[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Coming up later in the show, a special edition of our 100 Years of 100 Things series. It's 100 years of cancer research in two parts. First, the history, then the current state of cancer research amid the science funding cuts coming from Washington. That's coming up. First, we start here. You may have seen in the news that President Trump and his administration are threatening the state of California with both fines and legal action after a trans athlete won two gold medals this weekend in the California State track and field meet, which The New York Times calls "arguably the most competitive high school meet in the nation."

Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday that, "large-scale fines will be imposed." Then yesterday, his Justice Department sent a letter to California school districts threatening to sue based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The letter said, "forcing girls to compete against males," what they call males, "would deprive them of athletic opportunities and benefits because of their sex." The New York Times reports that the California Department of Education is planning to send guidance today to the state school districts on how to respond.

That follows changes that the state of California made in advance of the weekend event because of previous threats from Trump to withdraw funding, and knowing that the particular trans girl, AB Hernandez, might do well. Again, according to The Times, " After Mr. Trump’s threats last week to cut funding, the federation changed its rules regarding how the participation of trans athletes would affect other competitors, in an effort to make the event fair without excluding anyone. Under the new rule, the athlete who finished immediately behind Ms. Hernandez would be elevated to share her placement. At the state meet, those athletes shared the podium with Ms. Hernandez, even though they technically had finished one spot behind her." That's a quote from The New York Times.

We have spoken before here about how the Trump administration seems to be turning the notion of civil rights on its head from what you might usually think of, as they tend to center white people and other majorities, in this case cisgender people, as those allegedly facing discrimination. I have shared my opinion that it's horrifying to try to erase even the existence of non-binary people with statements and policies like there are only two genders or by using the term gender ideology, when in reality, it seems to me, the way a person experiences themselves is not any kind of ideology, it's just the way they are experiencing themselves.

Trying to deny or vilify a person's experience of themselves seems more like an ideology. I have said that knowing trans and non-binary people in my family and personal life makes this personal for me. For this segment, we will focus on the ways that schools and professional women's sports leagues have been trying to deal with the tricky task of what The Times article called the effort to make the event fair without excluding anyone.

The question, how are schools and professional sports leagues trying in good faith to balance inclusivity and competitive fairness? What kinds of rules, what kinds of gender testing are they using? How scientifically or medically valid are they? How much are they being developed in good faith as opposed to from political pressure? We know that trans athletes are a tiny percentage of all athletes, but there have been enough instances of high-performing trans athletes making the news that we know the issue has been successfully weaponized in election campaigns and the attempt to, as I said, erase whole groups of people.

What are the actual best practices on the issue? Politics and hatefulness aside. What are schools and professional sports leagues trying to do in good faith to balance inclusivity and competitive fairness? What is actually good faith on this topic, on the scale of always, sometimes, never, is sometimes a viable option ethically and politically, given the pressures from various sides? Our guest for this is Katie Barnes, senior reporter at ESPN specializing in the intersection of sports and gender, and author of the book Fair Play: How Sports Shape the Gender Debates, published in 2023. Katie, thanks for coming on for this. Welcome to WNYC.

Katie Barnes: Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: We will overlook that you grew up in Indiana basketball. Indiana basketball is a sore subject in New York right now. I will just leave it there.

Katie Barnes: I will refrain from saying, "Go, sirs."

Brian Lehrer: I want to start with a few examples from various leagues, just so the listeners get the idea that there is a range of policies being enacted. Then we will back up to discuss some of what you report in your book, like what gender is medically and what kinds of tests are being required, and what they actually measure. The LPGA, Ladies Professional Golf Association, says the athlete must have transitioned before male puberty. The US Tennis Association says something more vague for professional competitors that I read.

"Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimize gender-related advantages in sport competitions." At the Olympics, if I understand it correctly, they changed at some point-- I think this is in your book-- from testing for chromosomes or genitalia to testing for testosterone levels. Just as a starting point, Katie, is that an accurate description of at least those three associations? Does it begin to exemplify the mix of policies that different leagues and associations are putting in place?

