The phrase ‘Protect The Dolls’ has become quite prevalent this year. This slogan refers to trans-identified men who have achieved a particular standard of femininity. The context relates to a contrast between ‘Dolls versus Bricks’, which is often discussed by trans people. Specifically, the term ‘Brick’ refers to a trans-identified man who has failed to achieve the relevant standard of femininity. The idea that protections and privileges should be associated with those who are capable of presenting as sufficiently feminine according to some measure or other, seems to be enormously regressive. Nevertheless, these regressive ideas are extremely prevalent within trans ideology.
For example, with respect to the demands that trans-identified men should participate in female sports categories, the same regressive ideas can be observed. Recently, a male cricketer who identifies as a woman has sought to play in the female category based on their supposed measurement within female ranges according to some characteristics. Predictably, any skepticism about this has been described by the usual suspects as transphobic bigotry.
The first question that arises with respect to this report, is why on earth would it matter to vocal trans activists? Why is it relevant to them whether the power achieved by an individual trans-identified man fits within the typically female range? Aren’t these the same vocal activists who have been telling us ad nauseam that “trans women are women”? Haven’t we all been admonished and instructed by the same people to accept that every individual person can identify into whatever gender they prefer? Weren’t we chastised and warned that anyone who objects to this idea is a transphobic bigot, who urgently needs to correct themselves?
If we were to accept that a woman is whoever identifies as a woman, then why would it matter what measures a trans-identified athlete achieved against power, strength or stamina? To suggest that a particular trans-identified man can qualify for the female category by measuring within a typically female range against these characteristics, is to to suggest that other trans-identified men who don’t achieve the same measurements cannot then qualify. In other words, this is a proposal to admit the ‘Dolls’ into the female category, while excluding the ‘Bricks’. Trans-identified men who retain masculine physical characteristics cannot obtain the same measures, and therefore would not qualify for the female category. Is it not the most bigoted position imaginable to either protect or ban individuals, based only on whether or not they achieve some arbitrary measure of femininity?
Of course, the way to regulate gender-based sports categories is entirely obvious and straightforward. What matters in this area with respect to fairness and safety within competitive sport is the physical advantage associated with undergoing male puberty, and not how anyone identifies. The relevant hormone treatments have minimal effects on trans-identified men and do not meaningfully mitigate their physical advantage. This is perfectly obvious when considering the huge range of physical advantages omitted from the very modest report provided by the trans-identified male cricketer in this case. For example, there were no measures provided for other factors that would also be very relevant for someone batting during a cricket match. These missing factors might include hand size, shoulder width, speed in running between the wickets, and many other characteristics. In relation to speed, the male pelvis is shaped differently from the female pelvis, in a manner that gives males an advantage in sprinting efficiency.
It is absurd to imagine that a short period of hormone treatment will change the shape of a person’s pelvis. It is even more ridiculous to imagine that the extremely modest measures reported by the trans-identified male cricketer in this case, demonstrate that the advantages associated with a male puberty have been erased. A male who produces a relatively low score in a test of peak power, is not a woman. In any event, the claim that this particular trans-identified man measures in the typically female range seems to be belied by the report itself, which describes peak power results more than a standard deviation above the typical female level.
The other problem with the proposed case-by-case approach to measuring each trans-identified male athlete in order to determine which individuals are in the typically female range, relates to the perverse incentives that this creates. “Faster, Higher, Stronger” is one of the most well-known athletic mottos, but this proposed approach would create an incentive for athletes not to get any stronger. This is anathema to the reasons why huge numbers of people are so engaged by competitive sport in the first instance. The fastest bowlers in women’s cricket did not achieve their pace because of what jobs their parents had, who their friends were, or how much money they had. Competitive athletes cannot fake it, if their sport is fair. If someone bowls a delivery at 132kph, we are thrilled and impressed because of how incredibly hard they had to work on their strength and technique to achieve this. It is contrary to this sporting ethos to have participants who can excel, but need to inhibit their effort so as not to excel too much. For example, many of those who understand split times and all the other esoteric details of competitive swimming at a high level, have long suspected that trans-identified men in the female category have deliberately inhibited their performance in order to not win too much.
The people who would propose regulations that incentivise faking it, don’t care about competitive sports and don’t have the best interests of athletes in mind. They have some other agenda.
If these absurd proposals aren’t made with the best interests of competitive sports or athletes in mind, what agenda are they furthering? It’s certainly not an agenda that cares about the facts of males participating in female sports categories, and the implications of this for fairness and safety. We can see this because the same people who now scream “transphobe!” and “bigot!” at anyone who questions these ideas, less than a decade ago could themselves immediately appreciate the implications of males competing against females.
It seems that when one group of far-left loons recently decided that everyone could pick their own gender, other far-left loons felt like they had to get on board. If this meant that some girls had to get flattened while playing their sport, then that was a price they deemed worth paying even after they had already accepted how unsafe and unfair this is. It now seems that if the ‘Bricks’ need to be thrown under the bus too, then that will be also acceptable to the far-left loons.