Writer C.S. Cornell: "And we are not, I think, as scared of minor eligibility changes in women’s sports as we are of the prospect of freeing ourselves from the mandate of fixed, binary sex.”
When women were not permitted to compete in sports (or study, or own property or vote) were there journalists writing lengthy articles pondering the question: “what is a man?” Is a man a testosterone level? A karyotype? A range of behaviours and preferences? It’s all so confusing!
I saw that New Yorker article, and sent an email. Here’s the second half of it. (Didn’t get a reply or acknowledgement. Wonder how many emails they got about this piece.)
++
The inevitable mention of Lia Thomas (by now, another trope of this debate) ignores the recent research pointing out that from the entire cohort of university swimmers in those years, Thomas's improvement was astronomically unusual - going from somewhere below the hundredth ranking among males to the top ranking among females. None of the other cohort of males in the same year as Thomas had anything like that improvement. There's an obvious conclusion: Thomas, having gone through male puberty, retained a significant part of that 9-12% advantage that males have over females, despite going on HRT. That constitutes an unfair advantage.
This gets to one of the key points about sport: we want it to be fair. In the 1970s, the Olympic Games and other athletic championships were tainted by East German doping of female athletes, denying outstanding but honest rivals the medals they deserved. Even today, Russia and China are tainted by accusations - and occasional confirmation - of doping of athletes. We don't tolerate it, because it's unfair. If Thomas had been born female, but had taken huge amounts of testosterone for five years from the age of eleven, and then turned up to compete, would Cornell be happy? Or might she think this constituted an unfair advantage? And how is that any different from East German doping?
Of course, no article that mentions Lia Thomas is complete without also mentioning Renee Richards. True, Richards lost to Virginia Wade at the first hurdle at the US Open in 1977. But in another puzzling omission, Cornell fails to mention a further data point: Richards was then aged 43, much older than typical competitive tennis professionals. Furthermore, in 1979 Richards was still playing, and aged 45, older than any professional woman player before or since, reached the third round of the US Open.
For comparison, in 2022 41-year-old Serena Williams, the greatest woman player ~of all time~, played the US Open and reached the third round. Richards was ~four years older~ than Williams and accomplished the same feat. Even allowing for the improvement in the women's game in 40-odd years, that data point is a significant outlier.
So you might wonder: how good was Richards before transition? Aged 19, Richard Raskind lost in the US Open first round in 1953, the second round in 1955 and 1957, and lost in the first round in 1960. As another data point, the world's 200th best male player beat both Williams sisters for the loss of three games in two sets of singles in 1998. To get into the US Open, you're probably inside the top 200 players in the world. Richards ranked as high as 20th in the women's rankings in her 40s.
No wonder Richards has said "I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me." Cornell seems surprised that Richards doesn't support trans women (specifically) competing in women's sport. Why doesn't Cornell think Richards, who has literally seen every side of the debate, might have the clearer perspective?
"Personally," Cornell writes, "I would not like to live in a world where a trans girl or woman never wins a women’s-division sporting event at any level." Perhaps Cornell will explain to the women currently losing to trans women in cycling competitions why they should feel happy about their effort going to waste - particularly those placing fourth, who would be banned if they took testosterone supplements yet are denied a place on the podium because they never got the advantage of years of testosterone around the age of 11, unlike the first-, second- or third-placed finisher (sometimes two or three of those).
Is Cornell's reasoning that women should just accept people with male physiology getting their way? She never says, but this is the part of her stance which most needs explanation. Logically, every winner implies a loser; yet in sports we also strive to have level playing fields. Why does Cornell think some people should get to bypass that requirement?
Cornell suggests that "we are not, I think, as scared of minor eligibility changes in women’s sports as we are of the prospect of freeing ourselves from the mandate of fixed, binary sex." First, the "minor eligibility changes" she alludes to -- but doesn't specify -- would allow people who have gone through male puberty to bring an unfair advantage into competition against women. We segregate sports by sex because if we didn't, women would be an astonishing rarity in medals tables. (That's part of why that 1996 IOC resolution, which Cornell refers to earlier for suggesting the end of "gender verification", at point 5 "encourages the IOC to continue working toward the goal of attaining an equal number of events for women and for men on the Olympic programme".) Women, and men who support them, aren't "scared" of that prospect; they're outraged and astonished by the lax thinking that would allow it.
Second, the "mandate of fixed, binary sex" isn't set by humans, it's set by nature. With our current levels of technology and medicine no amount of hormones or surgery will actually change your sex. You can change your appearance, you can take hormones, yet your sex won't change. Your chromosomes won't change either, and will keep telling the story of your sex to the day you die.
Cornell's essay reads like a long attempt to avoid facing facts that feel inconvenient. But at some point either you face them, or they will be pointed out to you by others who are prepared to explain the world as it is, not as you imagine it to be. I'm glad the treatment Cornell got for her PCOS means she can now look at herself in the mirror when she brushes her teeth. Will she also be able to look in the eyes of the women denied medals and podium places by people whose sex remains male, and will she tell them why they should sacrifice their efforts and aspirations in order to make Cornell happy?