Katie Barnes: Yes. I have two things to say in response to that question. The first is just a little bit more detail on the Olympic movement. The IOC in 2021 moved away from its previous blanket policy that had been in effect since 2015 and went to a sport-by-sport approach, allowing the individual international federations to set their own policies. What is the policy for World Aquatics versus World Athletics versus the Cycling Federation versus FIBA, et cetera? All vary, though they do have some similarities.

That gets to my second point that I wanted to say, which is that, yes, at this particular moment, I would say what you described is overall a fair representation of what each of those policies are. Also, they represent a shift in policy toward a more restrictive environment. In general, I would say certainly in the last three years, there has been a pretty clear movement toward embracing more restrictive policy. That looks at different per sport, per level, meaning that it is much harder for transgender girls, and women in particular, to be able to participate and compete in girls and women's sports at all levels, both domestic and international, than it was in, say, 2018.

Brian Lehrer: On the Olympics, the way you described it, if each sport can set its own standards, what does that say to you? Does it mean that if they are in good faith looking for a balance between inclusivity and competitive fairness, is it different for swimming than for track and field, than for ice skating, or pick your Olympic sport?

Katie Barnes: Yes, I mean, the reality is that sports are different. They require different skills. They prefer and preference different types of physiology and anatomy to be successful and at that elite level. In general, on its face, I actually think that a sport by sport approach makes sense, to be perfectly honest, and I think reflects the complexity of the question, from a policy perspective and a science perspective, about should transgender women, in this case we are talking about the Olympics, be eligible for the women's category? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

The answers to those questions may be very different for powerlifting or for boxing or for basketball than for basketball. Soccer could be different from a team versus individual sport perspective. Things that are based purely on speed performance versus something that is a little bit more adaptive versus something that may not require a certain level of physicality at all, like shooting or rifle sports. I think, to me, having a sport-by-sport discussion actually allows for a more nuanced discussion and conversation about what appropriate policy should be. However, I do not necessarily think that that is what has occurred in the last three years.

Brian Lehrer: Can you give me even a specific example from different Olympic sports of what kind of standard or testing they have implemented based on some of those differences that you just laid out?

Katie Barnes: Yes. For World Athletics, talking about restrictive policy, they have embraced a policy that is pretty much an outright ban on transgender women in the women's category for elite competition, elite sport. World Aquatics has a similar policy, though it does allow transgender women to be eligible for its elite-level competition in the women's category if they began medical transition prior to Tanner Stage 2 puberty or age 12, roughly speaking. Notably, World Aquatics tried to have an open category in its short sprint events at its world championships, which it announced alongside this policy change.

They actually had to cancel it because there was nobody to swim or nobody entered into those categories, into those events. I think that speaks to some of the difficulty here that in general, I think a lot of folks say, "Why can't trans women just compete over in their own category? Why can't there be an open category or a trans specific category?" The answer is often because there are not enough to fill that category. Certainly, when we are talking about elite sport, not at the level that is required from an elite perspective.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, you can help us report this story. Do you have any experience as an athlete, a coach, a policymaker with the issue of trans female athletes in your competitive leagues? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. Is there, can there be a good faith solution to balancing inclusivity and competitive fairness? Or any questions you have for our guest, Katie Barnes, senior writer at ESPN specializing in the intersection of sports and gender, and author of the book Fair Play: How Sports Shape the Gender Debates. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. Let's take a caller, Neil in Park Slope, who called in already, who wants to talk about a standard in the running community. Neil, you are on WNYC. Hello.

Neil: Hello, Brian. Yes, and I have been racing for decades. As there have been more and more transgender runners, a solution that has been developed in the running community is just to simply add the category besides male and female, non-binary. That seems to cover everybody. Also in running, men and women have always started together, except in Olympic type sports, but in road running, that's the norm. It's the same thing. Therefore, people who are non-binary get to compete along with everybody else.

Brian Lehrer: Non-binary is different than trans. Do you know, for example, in the-- [crosstalk]

Neil: Non-binary includes every variation thereof.

Brian Lehrer: In the New York Marathon-- I have never seen it. Maybe I have just missed it. [crosstalk] New York Marathon, for example, is there a male winner, a male first place finisher, a female first place finisher, and what you are calling non-binary first place finisher?

Neil: I believe the New York Road Runners Club does that also. I am not 100% positive, but I believe that is the case.

