By Jeremiah Ancheta

Plenty of anti-trans* bills filed in recent years involve prohibiting “trans students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.” According to the Human Rights Campaign, there were “7 anti-trans sports bans in Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Montana, and West Virginia” in 2021. 2022 saw anti-trans* sports bans introduced, passed, or signed in Delaware, South Dakota, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Utah.

One case that has seen popularity in the news involves Lia Thomas, a transgender woman competing in collegiate swimming. Many who do not support Thomas’ participation in women’s sports teams claim that it is unfair and reject her trans-identity. According to CNN, “an anonymous letter written on behalf of 16 of her 40 Penn teammates criticized what they saw as her ‘unfair advantage.’”

These reasons for prohibiting transgender women from competing in sports go far back as the 1970s. In 1975, Renee Richards faced discrimination in tennis for being a trans woman. According to Sports Illustrated, “when she accepted [an invitation to play in the Tennis Week Open], 25 players in the field promptly withdrew, claiming Richards still had the ‘muscular advantages’ of a man.”

This post will demonstrate why the justification for prohibiting trans* women from competing in sports is problematic. In doing so, I will appeal to Andrea Bianchi’s paper Transgender Women in Sport and Ivy & Conrad’s Including Trans Women Athletes in Competitive Sport, both of which directly address the topic.

The “Problem”

As stated before, many who want to prohibit transgender women from competing in women’s competitive sports claim that it is ultimately unfair. Bianchi describes their argument, which she calls the Fairness Argument, as follows:

“This unfair advantage is because they are viewed as having certain aspects of male physiology. Critics often believe that having, on average, more testosterone gives them an unfair advantage that makes them perform immensely better than their female-born counterparts (Schultz 2011). Insofar as this is an unfair advantage, the argument goes, trans* women should not be permitted to compete in female categories.”

To clarify, this argument consists of three distinct empirical premises:

1. The amount of testosterone one has is positively and causally associated with one’s physical performance.
2. On average, trans* women have more testosterone than cis women.
3. From (1) and (2), trans* women will, on average, perform physically better than cis women.

Given these premises, it is argued that trans* women have an unfair advantage when competing with cis women in sports. Since trans* women have an unfair advantage over cis-women, they should not be allowed to compete with each other.

If we accept the three empirical premises to be true, how does it follow that trans* women should not be allowed to compete with cis women in sports? According to Bianchi, “One explanation for this argument is the skill thesis, which says that sports are meant ‘to determine which opponent is more skillful’ (Simon 2007, 13). In order to test competitors’ skillfulness, the significance of unfair external influences needs to be mitigated.” 

In other words, the seeming purpose of sports is to determine which individual/team is more skillful – all else being roughly equal. So the idea is that trans* women perform better than cis women, not because of skill but because of the testosterone difference between the two groups. Since trans* womens’ alleged better performance is not due to skill, they should not compete in sports with cis women to maintain the skill thesis, as the argument goes.

Testosterone and Physical Performance

The first three empirical premises have been under contention, which undermines the fairness argument. According to Veronica Ivy and Aryn Conrad in their paper Including Trans Women Athletes in Competitive Sport, “all available scientific evidence suggests that there is no overall relationship between endogenous testosterone and sport performance.”

The scientific research that Ivy and Conrad cite challenges the aforementioned claims. Here are some notable findings:

• “(e.g. Harper 2015, Harper et al. 2018) indicates that post-transition women have no competitive advantage over cis women.”
• “Gooren and Brunk (2004)… the differences within a gender are much larger than the average differences between genders.”
• “Guth and Roth (2013, 656) note, bodies are extremely complicated and it’s not as simple as isolating one or a few genetic or hormonal factors are predictive of athletic success.”
• “In the full paper [Bermon and Garnier 2017] it is clear that they showed no relationship between endogenous testosterone concentration and performance in elite women athletes…”

Furthermore, “even if we granted the premise that there is a relationship between

endogenous testosterone and performance, we permit much larger competitive advantages than is being attributed to testosterone, such as height, metabolic mutations, socioeconomic status, coaching, access to facilities, etc.” In other words, testosterone levels are not the sole determiner in one’s sports performance. If we segregate groups based on testosterone to maintain the skill thesis, then why don’t we segregate groups based on these other factors?

However, even if we grant critics that their empirical claims are true, it does not follow that trans* women should be prohibited from competing with cis women. We will take this approach to show that, even in its strongest form, the fairness argument fails.

