In the April issue of The Union, there were multiple issues of intentional distortion in the Pro-Con editorial feature written by a student journalist. The first source used to justify discrimination against transgender and non-binary individuals was a peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2023, mistakenly cited as the National Library of Medicine. The conclusions of this study were that “limited evidence suggests that physical performance of nonathletic trans people who have undergone GAHT for at least 2 years approaches that of cisgender controls. Further controlled longitudinal research is needed in trans athletes and nonathletes.” This directly contradicts the student’s conclusions citing this study, and is either cherry picking out of context or intentional misrepresentation of the authors of the study; Ada Cheung et. al.
In a further attempt to bolster their “opinion” with the imprimatur of fact, the author of the opinion piece cites an article from the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 2020. The author did not bother to read parts of the paper that say “The conceptual model for our multivariable analysis could be wrong and incorrectly estimate the relationship of testosterone or oestrogen with changes in athletic performance. Finally, testosterone and oestrogen protocols were not standardised for our participants. Variations in hormonal exposure between patients could confound our measurement of the effects of testosterone or oestrogen on athletic performance and body composition.” The cautious conclusion of the actual paper was, “This study suggests that more than 12 months of testosterone suppression may be needed to ensure that transgender women do not have an unfair competitive advantage when participating in elite level athletic competition,” and is not advocating for a ban. A similar paper in the same journal from 2023 specifically states “While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research.”
Further, this author continuously refers to being transgender as a choice. This relegates non-binary and trans individuals as a lifestyle choice, when factual research, such as the MRI scan study published in the Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology in 2020, states that the structure of the brains of trans individuals differs significantly from those of cisgender men and women. Implying that being trans, non-binary, or gay is a choice is to literally declare that they did this to themselves, instead of it being a condition they were born with. It implies, for example, that basketball players or other athletes with conditions like Marfans should be banned from sports because of the height and reach advantages from birth. This is tantamount to saying someone like me chooses to be neuro-divergent, or that someone is gay because they choose to be. This is an extremely hurtful way to describe these individuals and inevitably serves to deny the actual existence of these individuals. The classification of trangender individuals as victims of their own choice, and seemingly intentional misrepresentation of the findings of published studies should have been fixed in the editing process. Deliberate denial of the existence of a minority group like this can be considered hate speech and contributes to making our trans/non-binary students and teachers unsafe. This practice can cause a student who might read this article who is trans/non-binary to believe they are not wanted and shouldn’t try out for sports. This article could have been thoughtfully presented without the phrases “choosing to identify” and without the distortion of published articles by acknowledging the limitations in methodologies and sample sizes admitted by the studies’ authors, but sadly a hurtful agenda won out over good journalistic practice and consideration of others.
Charles Schletzbaum, science teacher
