Opinions
Trans sports bans rooted in eugenics
Key Supreme Court rulings will be future litmus tests
The United States and the world are waiting for the Supreme Court to hand down its decisions in two cases (Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ) that would rule on whether young trans women can play women’s sports at their schools. As trans journalist Erin Reed explained, these two cases are not just about transgender sports. These cases are litmus tests for trans rights at the nation’s highest courts and will have wide-reaching implications for the rights of trans and nonbinary people in the United States.
And these cases will impact cis women. As Orien Rummler reported for the 19th and them, anti-trans legislation and rulings threaten the rights of all women, especially cis women of color. The best example is the allegations that woman boxer Imane Khelif faced at the last Paris Olympics.
The gender policing that Khelif faced shows how sports bans that police who are considered a man or woman legitimize and mandate invasive medical testing, a form of medical abuse, against all women and girls who want to play sports. And let’s be clear — there is historical precedence for this.
The Nazi regime did use genetic screening in order to police who could have children as part of their “racial hygiene” programs, including marriage partner hereditary testing that flagged anyone with “tainted” genetic lineages. While prisoners in concentration and detention camps were subjected to horrifying medical experimentation, Nazi officials experimented with their own followers, facilitating reproduction only among people with desirable characteristics — notably those with blonde hair and blue eyes — and sterilizing those with undesirable genetics.
In fact, trans and gender non-conforming people were some of the first targeted by Nazi violence, with one of the first book burnings occurring in 1933 when Nazi youth and members of the Sturmabteilung ransacked the Institute for Sexual Science and burned one of the largest libraries of medical texts about gender affirming care. Nazi officials first exerted control over gender before extending this to race and religion.
And this was not confined to Nazi Germany. As I’ve written about before, the United States has used eugenics to justify the forced sterilization of women of color, disabled women, poor women, and incarcerated women. Forced sterilization was one part of forced or coerced medical testing that targeted Black and Indigenous women.
This medical violence, along with non-consensual experimentation including Dr. James Marion Sim’s gynecological experimentation on enslaved Black women, was rooted in systemic racism and medical abuse, and has contributed to legacies of mistrust and health disparities in medical institutions and practitioners.
When sports organizations, like the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, require women to undergo “sex verification,” they set a precedent of forced genetic testing that violates everyone’s privacy and could very well exclude many cis women from sports if they fall outside the bounds of what is defined as a “woman.”
The best example is cis women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Some people with PCOS have hyperandrogenism, an excess of androgen, or experience hirsutism (i.e. the development of more traditionally masculine features like increased muscle mass and more pronounced facial hair.) Mandatory sex verification may diagnose or “out” women as intersex without their consent. Differences of Sex Development, another term used to describe intersex experiences, is more common than most people would expect.
Would women with PCOS not be considered women? What about women with more pronounced facial hair or greater muscle mass because of natural variation? It’s important to note what is considered American standards of womanhood are rooted in White supremacy — one of the reasons why women of color have been and will be targeted by anti-trans violence.
The very people making these decisions are also beginning to ask these questions. According to Erin in the Morning, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is even worried about the implications of these two Supreme Court decisions. As Alejandra Carabello, a Harvard Law educator, told Erin in the Morning, a decision supporting anti-trans sports bans “could result in the segregation of women in a host of other areas of public life under the rationale that biologically, men are different and they need to be segregated.”
Barrett, a conservative justice who was appointed by Trump in 2020, seems to acknowledge these risks, saying “your whole position in this case depends on there being inherent differences.”
There is not. According to science, gender is not a strict binary but a spectrum determined by biological, psychological, and social factors, including cultural norms surrounding gender.
The best indication of this is that intersex people exist. Intersex people are individuals born with sex hormones and characteristics that differ from a strict male to female binary. Some people are born with atypical genitalia, specifically external genitals that don’t look male or female or are underdeveloped. Some are born with phallia, a condition where a baby is born without a penis, some born with a “mismatch” between their internal and external organs.