Permissible Biological Advantages

Bianchi points out that biological endowments that allow one to perform better than others are already present in competitive sports. Bianchi mentions Michael Phelps and says “it is plausible that his success is at least partially influenced by his ‘wingspan,’ the fact that he is double jointed, and his size 14 feet (Hadhazy 2008). Each of these characteristics is [sic] genetic attributes that many of his competitors probably lack.” 

Michael Phelps, whose success as a competitive swimmer we are fine with, has biological advantages that allow him to perform better than his peers in sports. But as mentioned before, the purpose of sports is to determine which competitor is more skillful – all else being roughly equal. If we should disallow trans* women from competing in sports with cis women due to an unfair advantage the former have due to biological factors (testosterone), then it seems that we should disallow Michael Phelps from competing in sports with other competitors due to an unfair advantage he has over others due to biological factors (wingspan, joints, feet size).

Since we allow many athletes to compete with others despite external factors that advantage them in seemingly unfair ways over others, then we should allow trans women to compete in sports with cis women. As Bianchi says, we should allow trans* women “to compete in female categories since natural genetic endowments are already a part of sports.”

Conclusion

Those who are against trans* women from competing in sports with cis women claim that the former have an unfair advantage due to their testosterone levels that allow them to perform better than the latter. However, such claims are under contention and the current scientific evidence puts doubt on them. 

But even if we grant these empirical claims to be true, it does not follow that we should prohibit trans* women from competing in sports with cis women. There are many acceptable instances in sports where some competitors have biological endowments, that others do not, that allow them to perform better than others. Since we accept such instances, then we should accept trans* women competing in competitive sports with cis women.

By Meghan Serceki

Friday, April 22 is the Day of Silence to decry the silence surrounding challenges LGBTQ+ students face. Students, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation, are encouraged to remain silent throughout the school day, ending the demonstration with a Breaking the Silence rally.

Established in 1996 by a group of students at the University of Virginia to highlight the issues LGBTQ+ students face at school — issues which often are silenced or ignored —he observance has been picked up and organized by GLSEN and remains vital today. 

LGBTQ+ youth experience bullying and other forms of negative treatment at disproportionately higher rates than their cishet counterparts. A 2021 study from The Trevor Project found that 52% of LGBTQ+ students reported being bullied, compared to 20% of the general public. This number was even higher for trans* individuals, with 61% experiencing bullying of any form.

The same study showed that LGBTQ+ students at schools which affirm their identities were 30% less likely to experience bullying than those at schools which do not. This is great news because it shows there is a way that schools can support their students and reduce bullying, but unfortunately many schools aren’t LGBTQ-affirming.

Bullying is one of the many issues faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in the educational system, but it reflects the impact of the inequities they face. Bullying rates have been directly tied to suicide rates, signaling reasons why these rates are significantly higher for LGBTQ+ individuals. New legislation like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” show a backlash to important affirming practices. The progress we’ve made is now being threatened, and, in turn, may be threatening the lives of many LGBTQ+ youth.Join the Day of Silence. Check out the website and make a pledge to participate. The GLSEN website has many resources for students participating in it, including virtual Breaking the Silence rallies, Zoom backgrounds, social posts, and more.

By Meghan Serceki

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson officially announced plans to ban conversion “therapy.” More accurately, though, they plan to restrict it. Because there’s one huge group excluded from the motion: trans* individuals. 

It’s a step, but not a sufficient one. Conversion “therapy” is still in existence throughout the world, and it continues to put queer people in harm’s way.

What is it?

Conversion “therapy,” put simply, is any organized effort to “change” someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

We put “therapy” in quotes because it is not, in fact, therapy. Rather, it’s a harmful practice often packaged and marketed as therapy to imply that queerness is a sickness which needs to be treated.

Many organizations like the American Psychological Association have spoken out against the practice. In an official statement, the APA deemed conversion “therapy” to be unethical, unproven, harmful, and unnecessary. Therefore, legitimate and ethical healthcare providers will not condone or promote these programs today.

What does it look like today?

The phrase “conversion ‘therapy’” might bring to mind images from American Horror Story: Asylum or Cable Girls, where lesbian Lana Winters or transmasculine Óscar Ruíz undergo torture to “correct” their “deviancy.” Images from these period dramas may distance the issue as they seem out of reach today. But, while the forms of this “therapy” have changed, the practice and its detrimental impacts on individuals’ lives have not.

A 2019 study conducted by the Williams Institute concluded that 698,000 people in the United States have received, or are receiving, conversion “therapy.” Of this, nearly 350,000 were adolescents at the time of “treatment.”

