Would love to see a detailed response to the USAPL policy relative to transgender athletes in competition. I heard Jordan mention briefly boycotting USAPL and was very short in his reasoning for why, but I have also seen a much more detailed description of USAPL reasoning, which was compelling to a non-scientist who is somewhat mathematically literate (engineer by training and trade). I’d love to see a more nuanced discussion to justify Jordan’s opinion that the USAPL’s policy isn’t sound.
Anubis,
I just published my transgender article in our research review this past month. You can check it out if you like.
I also don’t know that I was necessarily “short” in my explanation, but social media doesn’t lend itself to long-form responses either. Sorry if you weren’t satisfied.
The USAPL’s reasoning is flawed and potentially primie facie discriminatory for a number of reasons, though I don’t think this is their intent NOR do I view the USAPL’s leaders in a negative light.
actually interviewed Dr. Hunt and USAPL president, Larry Maile, for a podcast prior to my piece on transgender athletes in sport. That podcast will go up in the next few weeks.
That being said, here are the facts:
The current precedent for “allowable competitive advantages” has been set by the CAS at 1-3% in the cases of Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya.
We have no data suggesting trans athletes have a competitive advantage at all, though we definitely need more data in strength sports to evaluate this more thoroughly. There are, at present, only 2 quantitative studies looking at this and neither find a demonstrable performance advantage in excess of what is allowable.
The USAPL and IPF currently do not have any technical guidelines or testing policies for sex verification or gender eligibility, which makes the trans issue a bit fuzzy. How would one even know or “test positive” for being transgender? Answer: They wouldn’t unless they were taking a banned substance, e.g. testosterone in the case of FTM or spironolactone without a TUE in the case of MTF.
The USAPL is free to further the aims of its own mission statement and the interests of its shareholders, however the current policies seem to conflict with the Fundamentals of Olympism laid forth in the Olympic Charter- specifically numbers 4 and 6.
This is a wicked problem where societal “norms” and sport collide. Science does not have and WILL NOT have a suitable solution, as it does not view sex or gender as binary. That said, sporting organizations are private entities that can do as they please- to the benefit or detriment of the societies they operate in.
Do you have a link to this?
It’s behind a paywall for now: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/product/research-review-monthly/
Will put it up publicly in the next few weeks.
Great, thanks for the quick response.
Thanks Jordan!
Dr. Feigenbaum,
You probably go over this in your article, i was curious what is your source that science does not view sex or gender as binary? I ask because I’ve heard another doctor say that sex is binary.
I think its at about 17:45 where the Dr says directly that human sexuality is binary.
Thanks for your time and work.
My sources include the WHO, CDC, IOC medical commission, AACE, and the field of biology. Specifically, there are many different chromosomal compositions that are consistent with either sex and science does not view this as binary.
Example, there are 46XX that are phenotypically male and 46XY that are female in addition to sex monosomies and polysomies. This is not controversial in science.
Interesting, my follow up question would be since 46xx 46xy, sex monosomies and polysomies, intersex like caster seyemna and dutee chand are genetic abnormalities how does that correlate to transgender competition?
It doesn’t relate to gender identity or sex at all.
I wouldn’t classify them as “abnormalities”, but rather just one of many different genetic makeups that are compatible with human life. This shows that sex is not a simple binary set of categories when viewed through the lens of science. Trying to reduce eligibility down to chromosome testing (abolished in 1996), physical exam (abolished in the 1960’s), or presence of physical features that are consistent “the essence of a female” (abolished in 2018) suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the science here.
I also don’t want to comment on the appropriateness of transgender competition policy, as I am not a rule-maker or politician. Rather, reviewing the existing direct and indirect data on the topic is what i’m doing. Nevertheless, I do think that sporting organizations recognized by the IOC have a duty to uphold the Fundamentals of Olympism laid out in the Olympic Charter and many current policies seem to be in direct violation of that.