Back to Main Page

There’s No Such Thing As A ‘Transgender Athlete’

By Michael Robillard | July 17, 2024, 13:52 EDT

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2024/07/17/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-transgender-athlete/

In the past several months, several state and federal lawmakers outside of Massachusetts have announced bills that would ban so-called “transgender athletes” from participating in women’s high school and college sports. 

While such decisions clearly mark short-term tactical victories for defenders of women’s sports, conservative lawmakers’ continued use of the term “transgender athlete” actually helps to solidify a strategic defeat in the long run. This is so because such terminology tacitly concedes that there actually exists a new metaphysical category of person (“transgender athlete”) in addition to just males and females, when there in fact is no such category or type of person whatsoever.

Mind you, on the transgenderist account, the term “transgender person” or “transgender athlete” is not referring to persons suffering from the rare medical complications of Klinefelter Syndrome or Turner Syndrome; nor is the term referring to transvestites (men and women who refuse to conform to traditional social norms of dress or behavior typically associated with their biological sex); nor is the term referring to persons suffering from dysphoria with respect to their biological sex (not unlike Body Integration Disorder or Anorexia). Rather, on the transgenderist account, use of the term “transgender person” or “transgender athlete” implies two distinct claims:

1.  That there is a man (or woman) who believes or stipulates that his or her objective, biological sex is something other than that which it is

and

2.  That objective reality with regard to that person’s biological sex now conforms to that person’s subjective belief or stipulation — or, if not, then at the very least, all other language users now have a duty to amend their own language to accommodate that special speaker’s subjective prerogative, no matter the resulting set of falsehoods, incoherence, or absurdities

But these claims are false.  And many who should know better are talking as if they might somehow be true.  By adopting the very same terminology and language promoted by transgenderist advocates — and with it, all of the accompanying metaphysical baggage and conceptual incoherence beneath the hood — well-meaning conservative lawmakers on the frontlines of this most important debate actually assent to these two above claims and thereby concede defeat from the very get-go. In so doing, they unintentionally sanction a writ-large unfairness and society-wide incoherence that goes well beyond just the domain of women’s sports. 

That being said, if what lawmakers mean by “transgender athlete” is just “a male athlete who believes himself to be a female or identifies as a female,” or vice versa, then the specific verbiage used by policymakers and lawmakers should reflect just that — i.e., “male athletes banned from participation in female sports” — no more and no less. To do otherwise would be to unwittingly smuggle in all of the additional ideological baggage that they are explicitly attempting to reject.

In addition to this particular point, conservative lawmakers, in Massachusetts and beyond, should be more on guard with respect to the unseen conceptual and metaphysical commitments often attached to or implied by the terms, language, and phrasing within this present debate on transgenderism. That said, I offer the following set of prescriptions to conservative lawmakers and policymakers to aid them in this effort.

1.  Stop Saying ‘Biological Female’  

“Biological Female” is a redundant term since the concept of “biological” is already baked into the very concept of female itself. To use it, however, subtly suggests that there’s such a thing as a ‘non-biological female.’ But there are no non-biological females just like there are no non-geometric triangles. Just say female.

2.  Reject ‘Preferred Pronouns’ 

Pronouns are indexicals, meaning they depend on context for meaning.  They are not proper names. They are also part of our set of shared meanings. So, while it might be disrespectful to not refer to someone by that person’s individual proper name, it is not similarly the case with respect to pronouns. Private speakers do not own nor can they personally stipulate the meanings of pronouns any more than they own or personally stipulate the meanings of adjectives, adverbs, numbers, or the worth of shared currency. Language, to include pronouns, is irreducibly public.    

3.  Start Using The Term ‘Transgenderist’

Like Marxists, Communists, and Capitalists, activists and ideologues promoting the ideology of transgenderism are pushing a set of ideas that can be accepted or rejected based on their merits.  In other words, there are no “trans people” or “non-binary” people or “meta-people” or what-have-you. There are just people; people with differing worldviews, beliefs, and ideologies. With respect to the specific ideology of transgenderism, then, such persons should be properly referred to as what they are:  transgenderists.

4.  Refuse To Use The Term ‘Gender’ At All 

Lastly, and as I’ve noted extensively elsewhere, conservative policymakers and lawmakers should refrain from using the term “gender” within the law altogether. The ambiguity, incoherence, and multiplicity of definitions associated with this one, singular term has caused more social harm and confusion than perhaps any other word, and has left conservatives stuck in a perpetual linguistic shell-game that they are bound to forever lose. If conservatives want to make their case within the law, then they need to refuse to use the term “gender” at all and stick to the term “sex.”

By “sex” I mean the biological categories of “male” and “female,” where a male possesses XY chromosomes, small gametes, and is ordered (in principle) to reproduce with females of the same species, while a female possesses XX chromosomes, large gametes, and is ordered (in principle) to reproduce with males of the same species. Unlike the ever-shifting term “gender” which can refer to anything from socially constructed norms, to subjective or privately determined feelings, to opaque, self-referential, or nonsensical meanings, the term “sex,” in the traditional, common-sense sense of males and females, gives us all one, objective, and publicly evaluable standard by which to speak, act, and coordinate our shared institutions.    

These are just a few suggestions for how conservative lawmakers within Massachusetts and elsewhere can begin taking back the high ground of language with respect to women’s sports and beyond. 

For part of what makes a virtuous and moral society is not only the ability to speak freely but also the ability to speak correctly and to call things what they actually are. To do so more effectively requires that lovers and speakers of truth begin largely rejecting the language, phrasing, and terminology set by their opponents who are clearly committed to just the opposite.

Dr. Michael Robillard is an independent scholar, Iraq war veteran, and Roman Catholic. He hails from South Shore Massachusetts. His writings can be found at www.michaelrobillard.com and on Substack at @michaelrobillard.