Brian Lehrer: Neil, thank you. Katie, sounds like you know about this.

Katie Barnes: I can speak to it a little bit. Actually, it's a really interesting point because there has been a concerted effort in the road running community and specifically among the major marathons to include a non-binary category. I spoke to one of the advocates for this in my book, and one of the things that they talked about was the importance of representation for them as a non-binary athlete. Also, there is a world where, as our caller spoke to, a non-binary category can be open to anyone who wants to run in that category and they can register in there. It can be a trans inclusive category for binary transgender identity folks as well as non-binary people.

I think that's a really interesting conversation, especially when we have large road running events. That is certainly an option for some folks. Also, there are going to be some transgender people who want to run in the category that most reflects their gender identity, and not necessarily one that does not. If they do not claim a non-binary identity or they really want to run in the women's category or in the men's category, depending on where fall. I just wanted to speak to that and name that, but that is something that is happening within the road running community in particular.

Brian Lehrer: Do you know if there is a particular standard for assessing what category somebody should be in or a particular test? Because we know, for example, that in the New York Marathon, the men's first-place finisher always finishes ahead of the women's first-place finisher.

Katie Barnes: That is correct. I am not sure specifically what the transgender policy is for the New York Marathon, so I do not want to speak to that. My understanding from the reporting that I have done around non-binary categories is if you feel comfortable and that's where you want to run, then you are able to run in that category. One of the things that has specifically been fought for in terms of where these categories exist in competitive races is that they also receive equal prize money, just as you would receive prize money in the men's category or the women's category. That is not necessarily the case at every single one of the events where these categories do appear, but it is part of the conversation. My understanding is that for non-binary category inclusion, it's a self-selection. There isn't necessarily a standard that you have to meet to be there.

Brian Lehrer: For that category

Katie Barnes: It's like if you feel like that's where you should be, that's where you are allowed to be.

Brian Lehrer: It was a track and field meet in California at the high school level. That is a thing that has been in the news the last few days. Do you know what the standard was for high schools in California that allowed AB Hernandez to participate as a girl? Her events weren't running, but other track and field events that she won gold in.

Katie Barnes: Yes. California is unique in the country in that it is the only state that has a law on the books. It is AB 1266 that requires, under state law, that transgender students be included in school life in ways that reflect their gender identity, including in athletics. This was a law that was passed in 2013. There is a state law that is in favor of transgender inclusion in athletics on the books in California, and that is not the case anywhere else.

From a standard perspective and how that's been enforced, there is not a requirement for legal or medical intervention, meaning you do not have to suppress your hormones, you don't have to clear certain hoops like you might at a more elite level sport to become eligible, because from California's perspective, this is school sports. That is also reflective, I should say, of policy in states that have had inclusive policies.

Prior to the executive order being signed in February, as well as prior to, I would even say 2020, that really began the state by state laws passing that restricted transgender athletes' eligibility in sports across the country at the state level. There were more states that had more inclusive policies. The biggest number was 18. Now it's much, much smaller. That's why California students are able to participate in accordance with their gender identity, going back to 2013 and that state law.

Brian Lehrer: I want to go back to something you said very early on, just to put a sort of political and social frame on the science and attempt at good faith balances between inclusivity and competitive fairness that we are discussing that different leagues are trying to put in place in terms of how to measure what's good faith. You said that the trend over a decade or more now, I guess, has been toward more and more restrictive of trans athletes.

Do you think that's because of politics per se and solely or also because there are more self-identified trans athletes? Even though, again, they are vanishingly few in terms of the percentage of all competitive athletes, there have been enough instances now of trans athletes winning things and raising eyebrows that these leagues and associations are doing something in good faith just to address an objectively real situation as opposed to it's all just trying to cave to politics or manage politics.

Katie Barnes: It's a very big question. I am going to try to answer it in parts. The first thing I would say is that it's actually been much shorter time than a decade. This has been very fast. A very quick sea change from a policy perspective. Prior to 2020, I would say there was a good-faith policy discussion being had. This was something that people were thinking about at a policymaking level in the governing bodies and federations, at the Olympic level and the NCAA, et cetera, at high school associations. These were questions that folks were asking and trying to figure out what is fair, what is inclusive, can those things coexist, how do they coexist? Really working through, trying to answer some of those questions and adjusting if and when they felt necessary. That was an ongoing thing.

