Idaho’s transgender athlete bill is pro-female, not anti-transgender

The ACLU announced a legal challenge to Idaho’s House bill 500, the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.“ Calling this legislation discriminatory, hurtful and anti-transgender, the ACLU suggested that this bill “bans trans girls from sports,” by “addressing a problem that does not exist.” Idaho ACLU Legal Director Ritchie Eppink noted “we have been fighting this hateful, unconstitutional legislation since it was introduced.”

They have been fighting it, but is it hateful, discriminatory and anti-trans? I submit it is not. Does it address a real problem? I submit that it does.

Sports are separated by sex because of male-female biological differences of which we are all aware. Starting before puberty and accelerating thereafter, males are stronger, faster, and bigger than females, on average, and it is not close.

Furthermore, this sex-difference isn’t about socialization or effort; it is about biology. Male physiology (muscle mass, greater hemoglobin, bone strength, hip shape, lower fat composition) is exceptionally advantageous for sport. As others have noted, the fastest female of all time has her world record beaten every year by high school boys. If sports were not sex-separated, there would be almost no college athletes, no professional athletes, and zero Olympic athletes for the vast majority of sports (e.g., track, swimming, tennis, basketball, soccer, cycling, ice skating racing, and so on). For female athletes to gain benefit from competitive sport, including the possibility of being on teams and winning occasionally, sports must be sex-separated. This is not debatable.

Enter gender. In recent years, we have seen various countries and U.S. jurisdictions pass or tacitly allow gender self-identification as a replacement for sex in a variety of arenas including sports. Many of these bills and efforts no doubt have good intentions, but they are misguided.

Gender (identity) is not a synonym for sex. People who are transgender experience a “sex-gender mismatch,” but they still have a sex, and it is on that basis that they are transgender. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of gender, and transgender people deserve full human rights. There is, however no “human right” to opposite-sex provisions. In other words, maintaining sex-based rights is not discriminatory against people of the opposite sex (including transgender people).

To be clear, being transgender, non-binary, or agender should not be a basis for discriminatory treatment on the basis of gender, but sex-based rights are based on sex not gender. Females are not disadvantaged versus males in sport because of their gender — being feminine (some aren’t) — or because of their gender identity — they feel female (some don’t, they just are), but because of their sex. Allowing born males (trans girls or trans women) into girls’ and women’s sports makes no sense, because gender is irrelevant to sport.

Thus, although cast as “hateful,” Idaho’s House bill 500 is only “hateful” if you think the sex-separation of sport is hateful (and, if so, then why aren’t you calling for unisex sports?).

Furthermore, the ACLU claims HB500 bans trans girls from sport; that’s false. It bans born males from competitive female athletics, which is, in my view, justifiable policy based on the latest scientific evidence about male advantages in sport.

I support Idaho HB500. Maybe you do not, but at the least, I urge you to consider on what basis it is “hateful” to eliminate females’ sex-separated sports because trans people experience hardships. This is both unjustifiable and unnecessary. We can create third gender neutral (unisex) competitions; moreover, many non-elite unisex competitions exist along with many other fulfilling activities for people. There is no right to compete in categories that one does not fit based on self-identification.

In the same way that it is not a violation of civil liberties to check people’s eligibility for the Paralympic Games or age for age-group categories, it is not a violation of civil liberties to maintain the sex-separation of sports and ascertain eligibility. Females’ sex-based rights matter, and for sports at least, gender is irrelevant.