Dr. Brad Anawalt Declines To Comment

But the NCAA's Transgender Athlete Inclusion policy speaks for itself as a monument of non-science, ideological discrimination against women

I read. I read everything. That’s my job as a journalist. And that’s why I haven’t published anything in a while. I’ve been looking into the NCAA transgender inclusion policy, and the further I got down that rabbit hole, the crazier and more blatantly unfair to women it got.

As an example, trans-identified male sprinter Sadie Schreiner became a two-time All-American in his first season with Rochester Institute of Technology. Thanks to the unfair rules made by the NCAA and their partners in crime, USA Track & Field, Schreiner was able to compete with his male body and a healthy male level of testosterone, a level five times what any woman would have.

How did such a “policy” come to be? The original Transgender Handbook was drafted in 2010 by a remarkably homogeneous, exclusive band of gender ideologues. There’s an absolute omerta among the members of the group now responsible for its operation, the awkwardly named Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports. I called or emailed nearly every one of the 22 members of the CSMAS, but they either didn’t respond or declined to talk with me. That is, with the exception of endocrinologist Dr. Brad Anawalt.

Anawalt is a professor at the University of Washington and outspoken proponent of “gender-affirming care” for young children and trans-identified male athletes in women’s sports. This quote of his will give an idea how willing he is to bend and ignore science in service of an ideology (he suggests starting puberty blockers at about age 12): “We presume if puberty blockers prevent pubertal body changes, most if not all of the advantage would be removed. These blockers are fully reversible and pause puberty development to give the transgender youth more time and maturity to make a more permanent decision.”

He was interviewed for two articles recently in which he espoused the view that science alone would not settle the debate about transgender inclusion in sports. I emailed Anawalt, saying I’d read the NCAA Trans Inclusion Handbook, assorted updates, and the articles in which he’d served as a source, but still had some questions about the trans policy. I requested a phone conversation. He responded within two days saying he’d be happy to answer emailed questions. My sense is that Dr, Anawalt has only had exposure to “journalists” who question nothing, do no research, and dutifully write down everything he says.

It was such a rare opportunity to actually question someone responsible for some of the many inconsistencies, outright fallacies, foundational priorities, and unusual methods involved in the NCAA’s trans policy, I decided to make this exchange with Anawalt a post of its own.

Here are my questions for Dr. Anawalt. Since they’re based on my digging into the NCAA trans inclusion policy (which will be a separate post), you might find them revealing. Or horrifying.

************************************************************************************************

1. I notice that Eric Vilain, Nick Gorton, and Lori Kohler were chosen as medical consultants for the 2011 Handbook, and that you and Jack Turban are on the CSMAS. Also input by many LGBTQIA activist groups—ACLU, Lambda Legal, Transgender Law, WPATH. This is a remarkably homogeneous team in terms of thoughts on transgender inclusion in sports. There are of course plenty of sport scientists, biologists, and  particularly women's rights advocates (as women are major stakeholders in this policy) who could have provided alternate views on the topic. Did anyone present information that challenged inclusion of transwomen in women's sport? (I'm questioning the freedom of speech of the other members of the CSMAS as they are NCAA employees working on the policy that says a person could be fired for suggesting that including transwomen was unfair to women. I called and emailed nearly everyone on the CSMAS—there is a palpable sense of fear). Do you see a problem with the one-sidedness of this team? 

2. You've been quoted in several recent articles that the science is unclear about retained male advantage in trans women who have gone through male puberty, yet you're no doubt aware of the many reviews and studies that show male advantage is retained. There is a theory in sport that if there is a risk of harm (unfairness), the evidence need not be perfect to protect against that harm. The NCAA policy ignores that. You admit the science is unclear and that it may be unfair to women, but you nonetheless promote inclusion of transwomen in women's sport. Why? You said in an article that even if the science was crystal clear [that transwomen retained male advantage], there would still be controversy because of social justice. Whose social justice? Are you saying that even if everyone knew these rules were unfair to women, including trans women would still “be the right thing to do"  as the Handbook says? 

