Women's sports face many hurdles. Trans athletes are not one. | Opinion

The political culture wars have found a new victim: transgender athletes competing in intercollegiate athletics competitions.

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics effectively banned transgender women from participating in most sports competitions last week, a decision considered the first of its kind among major intercollegiate athletics conferences.

We've all heard the arguments for such bans: transgender women have a biological advantage over their cisgender opponents, some say, and the sanctity of women's sports is threatened as a result.

As tantalizingly clear as the rhetoric may sound, the science is far less conclusive.

According to the National Institutes of Health, after 12 months of hormone therapy, transgender women's testosterone levels are similar to those of their cisgender counterparts, while their muscle strength either decreases or remains unchanged after a year of treatment.

Some of the studies measuring transgender athletic fitness are contradictory, and many are limited by their small sample sizes and lack of comparison groups. The NIH itself cites “small sample sizes” and “limited data on endurance, cardiac or respiratory function” as reasons why current data are insufficient to enable comprehensive policy changes.

The science clearly shows that the focus on trans participation in women's sports is misplaced: fair, competitive and equal women's sports face many obstacles, but trans women are not one of them.

First, consider the strikingly small number of all trans athletes, let alone trans women, competing in college sports: Of the more than 500,000 athletes competing in the National Collegiate Athletic Association, an estimated 40 are trans. That's less than 0.008 percent.

Although the NAIA has not released comparable statistics for its 83,000 participants, we see no reason to believe the percentage will be significantly different.

Athletes like transgender swimmer Lia C. Thomas may receive intense scrutiny, but aside from her and a handful of other well-known names, their presence in the sport is exceedingly small relative to the attention they receive.

A study by the Women's Sports Foundation found that 86 percent of institutions within the NCAA provided disproportionately more athletic opportunities to male athletes – gaps that amount to more than 58,000 missed opportunities for female athletes each year.

This disparity poses a much more burdensome threat to women's college sports than the small number of trans participants, whose “biological advantages” are unclear.

As we closely monitor women's sports, we must also consider that this ban and similar regulations could harm both trans and cis women.

At what point does a woman become too strong, too fast, or too good at her sport before she is accused of being transgender? Will we subject every woman to invasive testing to prove she is cisgender before she can compete?

These are not abstract fears. In Utah, a cisgender high school athlete was investigated after the parents of two girls who lost to her accused her of being transgender. At the elite level, there is a documented history of sports federations imposing various gender tests on female athletes.

Given the paltry number of transgender athletes and without science clearly supporting the conclusion that transgender athletes have an advantage, the NAIA's hard-line approach to what is essentially a marginal case problem is reductive and discriminatory.

Instead, the NAIA should have enacted a rule that was data-based and meaningfully addressed trans athletes.

By completely excluding transgender athletes, the NAIA is also significantly out of step with organizations at the highest echelons of competitive sports, including the International Olympic Committee, which relies on evidence-based reasoning and non-discrimination in establishing sports. Guidelines by sport.

The NCAA must not follow the NAIA's poorly supported decision, and in the meantime, Harvard must speak out loudly against this ban and support the rights of its trans athletes.

Until better research is conducted on trans athletes and the effects of hormone therapy on the body over time, blanket bans should not be implemented. Nuanced, science-based, sports-specific interventions are clearly better than culture war-motivated crusades. The NCAA needs to take note of this.

This editorial reflects solely the majority opinion of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the result of discussions at regular editorial meetings. To ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who express opinions and vote at these meetings are not involved in reporting articles on similar topics.

Do you have a suggestion, question or concern about The Crimson editorial staff? Click here.