Should Transgender Women Be Able to Compete in Athletics?

This is a touchy subject, and one that is quite polarizing. My goal in writing is not to offend anyone, but my opinion may not suit yours. However, I do believe everyone should be able to celebrate who they are.

People seem to fall into one of two categories and there does not seem to be an in between for people.

The first group believes that transgender women should not be able to participate in women's athletics, even if they have adopted a policy of keeping their testosterone at the appropriate levels for the preceding 12 months. They claim that the person still maintains some of the benefits of years of elevated testosterone that cannot be eliminated by reducing testosterone in the future.

The second group suggests that transgender women who receive testosterone treatment for 12 months lose all their androgen-derived advantages. Therefore, join women's sports at much the same level as they left men's sports.

Or I forgot a group.

The third group who hollers about how they should be able to compete because they want to sound politically correct.

Scientific evidence to the extent that I have been able to find has not come to a conclusion as to which of these positions is correct. However, looking at how competitive many of these athletes were as males compared to after their transitions leads me to believe that they are approaching these sports with an advantage over many other females. Yes, their performance does take a hit due to lack of testosterone, but I do believe that some of the genetic advantage they have is not erased.

Source: NCAA Division II @NCAADII Twitter Page

The first example is that of CeCe Telfer, who participated at Franklin Pierce, a Division 2 University. CeCe Telfer ran at Franklin Pierce as Craig Telfer for 3 years and was at best, mediocre. He never qualified for nationals. However, in her first year CeCe won nationals in the 400 meter hurdles and took 5th overall in the 100 meter hurdles.

Factors like her height would have been an advantage, particularly in the event of hurdles. For females, the hurdle height is lower than for males and CeCe was physically taller than many of her female competitors and had a benefit from that (in my opinion).

Listed to the right I've got his and her best times, from what I could find and CeCe had little to no slowdown in many of the events she'd taken part in. The hurdles are smaller, as a reminder, and this could make a difference. Nonetheless, I've had a hard time believing that she didn't have an advantage because she'd never been close to qualifying for nationals and then wins the 400 meter hurdles two years later. I also have a short clip from one of her races from this past year.

The next example is June Eastwood, a cross country runner at Montana University. She hasn't dominated and most likely won't be a national champion. Nevertheless, she is more competitive this year as a female athlete than she was when she was on the Cross Country team as a male athlete in 2017.

Johnathan regularly ended many of his meetings between the 30th and the 60th. Nevertheless, her first year which allowed her to compete with the women she placed 7th, 2nd and 1st respectively. Two years have gone by, and yes, improvement is going to happen. Yet looking purely at how successful she was, it seems that she may have retained some of her biological advantages.

These are a few examples as to why I think it is not fair. If you disagree with, or agree with me please let me know! I would love to have a discussions about this topic so that I can get a better understanding of why people believe in the position they choose. If you want more examples of why I don't think it is fair let me know and I can provide quite a few more.