Should transwomen be permitted to participate in women’s sports? There are strong differences of opinion on this issue. Female tennis legend Billie Jean King has argued in favor of “inclusivity”, supporting the right of transwomen to compete in the women’s divisions of athletic competitions. On the other hand, female tennis legend Martina Navratilova has argued that women athletes must be protected from having to compete against those who have passed through puberty as a male, and therefore she opposes permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports.
Similarly, the governing bodies of different sports have taken different positions on this issue, and while Trump has called for a ban on the participation of transwomen in women’s sports, the democrats (President Biden and Vice President Harris) have taken the opposing position. Indeed, the Biden administration’s new Title IX rules — originally passed to protect women’s sports — would not permit American schools that receive federal funds to ban transwomen from women’s sports.
In this posting, I will be discussing the various arguments (that I’ve heard and read) that have been commonly offered for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports, classifying each argument as either a “good” argument or a “bad” argument.
Criteria for categorizing an argument as a “Good” argument for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports
What makes an argument in favor of permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports a “good” argument?
1. It must be an argument for the inclusion of transwomen in a separate “women’s” division of a sport, rather than an argument for the elimination of “women’s sports” as a separate category. Thus, for example, an argument that devolves to the position that there should be just one participation category (open to everyone) – that is, that we should not have separate participation categories based on sex or gender – might be a reasonable argument, but it would not be a good argument for the inclusion of transwomen in WOMEN’S sports.
2. It must directly, or by implication, describe what the criterion (or criteria) would be for deciding who can, and who cannot, participate in women’s sports.
3. It must be consistent with the reason why we have a separate “women’s sports” category to begin with. Of course, the reason why, for most sports, we have a separate participation category for women is that, on average, males are physically bigger, stronger, and faster than females, and therefore, ON AVERAGE, males outperform females at most sports. In very general terms, in most athletic events the top women in the world are not quite as good at their sport as are the best American high school boys, and if, in the Olympics, there was not a separate women’s participation category, no female would ever make the finals (or semifinals) of any swimming or track and field event.
4. It must be consistent with evidence regarding human biology and athletic performance. In other words, if the argument is based upon a patently false premise about human biology, human development, or human athletic performance, then it cannot be considered to be a “good” argument.
5. The argument should be applied across all gender categories (that is – should be applicable to judgments about transwomen AND transmen and those who consider themselves non-binary).
I’ll start with a discussion of some “bad” arguments that are commonly proffered by those who support permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports, and then I’ll discuss what I consider to be the good arguments for this policy.
Bad Arguments.
1. “Transwomen are women”
Probably the single most commonly voiced “argument” for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports is the simple statement above – often voiced in a dismissive tone suggesting that there cannot possibly be any disagreement with this discussion-stopping assertion. And if there is any pushback against this argument, the disagreement is generally not countered with any kind of reasoning but instead is subjected to “ad hominizing”, with the person voicing their disagreement characterized as an insufferable bigot, a transphobe, and/or an ignoramus.
HOWEVER – the statement that “transwomen are women” is not really an “argument” at all — it is simply an assertion. The ACTUAL argument implied by this statement is that: (i) yes, there should be a separate sports participation division for women, and (ii) that division should be open to anyone who CLAIMS they are a woman at the time of the competition.
This is a bad argument for several reasons:
(A) It is not consistent with the reason why we have a separate category of women’s sports to begin with. The reason why males, on average, outperform females at most sports has nothing to do with how someone self-identifies but has everything to do with the biological differences between males and females, in particular, the differences that result from an individual experiencing male vs female forms of puberty.
(B) It would open up women’s sports to ANYONE who is willing, for whatever reason (including significant financial gain), to claim they are a woman at the time of the competition. If the 200th best male tennis player in the world were to decide to enter Wimbledon as a woman, he would be able to do so and he would not only win, he probably would not lose even a single game, and the end result would be the dissolution of women’s tennis as a legitimate separate category.
