Journal of Physiology releases my response to their anti-trans article
a bittersweet celebration
Last month, I shared how some scientists were upset that cis and trans athletes have similar athletic abilities. The researchers in question published an opinion in the Journal of Physiology advocating for excluding trans athletes from sports which align with their gender identity. Their horrific arguments were firmly rooted in gender essentialism disguised as scientific thought. This week, the journal published my response calling out the anti-trans rhetoric in their journal.
I raised my concerns with the editorial staff at the journal, and they refused to reconsider the piece in the name of “debate.” Instead, the editor-in-chief Dr. Kim Barrett and the opinions editor Dr. Vaughan Macefield invited me to write a “counteropinion” for the journal. I shared my skepticism at this solution with them: First, my concerns were primarily with the rhetoric of the original piece rather than the scientific content per se. Second, in writing a response I would have to repeat the horrid rhetoric, potentially amplifying it further. Third, reducing trans people to mere subjects of debate is part of the problem!
Yet, as I searched academic databases looking for a piece that addressed why gender essentialist arguments are unscientific, I couldn’t find anything outside of trans studies that made this point.1 I realized that this opportunity could begin to address an extant need for trans affirming theory, so I wrote something up and submitted it. The piece was accepted despite the reviewing editor (Dr. Macefield) noting disagreement with the idea that the original piece was intended to be anti-trans. (Readers, you can decide that for yourself.)
While I am excited to see my work in print and am grateful for the opportunity to respond, I wish I didn’t have to. Frankly, the proper solution would require the editors to request edits of the problem piece. But it is clear that the editors at the Journal of Physiology either see their role as passive moderators (which is self-denial at the power that editors hold) or simply agree with the anti-trans rhetoric presented in the original article.
Regardless, today we celebrate! Thank you all for your support and validation as I raised these concerns with the editorial team. Your encouragement and shared outrage gave me the motivation to directly address anti-trans rhetoric in the Journal of Physiology and beyond.
Read my piece in Journal of Physiology.
For my previous posts on the anti-trans rhetoric and trans inclusion in athletics.
I wouldn’t describe my search as ‘exhaustive,’ so it’s definitely possible I missed some great work out there!
Ev, this is amazing news. Congrats! And thank you for writing on behalf of all of us. You're right, it shouldn't have to be this way, but we don't get to a better place without doing some hard work. I'm taking this as a win, and I appreciate everything you've done to get us here.
This is great. Hank you for your work. As Robin said we shouldn’t need it but we do. 🙏🏻.