On Friday the UCI announced that it will ban transgender racers from elite women’s competition if they transitioned from male to female after puberty. The UCI cited scientific evidence that the athletic benefits derived from years of elevated testosterone levels are not counterbalanced by subsequently lowering testosterone in adulthood. And this shouldn’t really surprise anyone. For decades, anti-doping agencies have conducted out-of-competition tests for a variety of performance enhancers, including testosterone, because many of them have effects that last long after the substances themselves disappear or return to normal levels. USA Cycling will follow the UCI’s lead … at least, at the elite level.
We could see legal challenges to the ban. At one extreme, some transgender advocates say that the only necessary proof of womanhood is that a person believe she is a woman. At another extreme, some opponents argue that transgender women will always be men, no matter what they do to alter their bodies. In the United States, the UCI’s distinction between pre-puberty and post-puberty transition may constitute an impossible path for athletes to navigate, as many state legislatures and the federal government have considered or will consider bans on gender transition healthcare for minors. Someday soon, there simply may be no pre-puberty transition.
Chicago’s Austin Killips has been at the center of the debate about transgender cyclists. Killips won the UCI’s Tour of the Gila stage race in May and took the bronze medal at the USA Cycling Cyclocross National Championships back in December. Another transgender athlete, Jenna Lingwood, placed fifth in the elite women’s field at CX nationals after winning the Masters Women 40-44 age group championship. I haven’t met Lingwood, but I have met Killips. We worked together very well for the last 50 kilometers of the Little Apple 100 gravel race near Chicago in 2019, and I couldn’t have asked for a better partner. So, let’s not argue about whether transgender athletes should have some place in competition. They should. And let’s not argue about whether they should be treated respectfully and as members of the gender to which they feel they belong. They should. This isn’t make-believe for them. This isn’t dress-up. This isn’t even about sexuality; it’s about identity. Choosing to transition is damned hard, and the only reason to do it is because all of the alternatives are much worse. But at the same time, let’s not ignore biology. Killips and Lingwood had no noteworthy results when they raced in men’s categories pre-transition. It’s difficult not to argue that their success in elite women’s races is largely a result of the enduring effects of male puberty.
In Other News …
On Wednesday’s ride I surpassed 1,000 miles of cycling since I returned to Pennsylvania in mid-May. It’s a big enough number to impress my mother and other people who don’t ride, but I know it’s less than I would have ridden if I had spent all of that time in Wisconsin. I can’t be too critical of myself, though, because I have devoted a lot of time and energy to Mom and to her home, including many hours that might otherwise have been spent on the bike.
Rain turned today into a rest day and robbed me of a 200-mile week. I finished the week with 11 hours of saddle time and a total of 180 miles, my biggest numbers so far this year.
I’m down to my last two weeks here in Pennsylvania. I expect to be back in West Bend on July 28 or 29. I have tentative plans to return to PA for another two-week visit in October that, hopefully, will include a little cyclocross racing.
No comments:
Post a Comment