In all of these cases, the idea of normal, mismatched and properly developed genitalia and bodily presentation is conditional upon a male and female binary reinforced by the medical establishment — and to be clear, this gender binary has hurt people. For decades, intersex babies have suffered medical abuse because doctors perform unnecessary surgeries to “fit” these children into a female/male binary. These medically nonessential surgeries performed on children who cannot consent are a form of medical assault.
To be clear, this is not the same as gender affirming care performed on consenting individuals who are receiving hormone therapy and surgery to align their gender presentation with their identity. As major medical and mental health organizers assert, gender-affirming care is medically necessary and lifesaving healthcare for trans and nonbinary people.
And the vast majority of children who are having gender affirming surgery are cis ones. A June 2024 study found that the vast majority of minors undergoing gender-affirming surgeries were cis children. This did not include intersex people who underwent surgery or people who received surgery for an illness or injury. About 97 percent of 150 cases where minors received gender affirming surgery in 2019 were chest reduction surgery performed on cis boys. This surgery is commonly performed on boys with gynecomastia, or develop enlarged breasts due to a hormone imbalance.
So for many, the decisions expected on these Supreme Court cases may seem confined to sports but in actuality, they have profound ramifications not only for cis women but also amid the growing escalation and legitimization of eugenics in the United States.
It’s no mistake that earlier this month, Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, president of the Lemkin Institute, stated that the U.S. is in the “early-to-mid stages of a genocidal process against trans and nonbinary and intersex people.” Dr. Gregory Santon, former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, flags “a hardening of categories” surrounding gender in a “totalitarian” way.
Stanton argues that this is rooted in Nazi ideology’s surrounding gender — this same regime that killed many LGBTQIA individuals in the name of a natural “binary.” As Von Joeden-Forgey said, the queer community, alongside other “minority groups, tends to be a kind of canary in the coal mine.”
Even the fact that discussions of the trans sports ban foreground its potential implications for cis women (or that this is the primary concern voiced by Barrett) showcases whose bodies take priority.
This framework reflects how members of the feminist movement have used and presently do use the movement to justify the very anti-trans exclusion that will harm them. Some call themselves trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs); these women believe that codifying and protecting trans women’s rights threatens the rights of cis women and have even partnered with some conservative groups because of their commitment to enforce what it means to be a “biological woman.”
As history can show us, it’s exactly the opposite — first, feminism is rooted in equity for all people, all women, not just cis women. Because protecting trans women from medical violence like sex verification testing and challenging people and organizations that police who a woman is, protects all women.
Emma Cieslik is a museum worker and public historian.
Opinions
The facts about Victory Fund’s investigation and the path forward
Probe did not find legal or policy violations by Evan Low
William Waybourn helped found an organization whose mission has never been more important, but his recent op-ed in the Washington Blade leaves readers with a fundamentally inaccurate impression about how the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and Institute Boards responded to concerns raised about our organizations, their leadership, and our governance responsibilities.
The boards did not dismiss or minimize concerns. We did what responsible governing bodies should do: We took them seriously, retained experienced independent legal counsel, and authorized a thorough investigation to establish the facts.
The investigation proceeded without interference from the boards or organizational leadership, and the full boards were briefed on its eventual finding.
The conclusion matters: The investigation did not substantiate any legal or policy violations. After the briefing, the boards voted unanimously to accept the findings and close the investigation.
An independent investigation is meaningful only if we are prepared to respect its conclusions — whatever they may be. In this case, after reviewing the investigation and its findings, the boards continue to have confidence in President and CEO Evan Low.
That does not mean our work as governing bodies is finished or that any organization is beyond improvement. The boards will continue to work with staff strengthening Victory, including reviewing and updating policies to ensure they reflect best practices and support a strong working environment.
We can take matters raised seriously while also being clear about what an independent investigation did and did not find. Those are not contradictory positions. In fact, maintaining both is essential to treating everyone involved fairly.
