm Petersen, Anders Nyboe Andersen, Esben Thyssen Vestergaard, Mia Elbek Schorring, Allan Linneberg, Katharina M Main, Anna-Maria Andersson, Anders Juul, Sex-specific Estrogen Levels and Reference Intervals from Infancy to Late Adulthood Determined by LC-MS/MS, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 105, Issue 3, March 2020, Pages 754–768, https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgz196
S. L. Davison, R. Bell, S. Donath, J. G. Montalto, S. R. Davis, Androgen Levels in Adult Females: Changes with Age, Menopause, and Oophorectomy, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 90, Issue 7, 1 July 2005, Pages 3847–3853, https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2005-0212
M Zitzmann, E Nieschlag, Testosterone levels in healthy men and the relation to behavioural and physical characteristics: facts and constructs, European Journal of Endocrinology, Volume 144, Issue 3, Mar 2001, Pages 183–197, https://doi.org/10.1530/eje.0.1440183
Mohr, Beth A., et al. "Normal, bound and nonbound testosterone levels in normally ageing men: results from the Massachusetts Male Ageing Study." Clinical endocrinology 62.1 (2005): 64-73.
Rostom M, Ramasamy R, Kohn TP. History of testosterone therapy through the ages. Int J Impot Res. 2022 Nov;34(7):623-625. doi: 10.1038/s41443-021-00493-w. Epub 2022 Jan 24. PMID: 35075296.
Etchison W. C. (2011). Letter to the editor response. Sports health, 3(6), 499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738111422691
National Center for Biotechnology Information (US). Genes and Disease [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US); 1998-. SRY: Sex determination. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22246/
Kelly DM, Jones TH. Testosterone: a metabolic hormone in health and disease. J Endocrinol. 2013 Apr 29;217(3):R25-45. doi: 10.1530/JOE-12-0455. PMID: 23378050.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-08-01/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106/subpart-D/section-106.41
Schäppi, J., Stringhini, S., Guessous, I., Staub, K., & Matthes, K. L. (2022). Body height in adult women and men in a cross-sectional population-based survey in Geneva: temporal trends, association with general health status and height loss after age 50. BMJ open, 12(7), e059568. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059568
Bishop, Phil & Cureton, Kirk & Collins, Mitchell. (1987). Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women. Ergonomics. 30. 675-87. 10.1080/00140138708969760.
Nassar GN, Leslie SW. Physiology, Testosterone. [Updated 2023 Jan 2]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526128/
Robach, P., Calbet, J. A., Thomsen, J. J., Boushel, R., Mollard, P., Rasmussen, P., & Lundby, C. (2008). The ergogenic effect of recombinant human erythropoietin on VO2max depends on the severity of arterial hypoxemia. PloS one, 3(8), e2996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002996
