Some of you are pointing to Laurel Hubbard's loss in the Olympics as a victory for trans women. As if to say:
"See look! Trans athletes competing does not mean an automatic win for trans women."
But that's really not a useful way to look at it.
No. She didn't get an automatic win just by merit of being born male. Not any more than I could automatically outlift these incredible, hard-working women just cause.
That's not the question.
The question is, does she have unfair advantages over her peers?
The answer is an obvious yes.
And I refuse to believe that saying so makes me a transphobic hatemonger.
Admittedly I haven't studied her workout routine and this is a surface-level evaluation, but, according to what I read, she once set records as a man back in the 90s before quitting lifting cold-turkey in 2001. She didn't get back into weightlifting seriously until 2017.
Here's the thing, even if they evaluate competitor gender based on testosterone level and whatnot, she still had years of elevated testosterone to aid prior muscle growth before her transition not to mention full male physiological advantages. Then she STILL qualified to compete in the Olympics even though she only started lifting again in 2017.
She built muscles for years as a man, took a decade-plus hiatus from lifting, then easily beat out women in her weight class for Olympic qualification after retraining a meager four years.
I don't understand why people push back against disqualifying biological males from competing against biological females, particularly when it comes to things like weightlifting.
I just don't think it makes me some kind of transphobic bigot to acknowledge important differences, especially concerning athletic competition.
Nor am I some Republican nut-job who thinks "weak, crafty men are going to transition JUST so they can overpower female competition." That's insane. I'm not saying anyone would ever do that and, if you point to a few outliers, I don't think "the desire to win at sports" is a significant motivator for trans women any more than "perverts sneaking into women's bathrooms" is. That's dumb.
All I'm saying is that this case is just like many others where we have to acknowledge certain biological differences when reaching an informed opinion.
If I'm a doctor and I advise my African American patients to be especially wary of sickle cell anaemia, more so than my white patients, that doesn't make me some baneful racist. It's just a biological reality and a medical professional would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
That may not be the most useful comparison, but I can't help but believe that people are thinking far more with their heart than their mind when it comes to trans women in sports.
Like they're thinking:
"Oh my... if I acknowledge that there are legitimate, non-bigoted reasons that trans women shouldn't compete with biological women, I'll be undermining the whole trans movement and outing myself as a transphobe. Can't have that!"
But that's an unfounded anxiety.
Acknowledging that trans women shouldn't compete against biological women doesn't make you more of a bigot than the doctor who tells his African American patients to be especially wary of sickle cell anaemia.
Those are just obvious facts.
You can still be an ally to trans women and an advocate for the whole LGBTQ+ movement while acknowledging basic, obvious, scientifically valid differences.