( C ) Those who make this argument essentially NEVER apply it to the case of transmen participating in women’s sports. For example, Nikki Hiltz is a biological female who has not undergone any form of male hormone treatments but self-identifies as a transman. Hiltz has always been permitted to participate in women’s sports and is the 2023 US 1500 m champion, won a silver medal at the 2024 World Indoor Track and Field Championships, and finished 7th in the women’s 1500 m race at the 2024 Olympics. Those who make the “transwomen are women” argument in favor of including transwomen in women’s sports should also — based upon the principle of logical consistency — demand that transmen like Nikki Hiltz NOT be permitted to participate in women’s sports – for the obvious reason that transmen do not claim to be women (indeed, they make the explicit claim that they are NOT women). Nonetheless, transmen like Nikki Hiltz ARE permitted to participate in women’s sports because (as was noted above, and as anybody with half a brain knows is the case), what matters is someone’s biology not how someone identifies, and transmen like Nikki Hiltz are biologically female. But those who make the “transwomen are women” argument essentially NEVER apply their “participation based upon self-identification” argument to transmen.
2. The sports “gender gap” is because of differences in the way in which males and females are raised, not because of biological differences between males and females.
Yes – as hard as it is to believe – there are those who claim that males, on average, outperform females at sports for sociological reasons (how children are raised) rather than biological reasons. The video linked below makes this claim – along with basically all of the other “bad arguments” listed here (and yes – I watched it so that you don’t have to waste your time watching it yourself — so be forewarned that watching it is like watching a “greatest hits” of bad arguments for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4843808-men-arent-stronger-and-faster-than-women
Of course, this is patent nonsense, reflecting a motivated deep denial of reality. Males post-puberty actually ARE (on average) bigger, and stronger, and faster than post-pubertal females — and you have to be deeply delusional to think otherwise.
3. It’s discriminatory to not permit transwomen to participate in women’s sports, and of course, discrimination is bad.
This is not actually an argument for including transwomen in women’s sports. It’s an argument against women’s sports all together, because you can’t have women’s sports without discrimination – against males. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING WOMEN’S SPORTS. Essentially the same argument is sometimes made with reference to the importance of being “inclusive” – based on the assumption that we all support inclusivity and more inclusivity is always better than less. OK – how about including all males in women ‘s sports then. The point of having a women’s category is to discriminate and to NOT be completely “inclusive”, and if you deny that obvious point, then you are against women’s sports to begin with.
4. Being able to participate in athletics is a fundamental human right. Transwomen should have that right just like everyone else.
OK. But having the “right” to participate in sports is not the same as having the right to participate in WOMEN’S sports. Transwoman Lia Thomas may not be permitted to participate in international swimming competitions, but that does not mean that Thomas cannot participate in competitive swimming at all; Thomas is fully eligible to swim in the competitions that are open to people – like Thomas – who went through puberty as males. Thomas may prefer to swim in the women’s category, and may even choose not to swim competitively if not permitted to swim in the women’s category, but that is not the same as not being permitted to participate in competitive swimming at all. The idea that, if someone is not permitted to participate in women’s sports, then that person has been completely prevented from participating in sports, is obviously and simply untrue. In fact, about 50% of humans are not permitted to participate in women’s sports, but many of them (males) participate in competitive sports anyways.
5. Transwomen do not always win when competing against females, so that means they should be permitted to participate in women’s sports.
Again, you can hear this argument made in the video linked above. This is a bad argument because it is simultaneously true, and not really relevant. Basically, those who make this argument are saying that unless and until transwomen can win every time they compete at every level within women’s sports, they should be permitted to compete. That argument denies the obviously very broad range of human athletic abilities WITHIN each sex and is incompatible with the fact that transwomen who have passed through puberty as males retain most aspects of the biological male advantage in sports.
