Uneven by nature: Exposing the ‘level playing field’ fallacy in women’s sports: op-ed

This is a guest opinion column

“Would you want your daughter to compete against a trans woman?”

The question punctuates a podcast or cable news panels. The implied nightmare: a trans competitor steals your kid’s spot on the podium and her dreams evaporate. Let’s answer that honestly and then look at the scoreboard.

Out of more than 510,000 college athletes, NCAA president Charlie Baker could name “fewer than ten” who are openly trans in women’s events—about 0.002 percent of the talent pool. Even if you add every out trans college athlete from the last decade, Outsports can tally only 45 names. Yet 33 state legislatures, a presidential executive order, and the NCAA’s brand-new “birth-certificate” rule are devoted to “saving women’s sports.”The math doesn’t add up, so what’s really going on?

This is a case of zero-sum thinking— the reflex to see someone else’s gain as your loss. When an edge is new and highly visible—say, a gender marker on the roster—the brain’s threat detector lights up. That’s why banning nine athletes can feel more urgent than understanding why girls drop out of sports at twice the rate of boys. We’ve engineered demand for a problem that barely exists, and the fallout is ugly: adults bullying children and even cisgender athletes scrutinized for appearing ‘too fast’ or ‘too strong’.

Zero-sum bias explains the whiplash between celebration and condemnation: Michael Phelps’s 6-foot-7 wingspan and low lactic-acid make him a swimming legend, not a rule breaker.Eero Mäntyranta’s rare gene let him carry up to 50% more oxygen and ski into Olympic history; the International Olympic Committee didn’t ban him from the games. We celebrate some of nature’s approved advantages, pathologize others, and call it fairness.

The thing is, the playing field has never been level—tilted by biology, bank account, and circumstance. Two high schoolers with vastly different aptitudes sit for the same SAT. Teachers stamp one as “gifted” and the other as “average.” A 6′4″ freshman dunks over a 5′5″ senior. Coaches call it “upside.” Nearly two-thirds of Harvard undergrads come from the richest fifth of U.S. families. We call it “privilege.” We don’t hold congressional hearings to level household income, IQ, or height. We shrug it off, call it life, and teach our kids resilience. Only for trans athletes in sports do we demand perfect parity.

Trans rights are women’s rights, and if we truly cared about expanding women’s sport, our first move would be to redirect money: women’s teams still receive a fraction of Division I athletic budgets. Next, we’d dismantle the pay-to-play pipeline where steep club fees shut out thousands of low-income girls long before college recruiting. We’d also stick with evidence-based eligibility rules (e.g., the former Olympic testosterone policy) rather than broad birth-certificate bans. At the same time, we would safeguard athletes’ privacy by ending invasive “proof-of-gender” exams that humiliate both cis and trans competitors. The real inequities stem from how we allocate resources, not from who is standing on the starting line.

So back to the question: “Would I want my hypothetical daughter to compete against a trans woman?” Absolutely—because taking your mark in that race provides two lessons. First, you are going to face tough, even unfair competition. Life offers no custom-height rims or income-adjusted SATs. Real confidence comes from racing a strong field—winning, losing, and returning stronger. Second, competing side-by-side is an invitation to trade fear and ignorance for understanding and empathy. Trans children are at higher risk of depression and suicide; a handshake at the finish line may mean more than any medal.

Colin Gabler is an Associate Professor of Marketing, Dean’s Fellow, and Fulbright Scholar at Auburn University. He writes about social justice issues and has published pieces on transgender athletes, how to talk about race, public health strategy, civil rights, student loan forgiveness, gun violence, DEI trainings, sales ethics, US Healthcare, emotions in voting, and DEI policy at outlets like The New Yorker, the Columbus Dispatch and AL.com.