The Limitations of Social Media in Policy Debates: A Rational Look at DEI and Sports Competition

Topics like this one reveal the inherent weakness of social media as a driver of serious policy discussions. Our online environments, governed by algorithms designed to feed us content we already agree with, encourage emotional reactions over logical analysis. Instead of engaging in evidence-based discussions, we allow biases and personal inclinations (likes, shares, and outrage) to determine what is "right" or "wrong" in the public discourse. But policy decisions, particularly those with real-world implications, should be grounded in science, reason, and fairness, not social media-driven narratives.

Let’s take a deep breath and step outside the binary thinking that has poisoned so many conversations.

A Rational Approach to Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports

Both sides of this debate are likely to be upset with what I’m about to say. Some of you might actually agree with me (if you do, let’s connect and bring some logic back to these discussions). I know the algorithm probably won't favor this post because nuance doesn't trend as well as outrage, but here’s my attempt to cut through the noise and get people to think critically about this issue.

Let’s break it down into three key points.

1. DEI Aims to Address Systemic Barriers (Emergent Social Constructs), Not Biological Realities (Biologically Embedded Differences)

One of the most significant issues in this debate is the misapplication of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles in the context of sports. DEI is an important framework that works to break down barriers caused by social and systemic discrimination, ensuring that marginalized groups have fair access to opportunities (and gearing DEI towards economic freedom, de facto meritocracy, and access to networks and capital would be an improvement to DEI that would take us beyond melanin-based discussions but left for another article and another time). However, it is essential to understand that not all disparities are emergent social constructs—some differences are biologically embedded and directly impact performance outcomes.

Sports competition is fundamentally about developing natural ability and physical performance. The entire purpose of sports divisions is to ensure competitive integrity and that competitors are fairly matched. Unlike emergent and socially constructed areas such as employment, housing, or education—where discrimination (read lack of economic freedom, de facto meritocracy, access to networks and capital) is clearly a societally constructed issue—the differences that affect performance in sports are primarily rooted in biology and have tangible effects on outcomes.

This is why we have separate categories in sports in the first place.

• Men’s and women’s divisions exist because sex-based differences in strength, speed, endurance, and muscle composition create significant disparities in performance.
• Even at elite levels, the fastest women in the world do not compete at the same level as the fastest men in the world, even though both train at the highest standards.
• Sports organizations have long recognized the need for fairness by banning modifications like drugs, gene doping, and certain prosthetics, as even small artificial advantages can skew competition.

If sports were just about participation and inclusivity, we wouldn’t have competitive divisions in the first place. Sports are about fairness in competition as a primary goal, ensuring that skill and training determine outcomes, not unearned biological advantages.

2. DEI Equivalency Arguments Miss the Mark: Women’s Sports Were Created to Ensure Fairness in Competition

Some proponents of transgender inclusion in women's sports attempt to equate this issue to past civil rights movements, such as racial integration in sports. This argument is flawed because race does not determine competitive performance in the same way that sex does.

• Women's sports were created because biological males have significant physical advantages over biological females in strength, speed, endurance, and power output.
• We separate male and female sports not because of identity but because of fairness.
• We ban performance-enhancing drugs because even small physiological advantages can fundamentally alter competition.

Studies on transgender women in sports reveal the lasting impact of male puberty on athletic performance, even after years of hormone therapy. Key findings include:

• After two years of testosterone suppression, transgender women still retain significant performance advantages over cisgender women.
• A 2020 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that transgender women maintained a 12% speed advantage over cisgender female athletes after two years of hormone therapy.
• This advantage is greater than the difference between an Olympic gold medalist and a non-qualifier in elite female sports.
• Lung capacity, height, arm span, muscle fiber density, and bone structure advantages persist—these factors are not reversed by hormone therapy alone.

In swimming, running, and strength-based sports, these differences are amplified. Even when testosterone levels are reduced, the physical attributes gained from male puberty remain largely intact.

This is why female athletes at the highest levels of competition have spoken out—not because they oppose inclusivity, but because they recognize that they are being asked to compete against competitors who have retained advantages that years of training cannot overcome.

The push to include transgender women in female sports is not comparable to past civil rights struggles. It is not about breaking down artificially imposed barriers—it is about recognizing real biological differences that impact performance and fairness.

3. DEI Should Aim for Inclusion Without Undermining the Integrity of Fair Competition

The fundamental question we should be asking is: how do we balance inclusion with fairness?

DEI should be about ensuring everyone has access to opportunities, but in sports, inclusion should not come at the cost of competitive integrity.

• If we start prioritizing inclusivity over biological fairness, we undermine the reason we have sports divisions in the first place.
• Sports are not about guaranteeing equal outcomes, but about ensuring fair competition.
• The scientific and ethical arguments both support sex-based divisions in sports. Society should seek inclusivity, but that inclusivity cannot come at the cost of fairness.

Potential Solutions to Balance Inclusion and Fairness

Rather than forcing female athletes to compete against individuals who have retained male-puberty advantages, we should explore alternative solutions:

1. Open Category – A category where all individuals, regardless of sex or gender identity, can compete together. This ensures full inclusion without compromising fairness in women’s sports.
2. Maintaining Sex-Based Divisions – With additional competitive divisions where transgender athletes can compete fairly without disrupting biological fairness for female athletes.
3. Scientific Threshold-Based Participation – If governing bodies allow transgender athletes in female categories, they must develop strict physiological criteria based on evidence-based performance markers rather than just testosterone levels.

Sports should be inclusive where it makes sense—but not at the cost of the very fairness that makes competition meaningful.

Final Thoughts: Science and Fairness Must Guide This Debate

The misapplication of DEI principles in competitive sports has turned what should be a biological and fairness-based discussion into a politicized battle. Social media has fueled ideological echo chambers, making it harder to have rational, evidence-based discussions on this issue.

But the science is clear:

• Testosterone suppression does not fully eliminate male-puberty advantages.
• Women’s sports exist to ensure fairness, not to be redefined based on identity alone.
• Inclusion is important, but fairness must remain the core principle of competitive sports.

We can have respect for transgender individuals while also maintaining the integrity of women’s sports. The two are not mutually exclusive. But pretending that biological differences don’t matter, or that competitive fairness should be sacrificed in the name of inclusion, is not the solution.

Let’s base this discussion on facts, not feelings. Let’s strive for both inclusion and fairness, rather than allowing one to erase the other.

Would love to hear your thoughts—whether you agree or disagree. Let’s actually discuss this without the usual outrage and algorithm-driven tribalism.