Myths & Misinformation about transgender athletes
So far in 2023, nearly 600 anti-trans bills have been proposed. 1 in 6 of those are related to locker rooms or sports. With this and the corresponding increase in media coverage, misinformation and many harmful claims about trans people have been perpetuated.
Editors Note: We are attempting to address complex and deeply nuanced ideas in this page. While going deeper than a light introduction to these concepts, for many of these points there is more that can and should be said to fully understand each topic.
Myth: Someone who has experienced a testosterone-based puberty will have an advantage in competition, even if they’ve undergone medical transition.
Reality: A review of available research released in 2022 concluded, “there is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression.” No study has ever been conducted which accounts for a person’s medical transition and its impact on athletic ability in competition conditions. No study on the impact of medical transition on competition climbing ability has been performed.
Myth: The presence of Testsosterone is the single most important factor when seeking to ensure fair competition between trans and cis athletes.
Reality: No study has shown that there is a single biological factor that can determine or predict athletic success. Furthermore, the emotional and psychological side of medical transition is something that has not been studied in context of trans athletes.
Myth: Using Testosterone level testing is an effective way to ensure fair competition standards between trans and cis athletes.
As has been previously stated, there are no studies concluding that testosterone or any other single biological factor will predict or determine success or advantage in a competition. Furthermore, an insistence of focusing on testosterone ignores the fact that cis women very commonly have naturally occurring testosterone levels above those allowed for trans women in sports.
Myth: Trans climbers have an unfair advantage in competition.
Reality: Trans athletes are often subjected to conditions and disadvantages that their cis competitors are not. Using just one example, 82% of transgender individuals have considered suicide. 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Neither the effect of discrimination at competitions or the impact of dysphoria on performance and training for athletes have ever been studied.
“I have personally experienced transphobic remarks moments before entering isolation for a competition.”
Myth: If we don’t test for hormone levels or use a strict threshold, a man who isn’t really trans could say they were in order to compete in a women’s category.
Reality: Technically, this is possible. In actuality, there is no evidence that shows it has ever happened. Furthermore, the argument is that someone could undergo medical transition in order to compete in a women’s category painfully ignores the realities of how hard medical transition is to access and how much change one must consider in order to make such a decision. This truth is why it is so demeaning to the experience of trans people when trans participation policies require documents and statements which seek to make an athlete prove the validity of their identity or their decision to undergo medical care.
Note: This is also not our problem. That’s cis people, not us.
Myth: “The topic of transgender athlete participation has been studied and debated extensively by national and international sports organizations in recent years.”
Reality: This is a direct quote from USA Climbing. However, Studies on the impact of hormone replacement therapy and athletic ability have been limited in their methodology, do not account for competition conditions, have mixed conclusions, are contested by more recent research, and even in studies that have found trans athletes maintain a physical edge, authors have cautioned against using their research as a basis for bans or policy change.