Think it's obvious that sex is more relevant than gender identity in sports performance?

Tell that to the New York Road Runners and the Boston Athletic Association and the Chicago Marathon and the innumerable schools and sports organizations that prioritize gender identity over sex

An academic study recently printed in BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine found that sex could be a better predictor of sports performance than gender identity. This humble academic paper blew up on social media, ricocheting around the internet accompanied by comments that ran along the lines of No duh and See also: water is wet. I’m going to admit, dear reader, that was my knee-jerk reaction too. But I know one of the authors, George M. Perry, enough to think there was something more to this than met my callow, untrained eye. So I got young Perry, an independent researcher, coach, and writer (including here at The Female Category), on the horn.

“Going around saying it’s obvious that sex trumps gender identity hasn’t worked to this point,” he said. “The nonbinary category, for example, is pervasive in the running community. The New York Road Runners (NYRR) gives equal prize money across male, female, and nonbinary categories, and a male who signs up for the Boston Marathon in the nonbinary category can qualify with the women’s time, which is 30 minutes slower than men’s. The people making these decisions either don’t find it obvious [that sex trumps gender identity], or they lack the empirical data and intellectual ammunition to make evidence-based decisions.”

So, Perry and two colleagues decided to investigate whether the data actually supports what seems so obvious to so many. Using 166 race times achieved by runners in the nonbinary category out of 85,173 race times at NYRR races, John Armstrong, Alice Sullivan, and Perry set out to test two hypotheses: 1) Is there a performance difference between males and females in the nonbinary category, and 2) Are nonbinary athletes slower than gender conforming athletes of the same sex?

The results showed that sex differences are preserved regardless of gender identity. Males outperformed females within the nonbinary category, just as they do in men’s and women’s categories. Lead author John Armstrong wrote: “In the light of our evidence a separate non-binary category seems hard to justify. If the sex gap is the same amongst non-binary athletes as amongst other athletes, then having only one non-binary category for males and females discriminates against females.”

Per hypothesis #2, males who registered in the nonbinary category were slower than males in the men’s category, and female nonbinary runners were slower than females in the women’s category. This finding seems unrelated to the relationship between sex and gender identity. But, as Perry explained, “it shows that gender is a valid consideration within the sport and fitness spaces, after controlling for sex. Gender identity can affect sports performance via social factors. Gender nonconforming people may feel excluded, unwelcome. Maybe sports or fitness is not part of their social scene. Showing that males in the nonbinary category are slower than other males in the men’s category—and the same for females—supports the value of outreach and inclusion initiatives to nonbinary people to improve health outcomes. But, again, it’s important to note, that gender only has an affect after accounting for sex. Sex is the primary factor.”

The researchers in this study have different concerns about the capture of our society by gender ideology. John Armstrong sees the ideology through a society-wide lens: “The theory has become ubiquitous in policy making that gender identity is a more important factor in people’s lives than sex. This has resulted in males being allowed into women’s prisons, girl’s schools, women’s hospital wards, women’s toilets, and onto all-women shortlists. Yet there is very little empirical evidence to support the theory that gender identity rather than sex influences outcomes.” Armstrong goes on to suggest: “Based on gender identity theory, one may hypothesise that transwomen would devote more time to childcare than other males. It would be interesting to see if this was true. Similarly, one could study whether transwomen experience a gender pay gap. Currently we know very little about such questions and so are making policy blind.”

Perry, who is personally involved in the running community, sees danger in the capture of sports by gender ideology. “This is one small application of the ascendency of gender identity theory. I consider this a subset of the broader gender ideology that’s come into the sports world, which we know mainly through trans athletes like Lia Thomas. Gender identity over sex. Outside the sports world, people don’t recognize how long this has been in motion. Most people had never heard of nonbinary until the last year or two. But gender activists first approached the NYRR about adding a nonbinary category back in 2013. People don’t realize how long gender activists have been working on this diligently, mostly behind the scenes. And by that same token, how long it will take to undo harms that have already been done."

“As another example, The Female Category wrote about nonbinary runner Cal Calamia and her testosterone use in July. The Washington Post celebrated Calamia’s Therapeutic Use Exemption for testosterone in October. But most people don’t know that the CEO of the NYRR took credit for introducing Calamia to the law firm Winston & Strawn who helped her get that TUE for testosterone, the ultimate performance enhancing drug. More bluntly, the head of NYRR essentially helped undermine the US Anti-Doping Agency’s rules in order to help a trans athlete dope.

Perry went on, “If you enter any race that has a nonbinary category, you’re going to encounter issues of gender ideology—sporting integrity, doping, fairness, finances of sporting events, sport policy of governing bodies. That’s why I got involved with this subject. People don’t understand the extent of the nonbinary category, and how broad and how deep that ideology runs.”

As much as organizations like to say they make “evidence-based” policies, evidence, particularly on the topic of sex and gender, is hard to come by. “On the one hand, it’s ‘too obvious’ to study, and on the other, it’s a ‘radioactive third rail,’” Perry said. “The scope of our data and strength of our analysis will allow future policy to be informed by data. For the first time, policy makers and decision makers have something quantitative and peer-reviewed that they can stand on.”

To all those saying this study confirms the obvious, Perry said, “If more people are empowered to go beyond saying ‘that’s obvious,’ it will be harder for others to just as reflexively say ‘you’re a bigot.’ We need language and we need data to counter gender ideology.”