Dr Tony Lycholat

“As she finally lifts her veil, smiling, her full beauty is revealed and Dante struggles to find apt words to describe what he sees.” Sandro Botticelli, The drawings for Dante’s Divine Comedy, Royal Academy of Arts, 2001, pp. 206–209.

I’m a novice when it comes to understanding feminism and women’s sex-based rights. I would probably still be blissfully ignorant of the issues surrounding ‘gender self-ID’, for example, were it not for men identifying as women making their way into women’s sports. Since first becoming aware of this phenomenon I’ve spent perhaps eighteen months listening, reading and researching. In comparison with the many women who have spent their whole lives both practically and academically coming to grips with the biological, philosophical, cultural, sociological and legal arguments regarding the differences between the sexes, and the impact these differences have in society, it’s no time at all.

Elite sport, the IOC, and SRS

Having coached and advised both male and female athletes for approximately forty years now, I believe I understand quite clearly the difference in sporting performance between the two sexes. Nevertheless, I’ve read all the relevant research I’ve been able to find. I’ve even been in touch with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and various sport national governing bodies, both in the UK and abroad. I find the rush to include transgender (male-to-female; MtF) athletes in women’s events baffling, since this clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with good science. Viewed most sympathetically, the IOC members involved in producing the original 2003 guidelines, and then the 2015 revision of these, appear to have considered rather irrelevant — in terms of elite sporting performance — general research involving sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and were probably concerned only with remarkably rare gender dysphoria (1). I doubt that much thought was given to self ID; and certainly none to a definition of being transgender — such as that from UK trans-lobby group, Stonewall — that includes occasional cross-dressing (2).

The re-scheduled ‘2020’ Summer Olympics will be the first under the new (non-SRS) rules. Given that the late-transitioning, male-to-female athlete prior to transition has benefited hugely from testosterone throughout life leading to massive male performance advantage (hence sex segregation in sport in the first place), and noting the research that shows male advantage is far from negated after 12 months of hormonal treatment (3), it is not unreasonable to view the IOC’s revised guidelines for elite competition as scientifically incoherent, as well as unfair and unsafe in the extreme.

For Olympic eligibility under the current IOC guidelines, a MtF competitor needs now only to declare themselves to be a woman for 12 months (with this declaration lasting four years for sporting purposes) and lower their total serum testosterone level so that this is below the typical lower end of the male range. However, at 10 nmol/L, this is still well above that normally seen in a female athlete. Indeed, should a woman compete with such high levels of testosterone and not be able to explain medically her hyperandrogenism, she would be deemed to be doping (4). According to World Athletics, who have argued instead for a 5 nmol/L cut-off point, “Most females (including elite female athletes) have low levels of testosterone circulating naturally in their bodies (0.12 to 1.79 nmol/L in blood); while after puberty the normal male range is much higher (7.7–29.4 nmol/L). No female would have serum levels of natural testosterone at 5 nmol/L or above unless they have DSD (a difference of sexual development) or a tumour. Individuals with DSDs can have very high levels of natural testosterone, extending into and even beyond the normal male range” (5).

There appear to be no practical, out-of-competition measures in place for independently assessing and monitoring hormonal treatment compliance in MtF transgender competitors. Just as with doping in sport generally, if there are obvious loopholes, and either weak or no testing procedures, the system becomes open to abuse. At the recreational and ‘non-elite’ level in an increasing number of sports worldwide, just the declaration without any hormone therapy is sufficient. This has led to high school male athletes in the US completely unable to win anything in male competition one season, identifying as girls the next and predictably becoming State champions and record breakers (6). That’s male performance advantage in a nutshell.

It’s raining men

Three weeks ago on Twitter I saw men who should know better pop up to mansplain feminism to serious, feminist scholars and academics. In that same week, I witnessed some ‘he/him’, bug-collecting chap with no interest in, or knowledge of sport whatsoever tell the world generally what everyone should read in order to educate themselves about transgender participation in athletics. Exactly like UK Labour Party MP, Lisa Nandy, he wheeled out Caster Semenya to confirm his ignorance and conflate a difference of sexual development with ‘being trans’. And then along came an ageing singer/guitar player called Billy Bragg to express his knowledge and insight regarding transgender rights (including sport) on the basis that besides his own views as a man who writes pop songs, he really has listened to women. He even listed them: Guardian journalist Zoe Williams and two Labour Party MPs, Lisa Nandy (once again) and Jess Phillips. All three believe that any man who ‘identifies as’ a woman is one and that, as a consequence, ‘trans women are women’ (TWAW); a view apparently held by many senior Labour party members and political commentators, including the Guardian columnist, Owen Jones. So strong is the ‘no debate, TWAW’ ideology within the Labour Party, gender critical feminists who believe in biology — such as Karen Ingala Smith, who runs a charity for women subject to sexual and domestic violence and also maintains a startling database of women killed by abusive men — are now denied party membership (7).

