Some scientists are mad that cis and trans athletes have similar abilities
the men are resorting to malpractice (cw: scientific transphobia)
Hi friends. I have been debating about publishing this piece for over a month now. I hand’t necessarily envisioned this tone and subject matter for QSL. But this week, I am at a conference for my field (brain development), and too many of my fellow conference attendees have talked past me, creepily touched my elbow, and laughed at the mere sight of me. There was also an intellectually lazy research presentation which masked open transphobia. (I promptly left the auditorium and got an early start to dinner.) So, I thought I’d lightly vent and highlight genuine concerns about abuses in modern science using a relevant example for this audience. A vibe check on this piece would be appreciated.
💜ev💜
Last month here at QSL, I discussed the science and politics behind bans on trans athletes from competing as their gender identity. In that post, I outlined a new study by Hamilton, et al. that found negligible differences between cis and trans athletes across a wide variety of physiologic measurements. If you haven’t had a chance to read that piece (or want to refresh your memory), I have linked to it below.
The Tea on "Women's Sports"
Around the same time that I was writing that article, other scientists were writing a rebuttal to the Hamilton study - a rare move typically reserved for studies with serious methodological flaws. This rebuttal was accepted to the journal Physiology (a publication which received over 3 million full text views in 2023), but it only offers mere statistical quibbles, claiming that the measures reported by Hamilton et al. are not “clinically relevant.” (For those following along at home: No, trans athletes are not clinical subjects; they are athletes.) The rebutting scientists end their petty missive by reasserting gender essentialism as a biological fact with no accompanying citations or data.
Unfortunately, the reactionary pushback from transphobic scientists is even more widespread. Two groups of scientists (including one with financial ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-queer hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center) have posted similarly unserious intellectual attacks on the Hamilton study using a “rapid response” communication to the article’s publisher, the British Journal of Sports Medicine. And that’s not including a very weird man with a science background who this week commented on my original post with a transmisogynist screed.1
the epitome of a broken system
Despite claims of objectivity, science is a people business. It’s idealism is dependent on good faith actors who evaluate experimental results on their own merit. However like all human systems, the terrain of science is one characterized by uneven power distribution. The publication of an intellectually dishonest piece that seeks to deny transgender people of both access to cultural institutions and social legitimacy is a prime example of these power dynamics in action.
While it is tempting to center the authors of the bogus rebuttal, I want to shift attention to the role of the editor who handled the piece. To be clear, the authors of the rebuttal deserve criticism, but the editor was complicit in this scheme. In scientific publishing, editors have broad latitude in deciding the fate of a manuscript. They make initial decisions on sending a work to peer review, choose the reviewers who examine the manuscript, and decipher reviewer comments to make the ultimate decision on whether a study merits publication in their journal.
As with all forms of power, an editor’s power can be abused, and this was the case for the editor who handled the Hamilton rebuttal. Here, the editor unilaterally decided that the piece was worthy of publication in his journal. While this is consistent with the editorial policy of the journal, the editor’s review consisted only of a request for the authors to change to title from
"The global performance of transgender athletes: A debate that lacks biological plausibility"
to
“Physiological factors affecting performance of transgender athletes: A debate that lacks biological plausibility."
Apparently, the editor (Dr. Vaughan Macefield of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia) agrees that the debate about trans athletes “lacks biological plausibility.” That word salad is just code for gender essentialism, but notably Dr. Macefield is not an expert in sports medicine or gender. Rather, he is a neurophysiologist. In short, this rebuttal reeks of anti-trans bias across all levels of the scientific and publishing processes.
I reached out to the journal Physiology for clarification on the review process for the rebuttal. I have not received a response as of the publication of this article. [Update 8/4/24: The peer review manager at Physiology has clarified that the rebuttal followed the standard peer review process for the type of article. This standard process for the journal requires only the editor to serve as a peer reviewer. The text above has been slightly edited to reflect this as consistent with the journal’s editorial policy.]
Ultimately, science will not save us. But like it or not, the institutions of science hold sway over policy makers and broader society. And just like our other institutions (such as political and media bodies), we must hold science accountable for overt transphobia and abuses of power. It is clear that bad actors will disregard data they disagree with in order to preserve the status quo.
The data is clear: trans athletes deserve to compete in sports at all levels. The Hamilton study was unambiguously subjected to peer review, and these expert reviewers deemed it worth of publication. These weird men are simply trying to marginalize us post facto with their unearned levers of power.
I have removed the comment from the post to preserve QSL as an affirming space.
Jeez those “questions” at the end of the rebuttal are awful.
And I’m sorry to hear about the harassment and transphobia at the conference. I hope you can still have some good experiences there regardless.