Each person’s experience varies. Peter Gajdics recounts being drugged and forced to smell his own feces when he had “homosexual thoughts.” Other efforts might at first seem more innocuous, marketed as counseling, treatment, prayer, or the like. But its psychological effects are damning.

In the Netflix documentary Pray Away, Julie Rodgers recalls being told that her gayness is a result of locked away trauma with men — an internal struggle she must overcome in order to be “saved” and return to heterosexual life. Her experience with this distorted “talk therapy” approach made her feel less than or unworthy, believing in the need to change a part of herself that is actually natural, beautiful, and enduring. 

“Talk therapy” is the most common form of conversion “therapy” today, and while it might not seem as immediately dangerous as “aversion therapy” or the like, it has lasting and devastating effects on its survivors.

How harmful is it?

LGBTQ+ individuals are already at the highest demographic risk of facing mental health challenges and suicide (see “The Stigma of Seeking Help”). Conversion therapy compounds the issue.

The Williams Institute found that cisgender conversion therapy survivors are twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who have not. That’s 34%. For the general population, it’s only 2.4%.

There is little data about trans* survivors, but given that trans* individuals already encounter challenges to their mental health at higher rates than other groups, it’s reasonable to conclude that the trend would carry over to those who have survived conversion therapy.

What now?

We need to continue to foster an environment of support and to advocate for all individuals. People’s lives are at risk, and everyone deserves support.

Survivors have vastly different experiences, and it’s important to listen to their stories. Some may have sought out conversion “therapy” or stay in it because they feel trapped; they feel like they need to change that part of themselves to be worthy and accepted. 

What we can do is show our support for them to be exactly who they are, to be there for them, and to support resources that truly help them. We need to leave the door open for those who have lost hope and let them know that they can live as their authentic selves. They won’t be alone.

By Meghan Serceki

Pronouns are a way of expressing one’s gender identity; your preferred pronouns show how you identify or how you want the world to see you. Using the correct pronouns is a small linguistic change that can make someone feel exponentially more comfortable and accepted.

But for some who aren’t used to it, using pronouns outside the gender binary can be daunting. It might take some practice to adjust, and you might be nervous that accidental misuse will damage relationships. So, how should we approach these conversations?

Don’t be afraid to introduce yourself with your pronouns. Even if you’re cisgender, it’s important to take part in the dialogue. You may think it’s obvious, but making your own pronouns clear will help normalize the process and destigmatize the situation. It will also make people more comfortable sharing their own pronouns and experiences. In short, it creates a safe space for others to be themselves.

If you don’t know someone’s pronouns, it’s best not to assume them. Even if you think it’s “obvious,” gender identity is way more complex than simply presenting as masc or femme. It’s better to ask than to have them feel uncomfortable.

It may be a good idea to use they/them pronouns until you’ve had a chance to ask. They may let you know they want to be called something different, but at least you won’t accidentally misgender them in the meantime.

It might take time and practice to adjust to using people’s pronouns correctly. Depending on your experiences, it may be a novel concept to use gender-inclusive pronouns or you may not have had many opportunities to practice them. That’s okay! Just communicate.

It’s about effort. Genuinely making a mistake is very different than purposely misgendering someone. 

If you feel especially nervous about making mistakes, you might want to just explain to them that it’s new to you and that you’re trying but you may slip up from time to time. Ask them how they’d like you to handle it if you make a mistake. Some may want you to move on and fix it next time to avoid drawing more attention to it. Others may want you to acknowledge the error explicitly in order to assure them that you’ve realized and didn’t mean to misuse their pronouns. It all depends on the person, and communication is key to figuring this out.

Everyone experiences gender differently, and everyone has different relationships to their preferred pronouns. It may take time to adjust, but it’s most important to try and to make it clear that you’re trying. Don’t shy away from having these conversations — they can make a huge difference.

By Jeremiah Ancheta

The last few years has seen a rise of trans representation in the media. For instance, Mj Rodriguez is a trans woman who is known for her role as Blanca Evangelista on Pose, and became the first transgender person to win a Golden Globe Award for that role. Laverne Cox is also another notable transgender actress, playing Sophia Burset in Orange is the New Black and being “the first openly transgender person to be nominated for an Emmy Award in any acting category.” The rise of trans representation in the media has also been found in the world of professional wrestling.

In his book HOOKER, Lou Thesz states that the art of professional wrestling can be traced back to the mid 1800s. However, professional wrestling first became a mainstream success with the rise of cable television, according to an article by Bleacher Report. With a boom in the popularity of professional wrestling on television, larger than life icons were introduced to the world, from Golden Era characters such as Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan, to the likes of modern day celebrities such as Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson and John Cena. 