This week, just as in every week on Twitter, yet more men have appeared to tell gender critical women, often quite rudely, precisely what’s what when it comes to their sex-based rights, who they should sleep with, and with whom they should be comfortable sharing intimate spaces. Despite a woman having carried and given birth to each and every one of them, they can never explain what a woman is when asked. I remain amazed by the patience and politeness that these women show in the face of such incredible arrogance, ignorance and lack of humility.

Scientific realism versus relativism

I’d like to suggest that before wading in to discussions on feminist and transgender issues it is essential for every man to put the Guardian and the Labour Party pamphlets down and, as a starting point, immerse themselves instead in research dealing with scientific realism, relativism, postmodernism and even a little so-called ‘Queer Theory’. It is probably worth reading critically and with an open mind Ray Blanchard’s work, too (8). A working knowledge of the Equality Act (2010) is advisable, particularly with respect to single sex exemptions and the reasons for these (9).

I’m a scientific realist. For me, reality exists. The role of good science is to question rigorously and reveal the nature of this reality, acknowledging throughout one’s own inherent observer bias and any acquired beliefs, whilst using appropriate, robust research methods designed to minimise bias in all its forms (10).

Somewhat problematically for someone with a worldview that is scientific realism, postmodernism is a form of relativism. Postmodernism typically asks questions of traditional approaches to arriving at ‘objective’ knowledge and in far too many instances, unfortunately seems to disappear into that arguably egocentric rabbit hole where it is believed that each person’s ‘real for me’ truth claims are equally valid, regardless of evidence to the contrary (11).

Similarly, ‘Queer Theory’ in its broadest sense represents the anarchic idea that societal and cultural norms are little more than someone else’s consensus statements that can be disregarded at will. Queer theory, “questions not only what counts as knowledge but also how knowledge is constructed and who constructs it” (12). Taken to the extreme, this means that science becomes an arbitrary theoretical framework or lens through which to view the world. From the perspective of the scientific realist, the queer theorist (just like the postmodernist) inhabits what appears to be an entirely relativistic world of signs and signifiers where people’s words can mean anything at all; and often do. If other men don’t believe me, reading the original ‘Sokal Hoax’ paper from 1996 is recommended. They might also consult any of the more recent, so-called ‘Sokal Squared’, papers authored by James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian. My favourite is, “Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon”, although, “The conceptual penis as a social construct” runs it close.

There is a somewhat obvious flaw with such relativism. When the relativist argues that what I say, as a scientific realist, is ‘wrong’ this directly implies that there is indeed something to be ‘right’ about: unsurprisingly this is invariably what each relativist believes. Should I accept as ‘true’ as many individually conceived realities as there are people on the earth? Or should I accept that reality exists and that an individual’s conception of reality is socially and contextually constructed? As a scientific realist, it makes no sense to me to accept any individual or group ‘truth’ claim that has not been stress-tested through vigorous, intelligent debate and serious, scientific investigation.

Feminism: what I’ve learned so far

I don’t consider it to be an accident that in personally trying to understand contemporary issues around women’s rights and make sense of poorly-researched inputs from vocal men on Twitter, I found myself reflecting upon scientific realism, relativism, postmodernism and ‘Queer Theory’. At the very least, it is probably what all men need to do before commenting. Without such varied study and critical reflection, any un-examined statements made, or fact-less opinions put forward, from views validated, endorsed and amplified from within a single echo-chamber are incredibly unhelpful. Because sport (and evidence-based research regarding sports science, sports medicine and coaching specifically) is my business, I find Billy Bragg’s comments on transgender participation, for example, quite remarkable in their naivety.

To reject biological sex, human sexual dimorphism and male performance advantage — as Bragg (along with Williams, Nandy, Phillips and Jones) appears to be doing — and to embrace the circular argument that ‘a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman’, or to claim that ‘woman is an umbrella’ is to reject scientific realism, opting instead for a version of postmodern relativism. This rejection is all the more scientifically bizarre given that 99.98% of the world’s population is clearly male or female and observed and recorded as such with no problem at birth (13). I am fully aware of the biology of DSD (‘intersex’) conditions, how they arise and why they have nothing to do with the transgender argument. I’ll leave it to others with more bio-psycho-social expertise to consider the potential physiological and psychological factors, alongside all the confounding parental, peer and societal influences that might lead someone to ‘identify as’ whatever gender they say they are as they move through childhood, puberty and adolescence, and finally into adulthood. It remains no surprise to me that ‘third-wave’ feminism (which also embraces TWAW) seems to have appeared at the same time chronologically as when ‘true for me’ postmodernism/relativism began its assault on fact-based, scientific, intellectual thought and rigour in both US and UK universities.

Since any circular definitions of what it is to be a woman in no way inform or enable a coherent, science-based or robust philosophical argument, I’m left wondering whether this is the real reason for: a) the aggressive, no-platforming of gender critical feminists at both academic and open events, and; b) the violent protests by transactivists (often led by men, strangely) at any meeting of gender critical women. I also find it remarkable to observe that any critique of the word ‘man’ is a task completely outside the contemporary social justice warriors’ remit.

