"The primary reason trans athletes are treated with mistrust is either based on unsubstantiated fears regarding fairness or because the child may appear different from their peers."

This passes for research at the Tucker Center

Probably you are sick to the back teeth of me yapping about the Tucker Center and Nike’s insidious Coaching HER re-education initiative. I’m stuck on it because it’s the most well funded, global, concerted effort I’ve seen to indoctrinate coaches, athletic directors, and policymakers—people with direct access to girls age 11 to 17, who do not have the protections women at the elite level have to single-sex sports. It’s a big deal. And it’s based on roundly debunked pseudoscience and outright lies. And the Gender Unicorn, for the love of god. What legitimate research includes a cartoon unicorn announcing there are an unspecified number of sexes including male, female, intersex, and “another sex?”

In this, my third and final dive into the Coaching HER cesspit, I’ll focus on the Tucker Center’s 242-page research report, Developing Physically Active Girls, published in 2018 that underpins Coaching HER. This report builds on two previous reports published in 1997 and 2007. Many of the studies referenced in this report are from pre-2008, when the Tucker Center still believed in the biology evident in the real world, so this 2018 report is a mishmash of legitimate science and more recent science-free detours into the gendersphere. Recognizing the inconsistency, the 2018 version says this about the definition of girl:

The definition of girls used in the 2007 Tucker Center Research Report is reapplied herein—the term girls refers to female children and youth 18 years old and younger.

Using the 2007 definition of female, likely prior to the Tucker Center’s capture by gender ideology, would seem to be a sex-based definition of girl. Sex-based issues—menarche, female athlete triad, amenorrhea, osteoporosis, injuries that affect girls—are brought over from previous editions of the report and thrown together with more recent “research” dedicated to including boys who identify as girls in girls’ sports:

In the current report we approached adolescent females as a more nuanced and varied group and wherever relevant, we highlight that point. For example, there are specific chapters that focus exclusively on invisible, erased, and underserved girls— immigrant girls, girls of color, girls that identify as lesbian, transgender individuals (note: individuals, not girls).

This report always included transgender individuals in the list of the underserved and oppressed. By far and away, transgender or nonbinary children are white, middle class, and fully abled. They are neither oppressed nor underserved. Yet, below, Tucker Center director, Nicole LaVoi, laments barriers to a truly underserved population, East African girls, BARRIERS THE TUCKER CENTER IS BUILDING BY INCLUDING MALES IN FEMALE SPORTS:

“immigrant East African girls who are practicing Muslims express a desire to play youth soccer and swim but also express a strong desire to adhere to religious and cultural norms of privacy (Thul & LaVoi, 2011), but few programs are willing to make accommodations that make participation possible.”

The Tucker Center is complicit in erecting barriers to girls’ participation, but pretend they don’t see it.

There was a passing reference to “Title IX’s unequivocal, significant and direct impact on girls’ opportunity to participate in sport is unprecedented,” though they seemed to want to skate over Title IX because its success is due to acknowledgement of sex differences, not a quasi-religion that denies it.

Those were overall observations. Now let’s focus on the chapter dealing with LBTQ inclusion. “The 2018 report features chapters written by leading experts in their respective academic fields. This has resulted in a collection of diversified knowledge that is cohesive, relevant, and cutting edge.”

Yes, well, we’ll see about that. Chapter 8, Lesbian and Transgender Youth and Physical Activity Contexts, was written by the following experts, including a graduate student who advocates for LGBTQ inclusion.

Heather Barber, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, specializing in Sport Psychology at the University of New Hampshire. Her recent research and practice has focused on creating positive sport experiences for girls and women, and more specifically, the influence of sexual orientation and gender identity in sport.

Brent N. Darah, B.S., is a graduate student in Sport Administration, at Bowling Green University. His research interests focus on inclusion and policy for LGBTQ+ athletes in sport.

Vikki Krane, Ph.D., is a professor of teaching excellence and graduate coordinator in the School of Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure Studies at Bowling Green State. Her scholarship focuses on gender and sexuality in sport and LGBTQ+ athletes.

Follows is the straight dope from leading experts. This was the only chapter in the report that rarely used the word “girl” and was remarkably light on scientific references. Chapter 8 starts out:

“It is not unusual to hear about athletes like Abby Wambach and Megan Rapinoe in soccer and Brittney Griner and Elena Delle Donne in basketball who are open and visible lesbian athletes. We also are beginning to hear more from transgender athletes like triathlete Chris Mosier and mixed-martial arts fighter Fallon Fox.

