By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Utah has implemented new, exceptionally stringent standards for transgender girls participating in high school sports, exceeding those of the NCAA and Olympics. These guidelines mandate testosterone levels four times lower than college sports’ threshold and require ongoing gender transition medical care, despite a state ban on such care. Critics argue these standards, passed with minimal discussion, effectively bar all transgender girls from competition, contradicting the law’s intent to address only “outliers” posing safety or competitive advantages. The significantly lower testosterone limit and other requirements have been condemned by medical professionals as medically unfounded and discriminatory.
Read the original article here
Utah has recently implemented a new policy requiring transgender girls to maintain testosterone levels below 66 ng/dl to participate in high school sports. This threshold is significantly stricter than the NCAA’s guidelines, raising concerns about its fairness and practicality.
The immediate issue is the exceptionally low testosterone level mandated. The typical female range is far broader, and many cisgender women, particularly those with conditions like PCOS, naturally possess higher testosterone levels that would disqualify them under this new rule. This raises questions about the policy’s potential to exclude cisgender athletes alongside transgender athletes. The impact on cisgender girls with naturally higher testosterone levels, who may face increased scrutiny and questioning, is a significant concern.
The sheer number of athletes affected by this new rule is also incredibly small. Many suggest only a handful of transgender girls would be affected in the entire state. This begs the question of the policy’s true necessity and suggests a disproportionate focus on a problem that is not widespread. The argument that such legislation is about protecting fair play seems hollow when considered alongside the minuscule number of individuals it impacts.
The financial burden associated with the required testing is another point of contention. The cost of the blood tests, potentially exceeding $200, is not typically covered by insurance, placing an undue financial strain on families. The logistical challenges of scheduling and undergoing these tests also add an extra layer of complexity and hardship for participating athletes. The sheer inconvenience and expense raises the issue of whether this process is truly equitable.
Beyond the logistical issues, the underlying motive of this policy comes under scrutiny. The comments suggest that it is deeply rooted in societal biases associating femininity with weakness, leading to a fixation on proving or disproving an athlete’s gender. This is further complicated by the fact that many on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for gender affirmation often have lower testosterone levels than many cisgender women, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the restriction.
Concerns about the broader implications for women’s sports are also raised. Many fear that this kind of targeted policy could open the door to further restrictions and investigations into the eligibility of female athletes, potentially causing unnecessary stress and anxiety for athletes and their families. The fear of increased scrutiny and potential disqualification based on arbitrary hormonal levels is a significant concern.
The policy also raises questions regarding the ethical implications of enforcing hormonal interventions on young athletes. The comments highlight the illegality of imposing hormonal therapy on minors, potentially creating a conflict between the requirements for participation in high school sports and existing laws regarding medical treatment for minors. Such a contradiction suggests significant flaws in the design and implementation of the rule.
The disproportionate focus on this issue, considering the minute number of athletes affected, is contrasted with the lack of attention paid to broader issues of equity in athletics. The suggestion of a wealth test instead is presented as a more effective means to address real inequalities in athletic opportunities. The new policy appears to be a diversion from addressing genuine issues within high school sports and instead focuses on a relatively insignificant minority.
The overall sentiment surrounding this new law is overwhelmingly negative. It is described as a moral panic driven by misogyny and a political strategy to distract from more significant problems. The comments strongly suggest this policy is not a solution to any pressing issue but rather another point of contention in the culture wars, with little or no tangible benefit to the athletes or the overall integrity of high school sports in Utah. The lack of focus on solutions to genuine problems, like providing equal opportunities and access, is highlighted as a more serious concern than the negligible issue this rule ostensibly attempts to solve.