I see you've done a lot of research. Even though it was a first-person essay, I'm surprised The New Yorker would not have edited or fact-checked Cornell's article. After all that verbiage, I still don't understand why she supports DSD and trans-identified males (which she incorrectly conflates) in women's sports. Unless she's worried her hyperandrogenism makes her ineligible for women's teams? Although it didn't and wouldn't. I too wonder how many emails the New Yorker received
Her only slightly valid point is: (Anyone who thinks that legions of men will declare themselves women only to compete in an easier division is, I think, missing something crucial about the nature of masculine pride.)
But all that means is “most men won’t”, but mainly because reputation matters and people perceived as skirting ethical boundaries for personal gain generally with be met with contempt.
However in a climate of social contagion and ignorance and allyship and queer pride, there is status to be gains by identity and you can not only afford “contempt” but you can use it as a badge of honor.
A trans-identified male can turn reality on its head and call critics misogynistic and trying to harm women, and such nonsense is strangely credible to the now credulous left.
But most of all we see clearly how identity produces narcissism in individuals who are prone to this.
In a sane world the narcissistic identities would be proof “be kind” can’t work, but in identity politics narcissism and victim playing earns unlimited rewards.
"Identity produces narcissism." This prodded me to think of how it also produces arrogance, self-righteousness, condescension and the tendency to justify any action, all the product of narcissism. A transmaiden can ignore reality in order to show her allyship with (crossdressing) males and have an excuse to attack other women. The transmaiden takes on the identity of the "perfect" female, one who does not waiver in her male worship.
"nonstandard chromosomes" , "atypical genitalia", "approximates the athletic advantage of the average man"? Gave me a great big headache. But it's all just cover for the idea that sex is a spectrum and fluid and whatnot. If it was real, the author could have said so in 100 words instead of 4,500
Yes, an excellent article. And for an excellent book on this subject, see Unfair Play, by Sharron Davies (UK Olympic swimmer): very well-researched and with lots of evidence/ data proving that males have no place in women's sports, whatever their gender identity.
So Cornell is a Queer Theory believer. I wonder if she secretly believes she’s a man? You can bet she feels superior to the rest of us “ladies.” Idiot is too dumb to realize she’s dumb.
When women were not permitted to compete in sports (or study, or own property or vote) were there journalists writing lengthy articles pondering the question: “what is a man?” Is a man a testosterone level? A karyotype? A range of behaviours and preferences? It’s all so confusing!
I saw that New Yorker article, and sent an email. Here’s the second half of it. (Didn’t get a reply or acknowledgement. Wonder how many emails they got about this piece.)
++
The inevitable mention of Lia Thomas (by now, another trope of this debate) ignores the recent research pointing out that from the entire cohort of university swimmers in those years, Thomas's improvement was astronomically unusual - going from somewhere below the hundredth ranking among males to the top ranking among females. None of the other cohort of males in the same year as Thomas had anything like that improvement. There's an obvious conclusion: Thomas, having gone through male puberty, retained a significant part of that 9-12% advantage that males have over females, despite going on HRT. That constitutes an unfair advantage.
This gets to one of the key points about sport: we want it to be fair. In the 1970s, the Olympic Games and other athletic championships were tainted by East German doping of female athletes, denying outstanding but honest rivals the medals they deserved. Even today, Russia and China are tainted by accusations - and occasional confirmation - of doping of athletes. We don't tolerate it, because it's unfair. If Thomas had been born female, but had taken huge amounts of testosterone for five years from the age of eleven, and then turned up to compete, would Cornell be happy? Or might she think this constituted an unfair advantage? And how is that any different from East German doping?
Of course, no article that mentions Lia Thomas is complete without also mentioning Renee Richards. True, Richards lost to Virginia Wade at the first hurdle at the US Open in 1977. But in another puzzling omission, Cornell fails to mention a further data point: Richards was then aged 43, much older than typical competitive tennis professionals. Furthermore, in 1979 Richards was still playing, and aged 45, older than any professional woman player before or since, reached the third round of the US Open.
For comparison, in 2022 41-year-old Serena Williams, the greatest woman player ~of all time~, played the US Open and reached the third round. Richards was ~four years older~ than Williams and accomplished the same feat. Even allowing for the improvement in the women's game in 40-odd years, that data point is a significant outlier.
So you might wonder: how good was Richards before transition? Aged 19, Richard Raskind lost in the US Open first round in 1953, the second round in 1955 and 1957, and lost in the first round in 1960. As another data point, the world's 200th best male player beat both Williams sisters for the loss of three games in two sets of singles in 1998. To get into the US Open, you're probably inside the top 200 players in the world. Richards ranked as high as 20th in the women's rankings in her 40s.