In recent years, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) has become the largest professional wrestling promotion in the world, getting an average viewership of over 1.5 million on a weekly basis on its flagship show Monday Night Raw. Other notable pro-wrestling promotions include Impact Wrestling, Ring of Honor, and New Japan Pro Wrestling. Despite not being as mainstream as WWE, these promotions still have a large fanbase and have their content aired on television as well to hundreds of thousands of people.

Despite the long history of professional wrestling, not a single transgender wrestler was to be found in any of these large wrestling promotions. However, this lack of trans representation in professional wrestling took a turn with the establishment of All Elite Wrestling (AEW) in 2019, which has quickly become the second largest American professional wrestling promotion behind WWE. Soon after its creation, AEW signed trans professional wrestler Nyla Rose, “becoming the first major wrestling promotion to sign a transgender competitor” according to Sports Illustrated. 

On May 25, 2019, Nyla went on to be featured in AEW’s first women’s match at the inaugural pay-per-view event Double or Nothing. Since then, she went on to play a major role for AEW’s women’s division. 

On August, 31, 2019, AEW held the pay-per-view event All Out. During the event, the AEW Women’s World Championship belt was revealed and it was announced that the champion would be crowned on the first episode of AEW’s weekly television show Dynamite that would later take place on October 2, 2019. The competitors for the first AEW Women’s World Championship were determined at the All Out event – one of them being Nyla Rose who earned the chance by winning a Battle Royale that involved 20 other women. The other competitor for the Women’s World Championship was Riho, who earned her chance by defeating Hikaru Shida.

On October 2, 2019, AEW broadcast its first Dynamite episode, which featured Nyla Rose competing against Riho to crown the first AEW Woman’s World Championship. The match went on for 13 minutes, with Riho ultimately winning the belt. Despite Nyla’s loss, she continued to be a prominently featured star on Dynamite, picking up wins over other notable talent such as Leva Bates, Penelope Ford, and Britt Baker.

However, on the February 12, 2020 edition of Dynamite, Nyla went on to face Riho again for the championship, this time defeating her to become AEW’s second Woman’s World Champion, and more importantly, the first trans professional wrestler to be a world champion in any major promotion. Nyla went on to have a reign of 101 days, successfully defending the belt against Kris Statlander at the 2020 Revolution event, and losing the belt to Hikaru Shida at the 2020 Double or Nothing.

Despite being away from the championship scene, Nyla continues to find success in AEW. As of writing this post, Nyla has a fantastic match record of 60 wins and 23 losses in her AEW career. Recently, current AEW Woman’s World Champion Britt Baker successfully defended her title against Thunder Rosa at AEW’s 2022 Revolution event and has a current reign of over 280 days. Perhaps Nyla Rose could make a return to the championship scene and reclaim the belt. Maybe Nyla could go after the AEW TBS Championship held by Jade Cargill, who is undefeated in her AEW Career with 28 wins, and end Jade’s winning streak to become the new TBS Champion. 
Nyla Rose has played a major role in trans representation in professional wrestling. From being the first trans wrestler signed to a major promotion, being featured in AEW’s first women’s match, competing in a match to crown the first AEW Women’s World Championship, and eventually claiming the title for herself and becoming the first trans professional wrestler to be a world champion in any promotion. We look forward to seeing Nyla Rose and her continued success in 2022.

By Meghan Serceki

The Issue:

Texas lawmakers launched an attack against children’s rights to medically transition in August 2021, and the situation has turned even more critical in recent weeks.

In August, a letter from  the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) stated, “Reassignment surgery is child abuse, subject to all rules and procedures pertaining to child abuse.”

The letter even referred to gender-affirming surgeries as “genital mutilation” on multiple occasions, and its only exceptions include cases of “medical necessity,” one of which they define as a child being born intersex.

This has obvious impacts on trans* children and their families across the state, but now prominent lawmakers have taken this decision a step further.  

While the original letter addressed surgical procedures, Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion grouping hormone therapy (including puberty blockers) in with these “surgical procedures” which are now considered child abuse.

The Impacts:

In Texas, anyone who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report it. While this is meant to protect children, it now also means that people are required to report parents they suspect may be allowing their child to take hormones or puberty blockers. This could result in a plethora of legal consequences, and even possibly family separation.

This means that parents who have assisted their children in receiving gender-affirming medical treatments must stop immediately or risk being wrongfully convicted of child abuse under Texas law.

Especially for families with prepubescent trans* individuals, this could have long-lasting effects on their gender dysphoria. 