Interesting that they chose to highlight Fallon Fox as an exemplar of inclusion, a male who broke a female opponent’s skull and bragged on social media about enjoying it. In Fox’s most recent Instagram post he’s wearing a t-shirt that says Sacrifice transphobes to satan. No reason you wouldn’t want this person in your locker room.

Turning to language and definitions:

Most often, girls’ physical sex is consistent with their gender identity. However, for some girls their gender identity is inconsistent with the sex assigned to them at birth and they may identify as transgender when, for example, they internally feel female even though they were born with a body that appears male.

A body that appears male. The emperor appears to have no clothes. What the expert is struggling not to say here is a body with a penis. Bit of a tricky point that one, so best not to linger on it. And the author doesn’t, not even to quell obvious questions about including a body that appears male in a girls’ change room. Instead, they skipped right on to an increasing, absurdly vague list of special identities.

some youth may prefer to be considered genderqueer, gender fluid, or non-binary rather than transgender (also referred to as trans); some sexual minority girls will identify as queer or pansexual (inclusive of attraction to trans people) and some young people with diverse gender or sexual identities prefer not to be labeled at all (Bosse & Chiodo, 2016). When girls feel that their sport settings are safe and inclusive, they will be more likely to share their preferred language and identities

None of these identities are defined. You’re not meant to understand. You’re meant to accept and comply. You’ll know you are speaking and acting correctly if these special children tell you how you may address them.

Overall, most LBTQ [the authors left out the G because gay people are male who say they’re male, but left in the T for male people who say they’re female] youth generally are well-adjusted; however, those who experience bullying or victimization due to their sexual or gender identity may be at risk for unhealthy mental health outcomes (Hall, 2017; Institute of Medicine, 2011).

A couple things to note here. The studies referenced here were on LGB youth, not transgender. Secondly, this study points out what many others corroborate—transgender youth are not, by any measure, well adjusted. Comorbidities are endemic—autism, anxiety, depression, self-harm, ADHD. These conditions are the definition of not well adjusted. Bullying or no, trans-identified kids suffer from many more mental health issues than non-trans children and teens. Blaming a trans child’s complex mental health issues on the rest of society is overly simplistic and manipulative.

Research shows bullying related to sexual and gender identities is strongly related to contemplation of suicide in sexual and gender minority youth (Ybarra, Mitchell, Kosciw, & Korchmaros, 2015). LBTQ student-athletes who face hostile climates are also at risk for feeling sad, hopeless, depressed, stressed and anxious; decreased self-confidence and self esteem; and increased use of alcohol and/or drugs (Kann et al., 2016; Institute of Medicine, 2011; Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2011)

Suicidality as a reason to include boys in girls sports is manipulative and unsupported by fact. The Ybarra, et al study from 2015 was restricted to LGB youth, not trans, and found, “Other factors, including depressive symptomatology and low self-esteem, were also predictive of suicide ideation across all sexual identities.” In other words, any child suffering from autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, low self-esteem has a higher likelihood of suicidal ideation. By that measure, would girls who are being gaslit that boys are girls feel sad, depressed, stressed, anxious? Would girls who realize they have no right to set a boundary to someone they know to be male feel hopeless? Would not being sufficiently affirmative of a peer’s trans identity be considered bullying?

Yet, when schools have positive and inclusive climates and anti-LBTQ harassment is low, all students report lower levels of depression and suicidality and LBT students are very similar to heterosexual students on measures of well-being. When athletic programs and sport teams are bias-free and inclusive, all athletes have a greater likelihood of having positive sporting experiences.

There are no studies to back these assertions up. This entire segment of the chapter frames bullying of LBT students as the reason for these well adjusted children to feel sad, hopeless, depressed, stressed, anxious, decreased self-confidence and self esteem, to be more likely to use alcohol and/or drugs and contemplate suicide. And as the paragraph above asserts, if “anti-LGBTQ harrassment is low” (how is this measured?) then LGBTQ kids are fine. So, trans children’s mental health is utterly dependent on others. “When athletic programs are bias-free”—as we learned in the Coaching HER re-education, we can never be free of bias. Without any scientific basis, the authors make the same tired, unrelated claim: If trans teens aren’t allowed to participate in girls’ sports, they’ll be suicidal; if everyone does everything trans-identified boys want and they’re allowed in girls’ sports and change rooms, then they’ll be right as rain. NO. Those two things do not follow. Trans teens may have many mental health issues for which they deserve care and compassion, but it is not up to girls to sacrifice their right to safe and fair sport and privacy. Girls’ sports is not a mental health program for trans-identified boys.

