My email exchange with a "SoCal male runner with a liberal bent"

Zero tolerance for men in women's sports vs "trans women" in women's sports would be ok if it could be made fair

I had an elucidating email exchange with a self-described “longtime Southern California male runner with a liberal bent.” I want to see what you think.

We are about the same age, and have similar exposure to and knowledge of men in women’s sports. We both live in very blue states. We’ve had many email conversations, with me taking a hardline approach (no men in women’s sports, no compromises on language) and senor SoCal seeking “wiggle room.”

He recently forwarded me Joanna Harper’s most recent rehash of Harper’s same debunked ideas around hobbling males sufficiently that they can compete “meaningfully” in the female category. I was very quickly up in SoCal runner’s business over his insistence on finding some way for men to compete in women’s sports. I escalated out of frustration with his refusal to engage with what I feel is the whole ball of wax—that women are a distinct sex class of humans deserving of their own sports and spaces. Basically, that men are not women. He deflected. I ranted. He sought middle ground, to the point where I thought, am I being fanatical here? Our conversation was massively unsatisfactory to me because SoCal runner would not engage with my primary question, but then again, maybe I am being too purist, too unwilling to compromise.

So, with his permission, I reprinted our exchange below, hoping you’ll have a think about it. Does the difference in our sex color our stances? These topics are rarely black and white, wrong or right—do you see a solution that includes a little of column Me and a little of column Him? Where do you stand on this, and why? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Put them in the comments.

SoCal runner: with the usual limitations, particularly w regard to young, elite athletes. At first glance, very similar to her age old study of trans runners. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.70036

Me: Thanks for forwarding. I haven't read it but I imagine it's the usual T suppression crap. It's depressing she can get this shit published and this will be hailed as evidence by the MSM. And a lovely good morning to you!

Me: Wait, the heck?! A survey?! She just asked 9 runners and one swimmer some self-reported questions?! And the swimmer's self reported performances only decreased by a max of 5. something%, and runners as little as 5.something%?! And Harper never mentions that these decreases don't even touch the average difference between male and female performances?! Aaagh!

SoCal runner: Just saw your second email. I think there's physiology as well as self report. I didn't see the percents you're reporting. I saw 15 percent for distance running, and Age Graded equivalencies. But agree, there's nothing where these women fit into the larger, more important context.

Me: If it's a survey I think that's just questions, no lab study. Yes, I misread the running decrease--Harper did find 15% decrease in performance, but the one (1!) swimmer performance only decreased by 5% and his rank increased in the female category whereas Harper reports the runners age graded results (which is a sort of ad hoc BS unscientific measure) is approximately equal from male to female categories. But Harper's entire big picture is irrelevant—humans do not change sex. Trans women are male and thus, regardless of what they do with hormones or surgery, do not belong in the female category. Harper assumes women have no right to their own sports—an eye-wateringly misogynistic assumption

SoCal runner: Hmmmm, I would have no issue with trans women in sports if I thought it was fair. But I don’t.

Me: Why? Why should women give up their right to single-sex sports to men? [seven hours later] Not a rhetorical question. I'm very interested in your response

SoCal runner: Sorry, slow here. We had an airline hell situation yesterday that made our return home 24 hours later than expected. Catching up with all sorts of junk today. I suppose I'm not hung up on male/female divisions. I'd be fine with gender divisions if shown that everyone in the gender division was operating with the same performance potential. A mix of T and blood measures and whatever else is important. For example, while it's not shown yet by any good science, I'd be okay with trans women competing in women's marathons after, say, 3 years of gender therapy. I just made up the 3 year rule. It looks to me like performance would be similar after 3 years, but we need more and better research first. And it won't be easy to come by. The big problem with my position is that it would require different rules for every sport. Boxing might be different from javelin, might be different from sprints, might be different from 5000 meters and up. Of course, a blanket puberty rule would be much simpler.

Me [next day]: Back up about 20 assumptions. You didn't answer my question which gets at your "not being hung up on male/female." All that mucking about in the weeds of advantage—well, what about if TW hopped on one leg AND took estrogen for 2.3 years, FFS—while at the same time missing the elephant-sized, embarrassingly misogynistic assumption upstream: you're assuming that women are not worthy of their sports category based solely on the fact that they are a distinct sex class of human being. No questions, no proving disadvantage. Just because they're women. Did you ever think perhaps the reason you're "not hung up on male/female" is because, as a male, you've always had every right in the world? And IF you follow your—and I'm going to be blunt here—blindingly stupid "gender" categories of people with "the same performance potential," you will essentially ensure males still have an entirely male category at the high end of the performance scale but women will be sharing their category with mediocre men. If you don't recognize women as a distinct sex class worthy of their own sports BECAUSE they are female, then women always lose. If women don't have sex-based rights, they have no rights. Now go back and answer my original question—why should women give up their right to single-sex sports to men?

SoCal runner: I had to review the WA [World Athletics] 2023 rules and the new SRY test rule. I haven't spent much time with these. I thought the old rule was good, as it seemed to provide some wiggle room for trans women who transed early and stuck with it. But I also think the new, stricter rule is good. I assume you're a big supporter. I favor almost anything that allows gender fluid folks to find a comfortable place with their identified gender. But I do think sports need a hard male/female line in the sand. I know some are saying the SRY test is not definitive,but when I asked the expert I find most knowledgeable about sports-gender-gender testing, he assured me that the modern SRY test is simple and conclusive when combined with known exceptions. I asked "What about all the old problems with gene testing?" He basically replied, "Gone. No more issues. The testing now is simple and accurate." I've since read articles by scientists who say otherwise, but I respect this guy close to 100%.

Me: We're talking parallel to each other. You've not engaged with one thing I wrote, nor did you answer that basic foundational question. Trans women are men ffs. Gender fluid is bullshit. Male/female is perfectly knowable and immutable. "Not being hung upon male/female," "wiggle room" is a cowardly way of saying women are not a distinct and immutable sex class, and therefore not deserving of rights for that reason alone. Own that. Your stance is as misogynistic as anything that has come out of Andrew Tate's mouth. Gender anything is the faux progressive version of Matt Walsh. But he owns it. You still haven't answered my first question because you're too ashamed to say out loud that, yes, women should give up their rights to some men because they're men. And they deserve them but women don't. I'd rather not talk about this anymore unless you're willing to engage with my original question

SoCal runner: I agree with you on the biological birth question. I'm less sure that Joanna Harper should be disallowed from F age-group competitions.

[Note from me: Harper is a male with a feminine identity who competed in the female category of distance running events first, and then began gathering anecdotal evidence from other males to try to prove that testosterone suppression is enough to create, if not fair, then “meaningful” competition. That’s assuming women are willing to accept some level of unfairness, and accept men in their sports. Harper has expressed frustration that women have pushed back on his “solution.”]