In 2020, Idaho passed the first law that restricted transgender girls' ability to play girls and women's sports at both the high school, just overall school K-12 and collegiate levels. It was enjoined, but it was passed in February of 2020 alongside the announcement of a federal lawsuit in the state of Connecticut that challenged Connecticut High School Association policy that was transgender inclusive. That litigation is ongoing for what it's worth.

The reason that that matters is it was in response to two transgender girls running and competing in the girls category in the state of Connecticut and having some championship level success. These two transgender girls at the time, they are now transgender women, won a combined 15 state championships between the two of them and garnered some national attention. It is worth noting that they were two athletes in one state that had such a policy.

That goes to my second thing I wanted to say, which is I think what's important to note is that these athletes, it feels like there are more, and it feels like there are more having a high level of success. Also, it is absolutely the point of some folks who are in favor of restrictive policy to spotlight every instance of a transgender girl participating in girls sports and or winning in girls sports. That I think is a big part of it. There's a segment of the media that really focuses on this and tries to amplify every instance that is possible.

I think we can look to California to speak to some of that, which is, I mentioned that this law had been on the books since 2013, and this is really the first time that there has been a tremendous amount of focus on the results of a high school meet, the inclusion of a transgender girl in that meet. Of course, yes, she did win two competitions and was a runner up in another. It's a very competitive in a big state. I want to just know all of that.

I think from a trend perspective, there's just this hyper focus, and it's often on one athlete at a time, or one or two athletes at a time kind of resting on their shoulders. That speaks to the ways in which transgender girls participating in girl sports and transgender women competing in women's sports at all levels have in recent years been really hyper politicized in very specific ways. I want to be clear in that what I am not saying is that we shouldn't have discussions about what appropriate policy is for gender eligibility in sport and which sports and at which level. However, when looking at the state laws that have passed the United States, those laws have been written to be as broad as possible.

In the specific text, you have the levels that are restricted, enumerated. Whether we are looking at Idaho's law, Texas', Tennessee's, Alabama's, Indiana's, you see schools being defined as K-12 schools. Then you have club-level sports and college, intramural level sports in college, and also competitive college. All of those sports and those levels of competition are very different. I think, to me, where a lot of this nuance then is lost is when we look at high school, which I think is probably the messiest from a policy perspective, in that it's where puberty is happening for a lot of athletes. It's where advantages and disadvantages are most acutely felt in many respects.

It's where you have high-level, elite-level athletes competing against somebody who's just trying to make a JV team or who barely made a varsity team. They are all competing against each other in the same pool. That's very messy from a policy perspective in this particular case. When we look at what the landscape has really started to look like in over the course of the last five years, if we want to mark it at HB 500, it's that those delineations and nuances that were being discussed from a policy perspective previously have really fallen away in favor of a blanket restriction, where the preference, the attention is not just on when a trans athlete wins, which has been the case in California, but when a transgender athlete is participating at all.

Those are different things. Like is it fair for a transgender girl to be able to play on a varsity basketball team that is not a state championship competitor or be a bench warmer on that team? Those athletes, yes, are vanishingly small in general, but smaller still are those who are championship level. The nuances of those conversations, I feel like, have really fallen away in favor of a blanket restriction, which sometimes and in some cases is certainly politically motivated. I think it is very clear from a policy perspective that certainly in the last handful of years, the political pressure is very, very present, either coming from grassroots or from organized groups that are funded, or coming from, in this particular case, the White House, which has a preferred policy. It has been very clear in communicating what that policy is.

Brian Lehrer: I think Javier in Manhattan has some personal experience that goes to some of what you were just describing. Javier, you are on WNYC. Thank you for calling in. You are on with Katie Barnes, senior writer at ESPN and author of Fair Play: How Sports Shaped the Gender Debate. Hi there.

Javier: Hi there. Good morning. Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Brian, for welcoming me into this space. I am a parent of two travel ball athletes. One is an 8th grader young daughter who plays in the national soccer team, currently ranked seventh in the nation. One is a 10-year-old baseball player. He's on the 10th-ranked team in the race. I forget rankings, but I am just getting context about the way in which we travel around. My daughter has played against young men all the time. The concept of iron sharpens iron.