The nonsensical nature of this argument can be seen clearly when applying it to the case of age group divisions in different sports. By analogy, if one applies this argument to age group athletics, it should be OK for 14-year-olds to compete in the “12 and under” category in age-group swimming so long as the 14-year-olds sometimes don’t win. Of course there will be some 14-year-olds who can’t beat some 12-year-olds, just as some transwomen can’t beat some females. But that is not an argument for opening up the “12 and under” category to 14-year-olds (who, on average, have a biological advantage over 12-year-olds), and it’s not an argument for opening up the “women’s” category to transwomen (who retain the male advantage in athletic ability if they passed through male puberty).
6. Michael Phelps’ abnormally long arms provide him with a genetic/biologically-based advantage, so what’s the big deal about transwomen having a different kind of genetic/biological advantage?
This argument is made frequently by those who support permitting transwomen to compete in women’s sports, and the argument is often made with a “gotcha” tone and look – as if this is the ultimate “game, set, and match” killer argument that cannot be refuted.
It’s true that part of this argument can’t be refuted. Probably every gold medal winning athlete in most sports at the Olympics is a biological outlier in some manner or another (the famous case of Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe’s exceptionally large feet is just one example). Indeed, how could that not be the case when focusing on people who are the best in the world at some form of athletics? And interestingly, those who make this argument (again — voiced in the video linked above) implicitly are accepting that transwomen have a male biological advantage over women when participating in sports.
Noting other forms of biological advantages in sports (like arm length) does not make this a “good” argument for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports – for two very good reasons.
(A) The male advantage in sports is very broad – involving physical size (both in terms of skeletal structure and muscles), strength, speed, and aspects of the functioning of the cardiovascular system. And – the differentiation of males from females is a binary categorical one, grounded in the evolution of the species, and central to the social and biological processes involved in procreation of the species. There are no other human characteristics (except for age) that have all these features relevant to athletic performance and social functioning (and even age is a continuous variable rather than a binary category) .
We could, of course, decide to have separate swimming categories based on arm length (just like the weight divisions in boxing, wrestling, and weight-lifting), but that is not what those who make this argument are proposing, and in any case, an argument in favor of creating new sub-categories in some sports based on characteristics other than sex would still not be an argument for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports.
(B) More fundamentally, this is an argument for the elimination of women’s sports, not an argument for permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports. Even if we accept the (fallacious) argument that the male advantage in sports is of no greater significance than any other genetic/biological advantage, then the only logical conclusion that follows from that premise is that there is no good reason to have a separate category of women’s sports to begin with.
7. Trans individuals suffer a great deal of discrimination and have high rates of depression and anxiety, and therefore it would be cruel to not permit them to participate in women’s sports.
Basically, the premise of this argument is that we should try to be especially nice to trans individuals because they have a lot of challenges in life, and permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports is one of the important ways we can be nice to them.
One obvious problem with this argument is that it is not consistent with the underlying purpose of having women’s sports – which is that there is a sex-based male advantage (on average) in athletic performance. A second is that the argument centers and prioritizes the supposed needs of transwomen over the rights and interests and needs of women. And thirdly– the purpose of sports competitions is simply not a therapeutic one (even if some participants may benefit psychologically from their participation).
OK – having discussed the various “bad” arguments that are commonly made in support of permitting transwomen to participate in women’s sports, let me move on to a discussion of the commonly made arguments that can be judged to be “good” arguments.
Good Arguments
Well – I would move on to those “good” arguments – but when applying the criteria listed toward the beginning of this posting – there simply aren’t any.
The argument has moved between beyond trans women in women’s sports. Lia Thomas was not at the Olympics: the organization responsible for swimming said no.
Now we’re down to oddball cases like the two supposed female boxers, one of whom won the gold medal.
The organization for boxers had failed both of them earlier. They have XY chromosomes. But the boxing organization has been deemed corrupt so the Olympics banned them and ignored their test results. The Olympics itself has no rules beyond checking athletes passports. So they got in.
Some people think they might like Caster Semenys, with XY chromosomes but also with a congenital defect called 5-ARD. The babies are born without male genitalia and are thought to be girls. But they have male strength after puberty.