Rice University’s Student Newspaper — Since 1916

Thursday, May 26, 2022 — Houston, TX

Letter to the Editor: On fairness and trans-inclusivity in athletics

By Vinay Tummarakota     3/22/22 11:07pm

Editor’s Note: This is a letter to the editor that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. Letters to the editor are edited for grammar and spelling by Thresher editors. 

On Feb. 2, 2022, the Thresher published an opinion advocating for Seth Huston to undergo allyship training in response to his comments on trans-women’s participation in women’s sports. While I whole-heartedly endorse several of the authors’ key claims — such as their opposition to House Bill 25 — their interpretation of evidence regarding the effects of hormone therapy on trans-athletes lacks appropriate context, serving as a reminder to critically evaluate evidence in politically fraught discourse.   

For example, the article cites a systematic review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine to claim that “measures of strength and muscle area [in trans-women] also fall to less than that of cis men” following hormone therapy. However, this claim omits critical context, neglecting to mention that the review also concludes that “values for [muscular] strength, LBM [lean body mass] and muscle area in transwomen remain above those of cisgender women, even after 36 months of hormone therapy.” 



The article then goes on to cite a metastudy of eight research articles which finds “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage.” However, this metastudy includes just one quantitative cross-sectional study that evaluates the effects of hormone therapy on physiological characteristics. This singular study — which compares the muscle-mass of post-treatment trans-women to pre-treatment trans-men — found a statistically significant difference in muscle mass between the two groups. 

Given these issues with the authors’ interpretation of the literature, one might be tempted to conclude that trans-women must be barred from competing alongside cis-women in athletics. However, there are several arguments in favor of trans-inclusionary policies that must be considered before reaching such a conclusion. 

First, the systematic review notes several limitations of existing research including but not limited to the dearth of prospective studies, small sample sizes, high rates of attrition and study populations composed of untrained individuals as opposed to trained athletes. An additional limitation raised by the cross-sectional study is the lack of height-matched control groups. Given that height is associated with lean body mass and variation in height is viewed as an acceptable natural difference in most sports, studies comparing trans- and cis- athletes ought to stratify comparisons of lean body mass by height. 

Independent of these limitations, however, is the broader philosophical issue of the level of natural variation that is acceptable within a given category of sport. To examine the issue, consider the following two cases: 

Case 1: The internationally-acclaimed volleyball player Flo Hyman was born with Marfan syndrome. Marfan syndrome leads individuals to have a large height and arm-span which are advantageous characteristics in a sport such as volleyball. 

Case 2: An athlete with fully-functioning limbs is barred from competing against A3 athletes in the Paralympics due to the unfair advantages yielded by a full set of limbs. 

Considering these cases in tandem, one might reasonably ask what moral standard permits Hyman’s natural advantages in volleyball while demanding separate divisions for athletes with and without a set of fully-functioning limbs. In my view, the standard to be upheld is that overwhelming advantages - rather than mere relative advantages - constitute grounds to segregate sports. Therefore, to deny trans-women entry into women’s sports, one must demonstrate that trans-women’s athletic advantages are overwhelming such that cis-women would be effectively disenfranchised from the sporting event in question. 

The cross-sectional study highlights the difficulty of making such a determination. Although differences in muscle mass between pre-treatment trans-men and post-treatment trans-women are statistically significant, the range of muscle mass values for both groups is just shy of achieving complete overlap as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, determinations of overwhelming advantages may vary by sport because different sports rely on hemoglobin levels, muscular strength, and lean body mass to different degrees.  

Lastly, an incidental benefit of trans-inclusion in women’s sports is the greater ability to conduct prospective studies assessing the comparative advantage of trans-athletes relative to cis-athletes. Assuming that trans-athletes are more likely to compete under more inclusive policies, researchers would be better-positioned to conduct studies with larger sample sizes and well-defined controls, leading to a more precise estimation of the relative athletic advantages that trans-women may possess over cis-women. 

Thus, while I take issue with the authors’ interpretation of the literature on the relationship between hormone therapy and athletic ability of trans-women, I believe a much more robust body of research is necessary to determine whether trans-athletes possess overwhelming natural advantages over cis-athletes.



More from The Rice Thresher

OPINION 5/12/22 4:05pm
The Wellbeing Center should be transparent about its true confidentiality policies

Before you attend a counseling session at the Rice counseling center, you will be told that “the RCC maintains strict standards regarding privacy.” You will find statements from the university that your mental health record will not be shared with anyone outside of extreme situations of imminent harm, and only then that your information will be shared with only the necessary officials. This sounds great, except that these assurances bear no teeth whatsoever — no enforcement agency ensures that Rice follows its public confidentiality promises, and there are no penalties for Rice if they break them. The Wellbeing and Counseling Centers should more directly communicate the limits of their confidentiality policies when compared to unaffiliated counseling centers, and students in sensitive situations should take the necessary precautions to protect their information.

OPINION 4/19/22 11:11pm
We’re in student media to learn

This week marks the last issue of the Thresher for the year, and for the seniors like myself, our last issue ever. I have been a part of the Thresher since freshman year. And it would not be an exaggeration to say it has defined my Rice experience. As someone pursuing a career in journalism after graduation, there has been no better place to learn than at this paper.

OPINION 4/19/22 11:02pm
Philanthropy doesn’t excuse slavery

In January, the Rice Board of Trustees announced plans to move the Founder’s memorial to another area of the academic quad as part of a whole redesign, adding additional context of his “entanglement” with slavery. This comes despite continual calls from the student body to not have the enslaver displayed in the quad regardless of the context provided. It would be just for these calls to action and the majority of the Task Force Committee who voted to not keep it there that the Board of Trustees decide to not keep the memorial prominently displayed in the quad at all.


Comments

Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.