Fair and Equitable

 As a well-educated, upper-middle-class, liberal, white person who knows a lot of other similarly described people, I've noticed a consistent theme in arguments regarding social and economic justice. They push back against any idea of change by pointing out, often quite correctly, how the new laws/regulations/attitudes will result in an unfair situation. Affirmative Action hurts Asian Americans. The MeToo movement results in some innocent men being harmed (financially). We can't decrease racial disparity at the expense of higher overall crime rates. We can't (shouldn't) change the status quo in a way that results in a new type of inequity.

But if you think about it: why not? Those very same liberals will readily admit the status quo is not fair. They decry the racism in our country and want to change. They feel for other marginalized groups and will attend a rally and carry a big sign to prove it. They know things are wrong and should be fixed. But they will fight any change that fixes one problem by creating another - because that new problem might actually affect them.

But if one group has held the advantage in an unfair situation for many generations, isn't it better to switch it up and let the disadvantaged people have power for a while? If your older brother hogged the Nintendo console for a whole weekend, isn't it fair that you get to have it all to yourself the next weekend? Isn't inequity fairer when the victims are rotated instead of locked on the same groups all the time?

I mean, I also would like a world that is perfectly fair and equal to everyone everywhere all the time. And such a world might be possible. But to hold up any change in this world in the name of only moving towards a theoretical perfection (which cannot be universally agreed upon) ends up looking like a bunch of privileged folks not willing to give up their privilege. I get it. I, too, would rather not live in a world where I am accosted for my skin color; where I face heavier policing of my public interactions as well as my personal life. I'd rather not be poorer than my neighbors and given less chance to improve my situation. I don't want to be discriminated against, prejudged, or needlessly killed by the state and society. But if that's the price I (we) must pay to create a better world for those who are currently suffering under the yolk of my privilege, I  have to admit it would be only fair.

The Transgender Athlete Question

 I’ve seen a lot of folks say they accept and support transgender people but they still don’t feel it’s right to allow them to compete in athletics. A lot of these people are kind and considerate folks who genuinely want to be accepting and compassionate, and I think their position comes from ignorance and not malice. I think their logic is unsound and if they'd be open to deliberate and thoughtful discussion of the topic they might well realize their mistake. It’s easy to rely on our feelings or the words of someone else when we don’t really have the background or desire to dig deeper into an issue. But the only compassionate route is to take the time to think a little deeper about an issue that affects the basic humanity of a group of people, even if that group represents a small percentage of the population.

The argument normally comes down to this: men clearly have a biological advantage in sports, so it’s unfair for transgender women to compete against cis women. Sounds reasonable but it fails on measured reflection. First, we let people with biological advantages compete all the time. We let tall people play basketball. We admire swimmers with abnormally long arm spans. We let people who grew up at high elevation run against those born at sea level. Some men and women have naturally higher testosterone levels. Sports is never a biologically level playing field so why is it an automatic disqualifier in this one instance?

And whether or not transgender women have a biological advantage is much in dispute. Transgender women only compete in sports after they have transitioned. And while the definition and rules vary by sport, it’s very clear transgender women athletes are no longer biologically the same as male athletes. All the evidence I’ve been able to find, including all the anecdotes put forward, show that transgender women lose most, if not all, of their biological advantages in the transition. (If you don't believe this, do the research yourself instead of assuming you know it already.) So how is it right to exclude a group - a very small group - of people on the basis that they might possibly have some (probably) small degree of biological advantage? 

On the other side of the coin, we have a ton of evidence that excluding transgender people from parts of our society does great harm to them. They face much higher rates of violence and abuse. They are discriminated against in jobs and schools. They are far more likely to have suicidal thoughts and actions. We have direct evidence these harms come from societal perceptions and treatment and when transgender people are met with acceptance and opportunity they fair better. We also have a ton of evidence that participation in sports provides such acceptance and support and leads to better mental health among all populations.

As I said, it’s okay to be uncertain. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism and not know where to draw what line. It’s okay to ask questions and to try to learn more. But it seems like a clear choice that if we are to err due to our ignorance and uncertainty on the issue of allowing transgender women to compete, it should be to err on the side of compassion, the side which does less significant harm. More women will lose competitions to women who are naturally taller or stronger than them, more women will lose scholarships to women who can afford private coaching and better training than them, more women will lose out to women who try harder than them than will ever lose any of those things to the very, very tiny percentage of transgender women who take huge personal risk to transition and compete in sports. Let transgender women be women. Let them compete even if they might win. That’s what sports is about.

Finally, and perhaps I should have said this part first, no people deserve to have their existence questioned. Transgender people have existed throughout history throughout the world. They are real. They are human and thus deserving of all the rights and dignity we all share. They themselves are not up for debate. This is where I’ll lose some people, but any question of such a basic tenet of humanity is not to be tolerated. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism. You can always learn. But any question of their fundamental right to exist is based on ignorance and born of bigotry. It’s the same bigotry that says being gay is immoral. It’s the same bigotry that says Black people are inferior to white. It's the fear of the Other and the reflex to hurt and hate those who are different in a vain attempt to protect and uplift one's own group. Such a view leads to dehumanization and discrimination and does not deserve to be respected or entertained in the discussion of the topic. Transgender women are women.