Victory has endured for more than three decades because its mission is bigger than any one individual — a founder, board member, CEO, staff member, candidate, elected official, or donor. Generations of people have built Victory into an indispensable force for LGBTQ+ political representation, and those entrusted with governing it today take seriously our responsibility to protect that legacy and strengthen Victory for what comes next.
And what comes next could not be more consequential. Election Day is weeks away, LGBTQ+ candidates across the country are facing enormously important races, and our community continues to confront attacks on our rights and representation.
We will continue exercising the oversight expected of us, strengthening the Victory organizations, and focusing on the urgent work Victory was created to do: training and helping elect LGBTQ+ leaders, and ensuring our community has a voice wherever decisions about our lives are made.
Opinions
Evan Low is not the leader the Victory Fund needs at this moment
The board must recognize what is at stake and act before org’s legacy is lost
As co-founder and the first executive director of the Victory Fund and Victory Institute, I find the ongoing turmoil between a dozen or more employees and the organization’s new president, Evan Low, deeply distressing—particularly during such a critical election year.
The Victory Fund’s mission has always been clear and important: to elect and support qualified LGBTQ candidates for public office and, in doing so, secure a “seat at the table” from which LGBTQ issues can be advanced. That mission is too important to let internal turmoil diminish it.
I applaud the employees for going public with their concerns. When harassment allegations and other serious complaints threaten to derail an organization that was once so effective, where else are employees supposed to turn? The board of directors has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to the organization and to its donors.
I do not know Mr. Low, nor have I ever met him. Given my role as a founder, former executive director, and major donor, I found that somewhat remarkable. I was also surprised by the organization’s lack of contact with me at any level—whether to seek my financial support, ask for help with fundraising, or simply seek the perspective of someone involved in building the organization from its earliest days.
When Mr. Low was hired, members of the press contacted me about reports concerning his involvement in previous election-law matters. I declined to comment beyond saying that the board had hired an outside search firm to conduct the search and that I was in no position to assess any issues in Mr. Low’s past.
In hindsight, however, I have come to believe that Mr. Low is not the leader the Victory Fund needs at this particular moment. Ultimately, though, this is a matter for the board of directors to resolve. The board has an obligation to act decisively and independently before this internal conflict further damages an organization whose stature, effectiveness, and reputation were built over decades. The work of the founding board, subsequent boards of directors, and former leaders David Mixner, Brian Bond, Chuck Wolfe, and Annise Parker should not be so easily undone.
The Victory Fund once commanded the admiration, confidence, and financial support of countless people—including me. I hope the board recognizes what is at stake and acts before that legacy is lost.
(Correction: An earlier version of this op-ed called for the board to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations. The board did conduct such an investigation.)
William Waybourn is co-founder and the first executive director of the Victory Fund and Victory Institute.
For years, transgender Americans have been told that visibility is important. We should tell our stories, educate people, speak publicly about our experiences and show younger transgender people that a future is possible. I understand that argument because I have participated in that kind of visibility myself. Nearly a decade ago, I appeared in National Geographic’s “Gender Revolution,” in 2017, hosted by Katie Couric. I have written publicly about being transgender, participated in LGBTQ politics and spent years thinking about what it means to transition in America. My history is hardly a secret. But as I have gotten older, I have increasingly found myself wanting something considerably less dramatic: I want the right to be an ordinary man.
That does not mean I am ashamed of being transgender, nor does it mean that transgender activists should stop fighting for our rights. Many of the freedoms I enjoy exist because previous generations of LGBTQ people were willing to be conspicuous when visibility carried considerable personal risk. But equality cannot require permanent visibility. There is a strange expectation placed upon members of minority groups that our lives should contain some larger social meaning. A transgender person who overcomes adversity is called “brave.” Someone who talks openly about transition becomes “inspiring.” Someone who succeeds becomes an example of “trans resilience.” Sometimes those descriptions are deserved and sincerely appreciated. But sometimes I do not want to represent resilience. Sometimes I just want to walk my dogs, sit in a coffee shop with my laptop, complain about Northern Virginia traffic, go swimming, write books and figure out what I am having for dinner. I also want to be able to gossip with my friends in meaningless ways and do off kilter things that resemble fun: axe throwing, bowling, and karaoke.