And finally, the authors do not specify how including trans-identified boys in girls’ sports provides girls a “positive sporting experience.” Quite the opposite. An extensive report by UK-based Fair Play for Women detailed how women and girls are harmed by inclusion: “For years women and girls have been facing unfair, and sometimes unsafe, sport because of trans inclusion – which means male inclusion in women’s teams, events and changing rooms. The scale of the problem, and its effect on women and girls, has been concealed by the fear around this issue. A culture of intimidation and silencing has forced women to keep quiet or walk away. This is not inclusion, it’s female exclusion.” Many girls did not have a positive experience this past spring when five trans-identified boys won girls’ state track titles. And right now, four Mountain West NCAA volleyball teams have refused to play against San Jose State University, that fields a trans-identified male on the team. SJSU captain has joined a discrimination lawsuit against the NCAA: “SJSU officials convened a meeting to address the news article about the teammate’s gender identity, and told members of the volleyball team that they shouldn’t speak about the teammate’s gender with anyone outside of the team. Slusser says that the teammate was stronger than other members of the team and that volleyball hits from the teammate caused more bruising and pain than hits from other players.” Positive experience?

To this point in the chapter, the elephant in the room of male inclusion in girls’ sports—physical sex differences—had not been mentioned, but the authors jumped right in, science-free:

These debates often revolve around misconceptions about fairness and transgender youth. Most sport organizations separate girl and boy athletes into different divisions to maintain level playing fields, especially for the girls. This separation is based on the common belief that boys are more aggressive, more physical, and hence better athletes than girls—despite the lack of physical differences among pre-pubescent children. Because we are so used to seeing boys and girls separated in sport, one rarely questions this arbitrary practice. Prior to puberty, girls and boys are physically more similar than different (Eliot, 2009) As such, trans children can easily be accommodated within either boys’ or girls’ sport divisions.

Dividing sport by sex is hardly arbitrary. First, the authors use undefined terminology for sex differences that relate to sports—more physical, better athletes— and factors that don’t affect sports performance—more aggressive. They appear to know nothing about how sports performance is measured, nor have they considered the mountains of data from decades of Presidential Physical Fitness Tests, Fitnessgrams, and other school-based assessments. There are significant sex-based differences between pre-pubescent children, differences that only increase with puberty. The Cooper Institute, that developed Fitnessgram, divides scores on the five assessments by sex, not because it’s a “common belief” that boys are stronger and faster than girls, but because years of data confirm significant sex differences from kindergarten through 12th grade. Two studies also confirm sex differences in sport in pre-pubescent children. The authors blithely state that “girls and boys are physically more similar than different,” which is patently false with regard to both sports performance and body morphology (remember bodies that appear male?), then refers to a study by Eliot about sex differences in brains, and from that concludes “trans children can easily be accommodated within either boys’ or girls’ sport divisions.” To say this view is unsupported by science is generous—staggeringly ignorant and inexcusable from a “leading expert” is more like it. Remember, this is the “research” that underpins all the Tucker Center’s initiatives designed to normalize boys in girls’ sports.

Among youth, there already is wide size variability among the group of girls or group of boys on the field or court. The inclusion of a child whose gender identity, but not physical body, is consistent with the rest of the team is likely to go unnoticed (as long as social stereotypes are quashed).

The eye-watering ignorance continues and, in this case, is amped up with a call to silence dissent, and suppress facts. Equating size with eligibility for a sex category is nonsensical. There are tall girls, so the girls probably will not even notice that the person with the penis scoring all the goals on their soccer team and hanging out in their locker room is a boy. Really?! And if the girls do notice, that transphobic stereotype, that boys are not girls, needs to get quashed? This, from a “leading expert!” There is not a sport scientist alive who does not recognize that sex differences in sports are not stereotypes, they’re fact. Anyone who has ever played sports at any level, watched sports, or who cares to look up any list of world records, even for children, can easily verify sex difference in sports is real. To suggest otherwise goes beyond uninformed, to pushing a malign misogynistic agenda. Girls have noticed boys in their sports, they’ve spoken up for their sex-based rights, and, yes, been quashed. Silenced, threatened, bullied, shamed. Is this the authors’ solution to inclusion—quashing dissent?