Further, it seems that at best, the definition of ‘woman’ preferred by the women Billy Bragg especially listens to merely exists irrationally both within, and because of, an emotionally-charged belief system. It is honestly difficult to see how such irrationality helps any transgender individual going forward since the logical approach would be to explore, research and debate the most scientific, legally fair and practical solution that is at the same time pro-women’s rights, pro-trans rights and pro-biology. This extends to pro-trans health care naturally, since this needs to be delivered by biological sex and not socially constructed gender: disease risk, incidence and prevalence are sex-specific (14). Avoiding reasoned debate is certainly not helping anyone’s cause.

No-platforming and male violence

On the TWAW issue especially, and since this seems to be what, for example, the recent de-platforming of Professor Selina Todd in Oxford was really about (15), in good faith and with stereotypical female kindness, I genuinely see gender critical feminists saying, “you are trans; that’s fine, we women accept you for who you are. Accept us for who we are. Let’s also acknowledge and appreciate our differences, the differences between men and women generally, and the occasions when a woman needs single sex spaces”. Indeed, this summary is precisely what has emerged from conversations I’ve had recently. On the other hand, the ‘no-debate’ response from transactivists and many third-wave feminists, seemingly scientifically naked in their Emperor’s New Clothes, appears to be one that has embraced one of the worst male characteristics: male aggression.

Refusing to engage in debate, aggressively shouting slogans and threatening violence is most unlikely to persuade the casual bystander or the average member of the public of the validity on one’s position: indeed, I would imagine the opposite occurs and that the genuine acceptance of trans people in society is made less, rather than more likely. I would posit that most people are looking to be convinced (or to change their minds) based upon the logic of any argument presented, accompanied by supportive fact-based evidence and research, rather than through violence. Accusing anyone of being ‘transphobic’ for having a reasonably held and valid difference of opinion remains unhelpful. Sadly, it seems that ‘transphobia’ is now a word used either by people who haven’t thought seriously and scientifically about the situation, what they are saying and advocating, and how to create a fair and equitable society for all: or, and most worryingly, it’s a word increasingly spat out with venom by intolerant, anti-intellectual bullies intent on intimidation and the totalitarian control of what everyone else is allowed, by them and them only, to think and say.

Listen to women

When it comes to women’s rights, it really is time for know-all men who seem to have given this no more than five minutes’ thought to shut up and listen — really listen — to all women; and especially to those who have studied relevant research fields with academic, scientific and philosophical rigour. Indeed, and as an obvious example, I would certainly contend that it was men within the IOC who created the mess that now exists within sport because they failed to consult women, and arrogantly believed that they didn’t need to commission any new or relevant research since they were right by virtue of being men and also ‘being the IOC’. I suspect they also knew that as men, their remarkably poorly researched guidelines simply didn’t affect them or their sex class.

My final observation regarding men like Billy Bragg and Owen Jones and their apparent stance on the issue of women’s sex-based rights generally and the many questions around self-ID specifically, is that it remains essential to engage in meaningful and varied reading, to think critically, to acknowledge any personal biases (including those that are political), to consider privileged (often male) positions within society, to ‘park’ any unexamined opinions held, and to consider a wide range of women’s views. Men especially need to pay attention to the work of the many women who campaign against the shocking levels of male violence in society, and to that of the smart, feminist researchers with expertise and considerable experiential knowledge, who are happy to engage in open, intellectual, factual debate. They’ve lived with these issues for years. They’ve thought about them, researched them, and understand them better than any man will ever do. Seriously; let’s show some respect.

References

1. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

2. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms#t

3. Wiik, Anna & Lundberg, Tommy & Rullman, Eric & Andersson, Daniel & Mats, Holmberg & Mandić, Mirko & Brismar, Torkel & Olof, Dahlqvist & Setareh, Chanpen & N, Flanagan & Arver, Stefan & Gustafsson, Thomas. (2019). Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 105. 10.1210/clinem/dgz247.

4. Handlesman et al (2018) Circulating testosterone as the hormonal basis of sex differences in athletic performance. https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/39/5/803/5052770

5. https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-release/eligibility-regulations-for-female-classifica

6. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10816

7. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-bizarre-decision-to-bar-the-founder-of-counting-dead-women

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology

9. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

10. https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/the-iocs-transgender-guidelines-are-unscientific-and-pose-a-serious-risk-to-the-health-of-both-5f5f808748e2

11. For an excellent overview of reality vs relativism: https://www.routledge.com/Relativism-and-Reality-A-Contemporary-Introduction-1st-Edition/Kirk/p/book/9780415208161

12. Gunckel, K.L. (2009), Queering science for all, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25 (2)

13. https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/

14. http://wi.mit.edu/people/faculty/page

15. https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/02/women-must-have-the-right-to-organise-we-will-not-be-silenced