“What is a woman?” “Can a man get pregnant?” Questions like those are frequently raised at Senate hearings for progressive nominees to the federal bench or Cabinet positions. Republicans pose them for a reason. They know the witnesses will fumble the answers.
Some try to wriggle out with circumlocutions, offering only convoluted mumbling. That works brilliantly for French academic articles but not so well for U.S. Senate hearings. Other witnesses, mostly judicial nominees, claim they cannot answer because the questions might come before them in future cases. They breathe a sigh of relief since their real motto is “Loose lips sink ships.”
Often, Republicans discover the witnesses have already proclaimed their views in opinion pieces, social media posts, or academic articles when they were appealing to like-minded audiences on the left. When the audience is more skeptical, however, they are less eager to repeat those answers or to defend them.
Progressive witnesses may not have answers, but ordinary voters certainly do. They tell pollsters that men cannot get pregnant. Shocking, I know. They think it is ludicrous to place tampons in men’s bathrooms, which some universities and elite high schools do now.
The question of “who is a woman?” is more vexed. The reason is that common sense and cultural tradition point in one direction (“he was born a male and that’s what he is”) but those are opposed by another tradition: our respect for human autonomy. The Western values of human autonomy and deference for individual choices mean we normally acknowledge an adult’s self-identification. (Here is a hard question, though. If my autonomy is to be respected on issues of self-identification, why can’t I simply identify myself as an African American or Native American, even if there is no DNA evidence of that identity? Why shouldn’t that be my choice, just like gender? Yet self-identification as a racial minority without that bloodline is fiercely condemned as a malicious fraud. Just ask Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, or Ward Churchill.)
These issues are far from settled politically. If an adult male identifies as a woman, many people say, “So be it. Live and let live.” Others are more dubious. Still others reject it outright.
What most people agree on, finally, is that children should not be subjected to irreversible biological procedures or medications. That’s child abuse. It took U.S. hospitals several years to reach that conclusion and end those profitable operations, probably because their lawyers pushed them to stop. In years to come, you can expect lawsuits by adults who will claim they were mutilated as children when they were too young to give informed consent. They will say their parents, doctors, and hospitals should be held liable for the damage they caused. Dial 1-800….
Some of these issues were on the table again this week in Wisconsin. The state legislature in Madison passed a law protecting biological women (the fashionable term is “cis-women”) from competing against transgender women in sports. The governor, a progressive Democrat, promptly vetoed the bill.
Why he exercised that veto is an interesting question. It’s certainly not because there are many transgender voters, even if we include their supportive families and friends. The real reason is that the issue has been folded into the gaping ideological divide between progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans. The governor did not want to risk being caught on the wrong side of that fault line, alienated from his political base. He may also believe, quite sincerely, that the veto was the ethical thing to do. It’s always hard to separate a politician’s ethical principles, if there are any, from hard-nosed calculations.
Feminists are a vital part of the progressive base in every state, including Wisconsin. What’s so striking here – amazing, really – is how silent most feminists have been about transgender competition in women’s sports. Although a few have spoken out, nearly all have remained silent, probably because they do not want to be excoriated for their views or outflanked by those claiming to be more progressive.
Note that the issue here is not whether a biological male who now identifies as a woman can compete in sports. Of course she can. The issue is whether she (formerly a “he”) should be allowed to compete against biological women.
There are really two basic questions at play. One is whether the inclusion of transgender women poses any physical danger to biological women. In contact sports, it might. Indeed, some injuries have already occurred.
The larger, more profound issue is whether this competition would be fundamentally unfair. That ethical standard applies to any sport where strength and body composition matter, even if there is no threat of injury.
Take golf.
The easiest way to think about transgender women in sports is to ask yourself, “Should all golfers, both men and women, be grouped together in the same tournaments, competing on equal terms?”
Put differently, should there be women’s golf tournaments at all? If the answer is “Yes, there should be a separate competition for women,” then ask yourself why? Surely that’s because men can hit the ball much farther, putting women at a severe disadvantage. If that’s the reason, doesn’t it apply equally to transgender women, who can hit the ball much farther than biological women?
This difference in physical strength matters in many sports, from swimming to weight-lifting, from bowling to track and field. Currently, there are single-gender tournaments in all of them. That includes every Olympic event except one equestrian competition. But why continue this sex segregation? If you think transgender women should compete against other women in those sports, despite their marked differences in strength, what is your rationale for any single-gender competition?
And what is your rationale for prohibiting testosterone supplements for biological females? Allowing them would actually level the playing field since transgender women already have that male hormone.
These arguments are not meant to degrade transgender men or women. They are not about respect for them as persons. They do not imply, for instance, that adults shouldn’t be able to identify as a gender different from their biological sex at birth.
Respect for individuals and their self-identification is not the point here. The point is to call out unfair competition, condemn it, and stop it. That can happen only if people slip off their ideological blinders, at least for a moment, and face the issue squarely. Honestly.
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security. He can be reached at