However, many youth within the transgender umbrella do not identify nor conform with a binary sex (Baum et al., 2013) and may face additional resistance to fitting into current sport systems which are gender segregated into binary divisions. Regardless of how youth express themselves, gender non-conforming youth have no physical or sport-related advantages or disadvantages over their cisgender peers (Transgender Law & Policy Institute, 2009). The only reasons they are denied opportunity to compete is due to social bias (Krane, 2016)

THIS IS FALSE. Continuing with willful ignorance which, by this point, is outright lying, the authors confuse the social construct of gender with the biological fact of sex. Sports are segregated by sex, not gender, because, as is easily verifiable, sex differences are the reason for male and female divisions. Expression of gender has no effect on sports performance. Regardless of being gender nonconforming, a male has male advantage, and that pesky male body, that disqualify him from female sports. Trans-identified women have disadvantages in the male category, which is why they opt to compete in the female category. Transgender Law & Policy Institute, referred to, is an advocacy group; they do not conduct science. Propaganda is not research. It’s astounding that Krane, one of the authors of this chapter, would put her name to the disgraceful, willfully unsupported lie that trans-identified men are denied the opportunity to compete on women’s teams because of social bias. From a supposed academic and “leading expert,” this is nothing short of criminal. World Athletics, World Aquatics, World Rugby and International Cycling all made policies restricting the female category to those born female or who had not gone through male puberty. These decisions were not based on social bias. They were based on solid science, to protect the safety, fairness, privacy, dignity and opportunities of women.

Some transgender youth may have their puberty suppressed through medical intervention. This process will stop the body from developing the secondary sex characteristics associated with one’s birth sex and may begin around 12 years of age (de Vries et al., 2014). For youth whose body is not consistent with their gender identity, this process can lead to a reduction in distress concerning one’s body (e.g., stopping breast development in trans boys) and enhanced mental well-being. Blocking puberty in trans youth allows them to mature before making decisions regarding potentially irreversible medical procedures while avoiding the anguish puberty can cause. Regarding sport, adolescent trans girls with puberty suppression will not have gone through male puberty, so any perceived advantages of being born male are nonexistent. Trans boys may actually be at a disadvantage since they will not have experienced the physical changes associated with male puberty.

Much has been learned about puberty blockers since this was written. Even before the groundbreaking Cass review came out showing “remarkably weak evidence” for use of puberty blockers, many European countries sharply restricted their use. The American College of Pediatricians came out vehemently against puberty blockers, saying they risk worsening mental health, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. The utterly unsubstantiated claim that suppressing male puberty eliminates “perceived” male advantage is false. As I’ve already shown, at least two studies and decades of school fitness testing confirm males are stronger and faster, and throw farther, faster, and more accurately than girls before puberty. Those advantages remain regardless of puberty suppression, and puberty blockers notably do not curtail growth in height, which is an advantage in many sports such as basketball and volleyball. The authors then go on to incoherently admit the sex differences they denied throughout this chapter by saying girls who identify as boys may be at a disadvantage by not going through male puberty. Why is male advantage real when girls compete in boys’ sports (which they rarely do because girls know male advantage is real), but it’s nothing but social bias when boys compete in girls’ sports?

Most likely, these children would have been identifying as their preferred sex and gender for quite some time. If they already have been competing on a team consistent with their gender identity, then no additional considerations are necessary.

HUH?! Because the trans-identified boy has been on the girls’ team for a long time, all’s fine? If they’ve gotten away with it and no one has raised a stink, it’s cool? Has this “leading expert” never heard of puberty and the changes that go with it? What additional considerations are they talking about? This is supposed to be scientific research, not an advice column. Also, flagrant and casual misuse of the terms sex and gender adds to the conclusion this creative fiction essay has no risk of being mistaken for research—one is a sex, one identifies as a gender.

Sometimes concern will be voiced if a trans female athlete is taller or has broader shoulders than her peers—but it is important to recognize that similar concerns are not voiced against cisgender females who are naturally bigger and/or stronger than their peers. This is just one of many possible physical variations among competitive athletes, not something specific to being a trans athlete. Most of the problems surrounding trans youth sport athletes stem from unwelcoming or possibly even hostile sport climates that are prejudiced against them. The primary reason trans athletes are treated with mistrust is either based on unsubstantiated fears regarding fairness or, in the case of gender non-conforming youth, because the child may appear different from their peers.

This is dismissive of girls’ valid concerns, unsupported by science, and offensive to thinking people. Again, size is not the issue. Everyone recognizes that athletes come in different sizes and shapes. It’s that the trans-identified boy is male, and thus is not eligible for the female category. Because sex matters in sports. It’s offensive, dismissive, and wrong to frame material reality as prejudice and unsubstantiated fear. It’s biological fact that males have larger hearts, larger lungs, greater capacity to carry oxygen, more muscle mass, longer limbs, broader shoulders, narrower hips and many other physiological features that translate into advantage over females in sports performance. On average. That’s why there are sex-segregated sports categories. It’s true, the best girls can beat unathletic boys—that does not mean the unathletic boys are girls or can be on the girls team. They’re still boys and belong on the boys’ team. This “research,” without scientific support, claims that people who object to boys in girls’ sports are doing so based on fear (transphobia), prejudice, or appearances. Girls’ sports have been admirably welcoming of girls of all appearances—tall girls, Black girls, lesbians, fat girls, girls who identify as nonbinary or as boys, girls with purple hair, gender nonconforming girls. They’re all female, all welcome. The “problem?” Boys who identify as girls don’t just look different, they are different. As in, the sex that’s not female and therefore is not eligible for the female category. It’s offensive, disrespectful, and dehumanizing to girls to insist that any male who identifies as a girl is one. If anyone can be a girl, girl is meaningless, nothing, it’s no longer a category of humans. Also, that penis in the locker room? That’s not fear, prejudice, or bias—that’s male, and has no place in girls’ spaces.

