So the problem with Connecticut's policy, and that of sixteen other states, is that there's no qualification beyond self-ID. A biologically male teenager who just came out as trans could start competing in female events immediately. Given that it's hard for trans teenagers to get blockers and harder still for them to get cross-sex hormones, I feel like the odds are likely that these two runners have been taking t-blockers and estrogen for a substantial length of time, if at all, is very low. And of course that's another problematic point, because it's not like trans youth generally choose to go through puberty as their birth sex. It's forced on them because of concerns about how blockers affect bone growth, and about what happens if they change their minds.
Andraya Yearwood wrote:“One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” she said. “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.”
This is true and also irrelevant. It's basically the same argument McKinnon uses, and it really annoys me. For one thing, based on the picture, both of these girls are taller than their closest cis competition, another advantage trans women tend to have. (I imagine we hear about it less because there's much more overlap in height than in physical strength, gets brought up a lot less, though I imagine it will become a topic of conversation if 6'5" transwomen start to dominate the WNBA.) But for another thing, in a lot of sports, sex is basically the
single greatest innate predictor of success.
For this reason, we've decided that we're going to have separate competitions based on sex, which really comes down to hormones and their effect on the body. Meaning it makes sense for this to be about sex and not gender identity, though it would be great if we could still accommodate gender identity as much as possible without giving a transfemale competitor a grossly unfair advantage. Unfortunately, in this case, in McKinnon's case, and in case of the wrestlers discussed above, yes, it does feel to me, and to most people on this thread, it seems, like they're getting an unfair advantage.
That said, I want to be clear on something that came up in this article. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but it really upset me, so I need to vent about it: It is not OK to harass transwomen for competing in female competition.
I mean, I'd say it's pretty much never OK to harass anyone, but this seems to be a case where people feel like they have license to harass them because they're "cheating." That's not what Navratilova did, she just expressed her opinion, but a lot of people do direct a lot of vitriol towards trans athletes, including, from the sound of it, these two Connecticut teenagers. And while I believe the situation is unfair, they're still playing within the rules. If you have a problem with that, I absolutely believe it should be OK to express it to the authorities that allow it.
But
do not direct your complaints directly to the athletes. Even the most civil, well-thought-out, and empathetic arguments, when coming from strangers, are likely to come across as invalidating. And from what I've seen, the kinds of people likely to confront trans athletes directly are likely to be pretty far from civil, well-considered, and empathetic. Not only are they needlessly inflicting harm, but even if they don't care one iota about the feelings of trans people, they should care that it's likely counterproductive, leading to doubling down and stupid arguments as defense mechanisms.