Thread by @AaronBauer91

I have read the recent blog by @seaningle about "how to solve the transgender athlete impasse" and I have a number of thoughs. Sean is a good reporter, but I think its important to voice these concerns in good faith. (long thread) Here is the blog: theguardian.com/sport/blog/201…

1. I think using Feagaiga Stowers as a narrative device is really out of line here, especially because none of Stowers' words are used in the story and an assumption about how she feels is used to set up the entire article. I get it creates a narrative, but it does not feel right

Stowers is an 18 year old weightlifter from Samoa who will almost certainly be a medal contender at #Tokyo2020. She came in second to Hubbard at the Pacific Games after winning gold at the 2018 Commonwealth Games. She's very good and has a long career ahead of her.

She's not an underdog. This "rivalry" is notable because Hubbard is an athlete who has transitioned. She meets all the requirements to compete, and almost lost her career after an injury at the 2018 Commonwealth Games. None of that is mentioned when...

...discussing the Hubbard vs Stowers dynamic. Also, neither is the abuse thrown at Hubbard online to her and to the New Zealand Olympic Committee. Other outlets who reported on Hubbard's exploits in Apia were also tagged in online abuse when discussing her.

2. Instead, the blog deadnames Laurel Hubbard for the reason to discussing her past competition before she transitioned. There's no reason to include her deadname, and it doesnt change the fact that she had a pre-transition career. Its easily mentionable without bringing up that

deeply personal fact about her for no reason at all. I am curious if that's the Guardian's editorial policy? Because if so, that really should be rethought because it comes off as a callous in my humble opinion.

And also, a third weightlifter is the one who gets quotes sharing

Their opiniojn on Hubbard. Not Stowers. Not Hubbard, but a third athlete. I understand most reporters did not travel to Apia, Samoa for the 2019 Pacific Games, but this feels off.

3. The blog then goes to mention how this whole issue is fraught and there so far has not been an acceptable solution to everyone. I mentions that women's sport has been a protected class, without ever turning that logic back on the transgender community.

Women's sport absolutely emerged because there needed to be resources poured into it and allowing for competition in a patriarchal society that aimed to limit opportunities for women athletes. This was and still is a noble goal, but that protected class then is sought to be

continued at all costs, without accepting by many that trangender men are men and transgender women are women. Instead, to keep this protected class, the minority group of atheltes who have transitioned is then shunned aside instead of allowing them to compete in the system

that they did not set up, and are subjected in. Science has shown that human DNA is not as binary as we once thought, but sport must be kept as a binary to protect its integrity, while not allowing everyone to prosper under those rules. I can't say this enough.

4. Anyway, where I think this blog does well is to start to show there is research that is challenging our current status quo, which was put out by the IOC in 2016 after being challenged in human rights court. The 2016 IOC declaration is a consensus statement, not designed to be

Definite and all encompassing because the issue requires so much more research and is stuck in an outdated model. You just can't will up a solution without good faith scientific research while also acknolwedging our gender binary just isn't reality.

The IOC's goal is to always promote sport for all so it allowed for a consesus to allow athletes who have transitioned the right to compete, and every athlete working in that system is just as valid as every other athlete that plays by sport administrator's rules.

Knowing that there must be more done to figure out the best solution, opposition groups continue to engage in bad faith debates about the protected classes which created this gender binary in the first place. Highlighting research that challenges conventional thought is fine, but

It has to be done in a way that shows we are just trying to move a conversation forward, not that either side is "correct" in its thinking. This is about humanity and our shared passions and goals, not proving one side right. That gets lost in this blog!

5. Dismissing the notion of re-organizing our sport in terms of things like VO2 Max and weight is just another talking point that untinentionally reinforces the gender binary which will only keep this "issue" in limbo forever. Yes, its a radical proposal, but what's to say it

could never work? Because people are initially unhappy with the idea of it? Of course they are! The way we are doing things benefits an overwhelming majority in the status quo, so changing that would be radical and disruptive. But not all disruption is bad inherently

Maybe we should be thinking about these reorganizations so that we stop treating this as a binary issue so that the end goal of the supposed sport administrators is met: universality in sport.

6. Characterizing the issue as a debate inherently casuses more issues because it implies there is one right and one wrong side ulitmately. This is about people's livlihoods, more so than the access to competition privileges. For many athletes who transition, sport is the only

thing keeping them alive. This goes beyond who is protected and who is not: it is a life or death issue for some. Sure, we need more research and better understanding on it but we need shared humanity without erasing those who have transitioned's humanity.

7. Also, Joanna Harper does not speak for the entire athlete who have transitioned community. She is also not the only transwoman who has a voice in this. When I've been reporting on this issue, there have been so many diverse viewpoints that have informed my beliefs.

I just wish the blog had gotten into that angle. It was disappointing to not see it as much.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I respect Sean a lot, and wanted to be clear with my intentions, but issues were still apparent in this piece.

I guess one more thing to say is Hubbard doesn't owe anyone her story, but I think its important to not try and push a story on her in response. There's a way to report about it and take stock of the situation, but her silence shouldn't be an invitation to create a narrative.

@seaningle After writing this thread I was sent this lovely essay from @BlazerGirl2. There are many stories like this that empower athletes who have transitioned, and they are missing when we frame this as a debate. Happy to share more, as well!!

athleteally.org/wfa-player-eri…