3. In an article, you pointed to Joanna Harper's 2021 metastudy and said it showed that it took 1-3 years of HRT for trans women’s muscle mass to become similar to women's. Actually this is the conclusion of that study: “Conclusion: In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy." The NCAA Handbook seeks to dispel misinformation—which of these conclusions was used to guide the NCAA policy?  Maybe there wouldn't be as much controversy around this topic if the facts were more accurately represented.

4. World Aquatics and World Athletics excluded trans women who have gone through male puberty from international competition. Yet the CSMAS recommended the NCAA go with a testosterone threshold (5nmol/liter for swimming and 10nmol/liter for track) though those organizations had rejected that protocol as unfair to women. (USATF had promised to align with World Athletics for NCAA Nationals; they failed to uphold that promise). Why did CSMAS make that recommendation?

5. Related to the above, as evidence of retained male advantage became more clear, World Athletics adjusted their trans inclusion policy from a T threshold of 10nmol, to 5nmol, to 2.5nmol and finally returned to the sex-based model. According to the new NCAA policy, transgender sprinter Sadie Schreiner competed in the women's category, getting All-American honors in two events, with a T threshold of 10nmol/liter, which as you know, is in the healthy male range. Schreiner also had the advantage of male physiology that's not affected by HRT—larger heart and lungs, taller, more blood volume, more advantageous Q angle, greater lean muscle. That T level is also five times above the highest level of T women will have. Was that fair? 

6. Many of the sports listed in the sport-by-sport testosterone threshold appendix set limits of 10nmol/liter, which is in the normal male range, and would be considered doping if a woman added T to that level. All the testosterone suppression studies the CSMAS used to support the testosterone suppression protocol say the participants reduced their T to at or below the normal women's level, 0.6nmol/liter to 2.5nmol/liter. The NCAA policy actually allows levels much higher than the data you used to justify trans-identified male inclusion in women’s sports. Seems like bait and switch, misleading to the public and student athletes. How was this disparity in actual allowed levels of T justified by CSMAS? Has CSMAS worked with NGBs to educate them about this disparity? 

7.  The NCAA Handbook starts off with a directive—we must include transgender athletes in sports. Of course, the only contentious colliding rights aspect is including transwomen in women's sports (why aren't we talking about transmen unfairly competing in men's sports?). The only student examples given in the handbook are of two women who identified as male but opted to remain and compete on the women's team (without T). Also one of the articles in which you were quoted included the example of trans-identifying female Quinn, who has also opted to stay on the women's team. All of these athletes have expressed a positive experience, how warmly they were accepted by their team, zero controversy, total inclusion, no unfairness, no requirement to hobble their abilities.  Why do you think the NCAA Handbook didn't use the example of Cece Telfer or Lia Thomas? Identifying however you wish but competing on the team that matches your sex seemed a perfect solution—was that ever put forward by CSMAS?  Why must we include trans women in women's sports when trans men have already found and implemented a solution that seems to work quite well—identify as you please and compete in your sex category?

That's what I got. Again, I appreciate your insights.

******************************************************************************************************

Seven hours after I sent the questions, I got this reply from Dr. Anawalt: “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this topic, but I decline to comment.”

I will be the first to admit I might have had more success getting a response if I was less confrontive. I wanted to not only call him out on inconsistencies (#6) and misrepresentations (#3), but I genuinely wanted to know what he thought about policies and methods (#5, #1, #7). As Colin Wright recently demonstrated, it’s extremely difficult to engage outspoken “trans experts” in this case, a person who is involved in making the rules for one of the largest sports organizations in the world, in a good faith exchange. This kind of no debate behavior is a losing proposition all the way around—it doesn’t reflect well on the NCAA, sports, science, the media, the policymaking process, and least of all, transgender athletes.