Trans and gender-non-conforming youth already face many obstacles and have great resiliency if they are willing to fight for inclusion in sport—and this mental fortitude should be valued by teammates and coaches! Additionally, participation in sport and physical activity can help trans youth maintain positive mental states, alleviate stress, reap health benefits associated with physical activity, and gain comfort in their bodies. In other words, trans inclusion will benefit the team as well as the trans athlete.

None of this is supported by scientific research—it’s trans activist talking points. Why is it being passed off by the Tucker Center as research? Transgender youth at this point have the full support of a society entirely captured by gender ideology—government, academia, health care, science, corporate. No high school boy is on a girls’ team due to his own efforts. The team of girls is being forced to accept a boy, and relinquish their right to fairness, safety, privacy, and even their right to call themselves a distinct type of human being. In typical trans activist rhetoric, the effect of male inclusion on girls is not even an afterthought.

Best practices include teaching values that include respect, reinforcing respect and ultimately, enforcing respect.

Policies must provide access and protections for transgender children. We contend that coaching education programs at all levels should include training to create inclusive and welcoming environments.

Athletes can develop team rules, such as if someone makes a comment that shames someone based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, et cetera, they have to sit out for 5 minutes or write an apology note to the teammate. Rules do not have to be highly punitive; they can be creative means to make the point to be respectful. Athletes also can create posters about inclusion and support for their locker rooms or develop a team mission statement that focuses on respect and inclusion.

This is straight up bizarre. “Enforcing respect?” That has a brown shirt ring to it. Requiring girls to make posters welcoming boys into their locker rooms? This is beyond cruel, authoritarian, disturbing. The authors are assuming that boys will not be welcomed. If it were obviously the right thing to do, indoctrination and punishment for dissenters would not have to be planned. ALSO AND FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME IN THIS CHAPTER, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Skipping to the end of the 2018 report and the Best Practices section, the Tucker Center returned to scientific research from pre-2008, when they knew sex mattered, and girls mattered.

However, research clearly indicates girls tend to prefer single-sex PA for many reasons including freedom from constant comparison to boys, freedom from boys’ scrutiny and critical comments, dominance of space by boys, increased opportunity to develop skills and relationships, increased enjoyment, increased attention from instructors, and less embarrassment and worry about body image (Derry, 2002; Hannon & Ratliffe, 2005; Olafson, 2002; Taylor et al., 1999). In interviews with adolescent urban African American girls, Ries and colleagues (2008) found girls had no interest in “playing with the boys.” Single-sex PA also provides less-skilled and overweight/obese girls a less intimidating environment in which to participate (Neumark-Stzainer, Goeden, Story, & Wall, 2004) and accommodates girls who desire to be physically active but wish to uphold cultural and religious practices of privacy and modesty (Thul & LaVoi, 2011). Programs designed specifically for girls can provide a psychologically and physically safe space where underserved girls find a ‘second home,’ develop their sense of self, express their voices, and develop and nurture positive relationships with peers and adult staff (Hirsch et al., 2000; Loder & Hirsch, 2003).

Goodness, isn’t reality heartwarming and logical? And it makes sense. It’s supported by research. No quashing or punishments required. Unfortunately, the Tucker Center has lost their way. They’ve abandoned science, reality, and girls to follow an objectively misogynistic ideology. The Tucker Center seeks to normalize boys who identify as girls in girls sports, the most harmful thing any organization could perpetrate on girls and girls’ sports.

Making sense and appearing even passably professional once you’ve committed to pushing a nonsensical ideology requires twisted logic and outright lies. The 2018 report goes directly from the paragraph above that states the need for single-sex sports and spaces, to focus on what the authors call an exemplary “girls-only” program, Girls On The Run. Lauding the program, the Tucker Center authors talk about how Girls On The Run empowers girls, builds their confidence, improves their self-esteem, and most importantly, teaches girls their human rights. Girls On The Run defines a girl as anyone who identifies as a girl.