Some effects of puberty are permanent. Puberty blockers are not.

Puberty blockers are medications that block estrogen or testosterone. Trans* children who wish to medically transition will often start by taking these so puberty doesn’t take place. If they stop treatment their bodies will resume these hormonal changes.

Now, though, Texas law considers these treatments child abuse and will be taking away this option. This means that, while medical advances exist which would allow them to grow into the body they want, trans* children may be condemned to undergo an uncomfortable and somewhat irreversible experience. 

The dysphoria that accompanies puberty can be immense, meaning that it can adversely affect both the child’s mental and physical health. Trans* individuals already encounter mental health challenges at alarming rates and often face barriers to their treatment (see “The Stigma of Seeking Help”).

While they can begin hormone treatment after they turn 18, their path forward will be more arduous and they will face more challenges than if they had been allowed to take the blockers and hormones earlier.

Gender-affirming hormone treatments like estrogen or testosterone therapy are already administered stringently to minors. They are closely monitored by doctors to ensure people’s physical and mental health throughout the process.

The Texas law wouldn’t allow this to happen and could keep people who know their gender from being able to be comfortable in their bodies for much longer than necessary.

The Path Forward:

Right now, this is taking place in Texas, but it requires all of our attention. This could set a catastrophic legal precedence and may pave the way for other states to do the same. No matter where you are, make your voice heard.

Give them a call:

Here’s a list of the Texas House Members.

Spread awareness:

Join the conversation on social media! Tag @KenPaxtonTX, @GovAbbott, or @GregAbbott_TX to reach out to the Attorney General and Governor’s accounts.

Sign this petition:

ACLU Pledge to Fight For Trans Youth in Texas

Learn more:

Check out other publications and keep an eye on the news. This situation is changing, so stay engaged!

By Meghan Serceki

Intersectionality is perhaps the most important term to grasp in discussions of social issues. Scholar and advocate Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term in 1991 in her article, “Mapping the Margins,” to accentuate the shortcomings of identity politics. Put simply, she finds that identity politics “frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences,” and understanding intersectionality is her answer to these issues.

The Merriiam Webster dictionary defines “intersectionality” as “the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.” 

They also include a quote from Adia Harvey Wingfield saying, “Crenshaw introduced the idea that when it comes to thinking about how inequalities persist, categories like gender, race, and class are best understood as overlapping and mutually constitutive rather than isolated and distinct.”

Simply put, when talking about issues that face people who belong to multiple marginalized groups, we have to realize that they are compounded.

For example, a Black woman faces discrimination for being a Black woman — not just for being Black, and not just for being a woman. We cannot fight sexism individually from racism and improve the situation of Black women, it needs to be a concerted effort against all forms of injustice and bigotry. As Crenshaw puts it, “although racism and sexism readily intersect in the lives of real people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist politics.”

Arguably the group of individuals who find themselves situated in the intersection of the most systemic issues are Black trans women. They are affected by sexism, racism, transphobia often conflated with homophobia, and more.

In 2011, the National Transgender Discrimination Survey collected data on trans* experiences in almost every aspect of society. There’s a lot of information to unpack from the document, but it all leads to the same conclusion: trans* individuals of color face exponentially more discrimination than White cisgender counterparts.

As the introduction to the report states, “people of color in general fare worse than white participants across the board, with African American transgender respondents faring worse than all others in many areas examined.”

For example, at the time of the survey, trans* people experienced unemployment at twice the rate of the general public, and Black trans* individuals experienced it at four times the national rate. Those who were unemployed (not even accounting for race) were twice as likely to be homeless than the general population and had a myriad of other devastating consequences. Of these individuals, 55% reported being harassed by both staff and residents at shelters, and 29% were turned away altogether.

Similar trends manifest in education, health, family life, public accommodations, and more. And none of this accounts for specific gender identities — transgender women specifically.

We see this also being reflected in reports of hate violence being committed against Black trans women. The Anti Violence Project found that in 2013 a whopping 72% of victims of hate violence homicides were transgender woman, and among those the vast majority were transgender women of color.

Within this same study, the AVP found that trans* people of color were 6 times more likely to experience violence from the police compared to cisgender survivors and victims.

One of the most overt and pressing issues facing the Black community right now is police violence. We’ve all seen the devastating effects of racism built into law enforcement in the United States, and we mourn those who have lost their lives because of a corrupt system. Black Lives Matter. Black Trans Lives Matter.

Making sure their inherent human dignity is recognized is of utmost importance, and unfortunately there are many systems which seek to suppress this. It is all of our responsibility to fight injustice on all fronts.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”