No wonder Richards has said "I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me." Cornell seems surprised that Richards doesn't support trans women (specifically) competing in women's sport. Why doesn't Cornell think Richards, who has literally seen every side of the debate, might have the clearer perspective?
"Personally," Cornell writes, "I would not like to live in a world where a trans girl or woman never wins a women’s-division sporting event at any level." Perhaps Cornell will explain to the women currently losing to trans women in cycling competitions why they should feel happy about their effort going to waste - particularly those placing fourth, who would be banned if they took testosterone supplements yet are denied a place on the podium because they never got the advantage of years of testosterone around the age of 11, unlike the first-, second- or third-placed finisher (sometimes two or three of those).
Is Cornell's reasoning that women should just accept people with male physiology getting their way? She never says, but this is the part of her stance which most needs explanation. Logically, every winner implies a loser; yet in sports we also strive to have level playing fields. Why does Cornell think some people should get to bypass that requirement?
Cornell suggests that "we are not, I think, as scared of minor eligibility changes in women’s sports as we are of the prospect of freeing ourselves from the mandate of fixed, binary sex." First, the "minor eligibility changes" she alludes to -- but doesn't specify -- would allow people who have gone through male puberty to bring an unfair advantage into competition against women. We segregate sports by sex because if we didn't, women would be an astonishing rarity in medals tables. (That's part of why that 1996 IOC resolution, which Cornell refers to earlier for suggesting the end of "gender verification", at point 5 "encourages the IOC to continue working toward the goal of attaining an equal number of events for women and for men on the Olympic programme".) Women, and men who support them, aren't "scared" of that prospect; they're outraged and astonished by the lax thinking that would allow it.
Second, the "mandate of fixed, binary sex" isn't set by humans, it's set by nature. With our current levels of technology and medicine no amount of hormones or surgery will actually change your sex. You can change your appearance, you can take hormones, yet your sex won't change. Your chromosomes won't change either, and will keep telling the story of your sex to the day you die.
Cornell's essay reads like a long attempt to avoid facing facts that feel inconvenient. But at some point either you face them, or they will be pointed out to you by others who are prepared to explain the world as it is, not as you imagine it to be. I'm glad the treatment Cornell got for her PCOS means she can now look at herself in the mirror when she brushes her teeth. Will she also be able to look in the eyes of the women denied medals and podium places by people whose sex remains male, and will she tell them why they should sacrifice their efforts and aspirations in order to make Cornell happy?
I see you've done a lot of research. Even though it was a first-person essay, I'm surprised The New Yorker would not have edited or fact-checked Cornell's article. After all that verbiage, I still don't understand why she supports DSD and trans-identified males (which she incorrectly conflates) in women's sports. Unless she's worried her hyperandrogenism makes her ineligible for women's teams? Although it didn't and wouldn't. I too wonder how many emails the New Yorker received
Her only slightly valid point is: (Anyone who thinks that legions of men will declare themselves women only to compete in an easier division is, I think, missing something crucial about the nature of masculine pride.)
But all that means is “most men won’t”, but mainly because reputation matters and people perceived as skirting ethical boundaries for personal gain generally with be met with contempt.
However in a climate of social contagion and ignorance and allyship and queer pride, there is status to be gains by identity and you can not only afford “contempt” but you can use it as a badge of honor.
A trans-identified male can turn reality on its head and call critics misogynistic and trying to harm women, and such nonsense is strangely credible to the now credulous left.
But most of all we see clearly how identity produces narcissism in individuals who are prone to this.
In a sane world the narcissistic identities would be proof “be kind” can’t work, but in identity politics narcissism and victim playing earns unlimited rewards.
"Identity produces narcissism." This prodded me to think of how it also produces arrogance, self-righteousness, condescension and the tendency to justify any action, all the product of narcissism. A transmaiden can ignore reality in order to show her allyship with (crossdressing) males and have an excuse to attack other women. The transmaiden takes on the identity of the "perfect" female, one who does not waiver in her male worship.
Brilliant article, thanks for wading through this so we don't have to.
"Cornell just wears the reader down with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of circular words with no apparent point.".
This is resonating with me so much, it is so hard to reason with beliefs that don't make sense, often also relying on words that have been redefined.
"nonstandard chromosomes" , "atypical genitalia", "approximates the athletic advantage of the average man"? Gave me a great big headache. But it's all just cover for the idea that sex is a spectrum and fluid and whatnot. If it was real, the author could have said so in 100 words instead of 4,500
Yes, an excellent article. And for an excellent book on this subject, see Unfair Play, by Sharron Davies (UK Olympic swimmer): very well-researched and with lots of evidence/ data proving that males have no place in women's sports, whatever their gender identity.
OMG! This is the first time I've been able to laugh on this topic. Humor is good. Thank you for your way with words.
So Cornell is a Queer Theory believer. I wonder if she secretly believes she’s a man? You can bet she feels superior to the rest of us “ladies.” Idiot is too dumb to realize she’s dumb.