She plays up above her age. That is a welcome thing. She has played against non-binary athletes during the last couple of years. That is a welcome thing. You want to play against the best athletes. Now I understand the science, puberty. Does it act as some type of performance enhancement for the athlete? We will come to find out. The science needs to bear that out. As parents, we cheer for that. We want that, we want that, we want that, until what happens, Katie? Until the kid loses.

When the kid loses, the parents blame the coaches, the parents blame this one, that one. If there is one trans athlete that is there on the bench or not, it's an advantage. If there is a trans athlete that scores a couple of goals, it's an advantage. The parents have created this unnecessary fervor because up until that point, they want the iron sharpens iron. They want to play against the best athletes. There is a lack of education, there is a politicization, there is a lack of anti-intellectual bend in travel sports and sports, period. That plays out because we are all irrational as parents.

What I really see is just that it's when the athlete loses, people grasp for straws, they look for anything. Until the science bears out a statistical advantage, we all are welcoming of the challenge until the athlete loses. That's what I see, and there is discourse. I am in New York City, so I tend-- We have seen trans students and my kids public schools from a very young age, but it's not foreign to me. Maybe my orientation to the conversation is different, but I have traveled around the country and seen trans athletes and binary athletes play against my daughter, specifically in soccer. We do not bat an eye until someone loses. That's where people look for excuses.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for the travel athlete, parents perspective, Javier. Very interesting. Katie, anything to say in response?

Katie Barnes: Yes, I mean, obviously, I cannot speak to a specific circumstance. I cannot speak to the motivations of parents, so I will not. What I do think is interesting and a part of this conversation is the rising stakes of youth sports. Youth sports are incredibly competitive and they are very expensive and they are deeply meaningful. Something that Javier was kind of hinting at when he was talking about parents being irrational, his words, not mine, which is that there is a tremendous amount of emotion around sports.

Of course, there is emotion around your child if you are a parent. I am not a parent, so I cannot really speak to that perspective from my personal experience. As a reporter, that is something that I hear all the time. You want your kids to succeed, you want them to do well, and you want to protect them. Also, sport is such an emotional part of our culture. It is something that our fandom is passed down. It is rooted in where we are from. We talked about that, and that I am from Indiana. It's so rooted in a lot of this emotion and culture that we experience on an individual level.

Because of that, this conversation is also incredibly emotional. I think we see that in youth sports in particular. Also, I think we have also seen that with the erosion of lower-stakes recreational sports for young people that are community-oriented. More and more kids who are continuing to play sports are doing that from a more intense travel perspective. That just raises the stakes and I think creates harder conversations and policymaking as well as less tolerance for loss and challenge, as Javier pointed to.

For me, I think those are important parts of the conversation. Also, it is not the entire driver of the conversation, and that there are a lot of folks who are in favor of restrictive policy who point to their own discomfort with transgender girls in shared spaces, intimate spaces in particular, like bathrooms and locker rooms, and what that means. To me, I think where that becomes a conversation is, we should be talking about privacy for all kids.

We should be talking about privacy for all athletes. What does that look like? Why is there a discomfort? Is there a way to meaningfully engage with that conversation that isn't rooted in anti trans bias and really listening to each other and trying to engage in a good-faith conversation? That is where I think some of that stuff can be a little bit tricky.

Brian Lehrer: When we come back from a break, I want to follow up on one thing that Javier brought up, and that is the puberty standard. We see the LPGA is using that too, for people who want to compete as women in professional golf. I want to get your take, having written a whole book on this subject, about what that actually means. As we continue with Katie Barnes from ESPN on the question, how are school and professional sports leagues trying in good faith to balance inclusivity and competitive fairness? Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue to ask, how are school and professional sports leagues trying in good faith to balance inclusivity and competitive fairness? How is politics affecting that judgment? The news hook is that just this weekend, a trans girl won some high school track and field events in California. The Trump administration is threatening to fine them and bring civil rights legal action against them. We know this has been an issue around the country now. I think about half the states. My guest is Katie Barnes, senior writer at ESPN and author of the book Fair Play: How Sports Shape the Gender Debates.