When I was younger, being transgender occupied an enormous amount of psychological territory. Transition required decisions, explanations and difficult conversations. Other people had questions. My body seemed consequential in a way that other people’s bodies did not. There was always another milestone ahead of me, and for a while it was difficult to imagine reaching a point when gender would no longer dominate my thoughts. Eventually, however, something unexpected happened: life became life again. The questions that occupy me today are increasingly the same mundane questions that occupy millions of other adults. What kind of career do I want? Am I being a good friend? What should I write next? What kind of person do I want to become?
Most strangers who meet me today simply see a man. They do not know my medical history or what I looked like years ago. They don’t know that I looked like a skinny track star, and then was put into the resemblances of a meager nonbinary body. They do not know the chronology of my transition unless I decide to tell them. There is tremendous freedom in that, and I have come to think of it not as deception but as privacy. Nobody introduces himself by providing strangers with a complete inventory of his medical history, childhood insecurities and previous identities. Human beings reveal themselves gradually. Different people know different parts of us, and intimacy develops when we decide that somebody has earned access to more of our story.
Yet transgender people are frequently encouraged to regard disclosure as a measure of authenticity. I no longer believe that it is. There are circumstances in which being transgender matters enormously, and there are others in which it barely matters at all. When I am writing, I want somebody to care about the quality of the sentence. When I am working, I want somebody to care whether I did the job well. When I make a friend, I want that person to discover the complicated human being underneath the surface: my ambitions, flaws, anxieties, ridiculous stories and sense of humor. Being transgender may eventually become part of that conversation, but it does not have to be the first thing somebody knows about me.
That, to me, is one of the least discussed promises of equality. For decades, LGBTQ people fought for the right to be seen because invisibility was often enforced through shame and discrimination. Visibility therefore became a form of liberation. But perhaps successful visibility should eventually produce another freedom: the freedom to become unremarkable. A gay couple should be able to bore their neighbors with complaints about their mortgage. A lesbian should not have to become an ambassador for lesbianism whenever she enters a room. A transgender man should not have to turn his body into a public seminar about gender. He should occasionally be allowed to be some guy. Transgender people, in a sense, should also have the right to be flawed: sometimes we yell at our romantic counterparts, and other times we get fired from jobs for being obnoxious. But we are only human, just like you.
There are, of course, transgender people who cannot or do not want to disappear into ordinary life, and there are young transgender people desperately searching for evidence that adulthood is possible for them. Visible transgender people can provide that evidence. But there should be another story available to those young people as well: you can grow up, transition and eventually spend less time thinking about transition. You can become preoccupied with your career, fall in love, get divorced, write a terrible first draft and spend three days fixing it, worry about your parents, buy groceries and acquire all the wonderfully tedious problems of adulthood.
That might not sound revolutionary, but perhaps that is precisely what makes it meaningful. The ultimate promise of transgender equality should not be that every transgender person becomes visible, celebrated, courageous, or inspirational. It should include the possibility that a transgender man can walk into a room and nobody finds his gender history particularly interesting. He can simply be a man living his life. Increasingly, I think that ordinary freedom is what I wanted from transition all along.
Isaac Amend is a transgender man and writer based in D.C. In 2017, he starred in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He sits on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. His author’s portfolio is available at isaacamend.com, and you can catch him on Instagram at: @isaacamend.
-
Books3 days agoEliot Glazer’s new book an engaging collection of essays
-
Out & About3 days agoEquality Chamber hosts Pride in Business Expo and Profits & Pours
-
Out & About3 days agoLearn more about Virginia’s queer history
-
Brazil3 days agoLula, Flávio Bolsonaro to face off in second round of Brazilian presidential election