The political context is, I think, half the states now just have a complete ban-- Katie, correct me if I am wrong-- on any trans athletes playing in any kind of girls or women's sports It's only going to be based in those states on sex identified at birth. We are going to talk about what that means. I think if I saw correctly, the NCAA, the College Athletics Association caved this year, I think it was testosterone or testosterone suppression drugs from around 2010 to 2022. For a few years, they left it up to the governing bodies of each individual sport, as you were describing the Olympics does. Now this year, they went all in on Trump with sex identified at birth. Is that correct about the NCAA?

Katie Barnes: Yes. From about 2010 to 2022, they had a standard that was for transgender women to be eligible in the women's category. Trans women needed to suppress their testosterone for a period of 12 months before becoming eligible. Then, from 2022 until 2025, there is a three-phase approach to adopting the rules set by each national governing body. They varied, but it was more or less a similar rule: suppression for 12 months.

Often there was some type of testosterone threshold, which is 10 nanomoles per liter most commonly, although not always, and some it was 5, and some it was 2.5. Then in 2025, shortly after President Trump signed his executive order on National Girls and Women's in Sports Day, so it was February 5th, I believe, the NCAA also adopted a policy that barred transgender women from competition in the women's category across all of its sports and all of its schools and all divisions.

Brian Lehrer: Based on what you just said, here's an interesting text. Tell me, based on your reporting, this science is clear. Listener text: "Transgender women who have undergone hormone therapy for at least two years show no biological advantages over cisgender women." By hormone therapy, I guess that means testosterone suppression, but you tell me. This idea that if they have undergone that for at least two years, they show no biological advantages over cisgender women. Is that known?

Katie Barnes: I would say that the science is mixed on that. I do not think that the science is clear at all. I would also say that we really lack data and information when it comes to longitudinal studies on transgender athletes. In particular, we just do not know the answer to the question about when testosterone suppression matters. Is it more effective or less effective if you start suppressing after puberty, but close to when you are done with puberty, so middle high school? Is there a demonstrable difference if you start suppressing your testosterone in your late teens, early 20s, versus in your mid-30s? The answers to those types of questions, we do not know.

I would say that from the studies available, when looking at the effect of testosterone suppression on athletic activities, because again, we do not have very many studies that are specific to transgender athletes, what we do have are measuring the loss of muscle mass over time. We have measuring athletic output. There is a pretty influential military study looking at the numbers of push-ups, sit-ups, and a 1 1/2 mile run with transgender men before and after medical intervention, transgender women before and after medical intervention, compared to cisgender women and cisgender men.

We have that study. We have a study that looks at different metabolic indicators, whether we are looking at grip strength, VO2 max, again with muscle mass, et cetera, and the effect of that over time when it comes to testosterone suppression, ranging from 2 years to 14 and a half years. In all of those studies, there are mixed results and also results that may or may not matter, depending on what sport you are looking at.

Using that study that I mentioned last, the one that measured grip strength and VO2 max, et cetera, it's a study out of Brazil. That study said that transgender women retained some level of a metabolic advantage in grip strength. Does that matter for soccer? I think that's an open question. Would that matter for rock climbing? Perhaps. Those questions, I think, are very nuanced in looking at the science.

I would say that from my reporting and my time spent reporting around this topic, that in general, the science is very mixed, and I do not necessarily think it's clear on anything. That's my perspective on that. Though I will say that there's more science being done all the time. There are a number of researchers that are continuing trying to answer this question. There is more information that comes out, but it is not declarative one way or the other on any part of this topic from what I have been able to discern.

Brian Lehrer: One more call before we run out of time. I think it's related to what you were just discussing. Amy in Brooklyn, you are on WNYC. Hello.

Amy: Hi, can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Amy: Okay, great. I have a 13-year-old transgender daughter. She came out when she was 2, so she has never had any male hormones, any male puberty hormones. She went on blockers when she was about 11, I think, and when she's 14, she will go on female hormones. She just does not have any male hormone. I do not understand why that at least is not a criteria. If that's your situation, why is it an issue at all?

Katie Barnes: That is a really great question. One of the things that speaks to, I think, is the-- A couple things is, when looking at a standard, like the world aquatic standard, where if you want to compete in an elite-level world aquatics event, you need to have begun hormone therapy or begun transitioning prior to Tanner Stage 2 puberty. Many transgender children who socially transition very young and begin medical intervention with puberty blockers and cross hormone therapy, who never experienced testosterone-driven puberty or endogenous puberty, those athletes would be eligible under that standard.

However, in the United States, when looking at the state laws, they are notable for their rigidity. There is no pathway to participation for any of those athletes. It is what is on your birth certificate, and that is the end of it. In some cases, in some states, they actually say original birth certificate, accounting for the fact that there are some transgender young people who have the ability and the desire to amend their birth certificates at a fairly young age.

I should also note, I meant to say this earlier, but when looking at it is 25 states that have passed laws-- you are correct, Brian-- that five of those states actually also restrict transgender boys and their ability to play boy sports as well, with basically the caveat that if there is a girls' equivalent team, you have to play on that team. If there is not, then you can play on the boys' team, which is the same standard that's often used for girls. What that means in practice is, in one of these states, like Tennessee, you might be eligible, if you are a transgender boy, to play football, but not boys' soccer, because there likely would be a girls' soccer equivalent.

Brian Lehrer: That means if they are theoretically concerned about competitive fairness rather than just hating on trans people, that they are actually giving a competitive advantage, in theory, to that category you just mentioned. People born as boys who have transitioned to girls-- No, the other way around. People born as girls who have transitioned to boys, so maybe they are taking testosterone, but they have to play in girls' sports. Did I hear that right?

Katie Barnes: Theoretically, you would be correct. However, almost all of the states, I believe, also have some kind of restriction on gender affirming care. That's the other thing:

Brian Lehrer: They can't even do it.

Katie Barnes: Is that the sports restrictions in the states where they have passed, also just in general in our culture we are right now, have happened alongside of a rise of a desire to restrict gender affirming health care, of politicizing trans people generally.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to jump in because I think the point is clear, and we are running out of time. That goes to a contradiction, a catch-22, with the LPGA example that I wanted to ask you about, where they say the athlete must have transitioned before male puberty, but more and more states do not allow a transition before male puberty. There's a catch-22 for those athletes in the first place. What does the male puberty standard actually represent? Do you think that's a good standard for something like the LPGA? I need you to give me a 30-second response on this.

Katie Barnes: Okay, I will be very quick. I think the focus on testosterone-driven puberty speaks to the-- This is a fact that for those who are assigned male at birth, who go through testosterone-driven puberty, that is where testosterone levels and the metabolic and physiological advantages conferred from testosterone really hit a rainbow speedway for those Mario Kart enthusiasts like myself. You see that exponential difference between those who are assigned male at birth and those who are assigned female at birth, and there is a difference.

That is one of the places where the science is very, very clear. The average level of testosterone in someone who is assigned male at birth, is cisgender, has gone through testosterone-driven puberty, is going to be very different than somebody who is assigned female at birth, is cisgender, has gone through female puberty, endogenous puberty. Those are going to be different levels. Therefore, testosterone also does contribute to a number of metabolic advantages for cisgender men, such as being able to run faster, jump higher, lift heavier things.

It's one of the main drivers, I think, of a lot of anxiety around this conversation. If that is true, then how can somebody who is assigned male at birth be eligible to compete in the female category? I think that is why there is just a lot of resistance to having some of that conversation. Also, frankly, just an oversimplification of what that science means in all cases, at all times. There is a difference between science and how we culturally understand that science. That's, I think, the very messy waters that we are all swimming in right now.

Brian Lehrer: There's so much more we could talk about at various levels of detail about this, but that is all the time that we have for today. There's our 48-minute treatment for this day on the question, how are school and professional sports leagues trying in good faith to balance inclusivity and competitive fairness? What is in good faith in this realm? With Katie Barnes, senior writer for ESPN and author of the book Fair Play: How Sports Shaped the Gender Debate. Listeners, thank you for your participation with your calls and texts. Katie, thank you so much for coming on with us. We really appreciate all the time you give us.

Katie Barnes: Thank you for having me and giving me a little extra time.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.