Natalie Ryan is a transgender female, who was originally barred from competing at A-level events by the PDGA. Many of the other female competitors in the Female Professional Open agreed with the PDGA’s decision. Here, we will evaluate the different perspectives of the in-group, Natalie Ryan, and the out-group, the CIS female competitors, on whether or not transgender females should be allowed to compete in female sports.
There are many solid arguments for an in-group perspective, which argue that female transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in female sports. In-group advocates argue for respect for gender identity. Transgender women are women, and as such, they should have the same rights and opportunities as cisgender women, including the right to participate in the FPO. They state that sports are about inclusivity. By allowing transgender athletes to compete in accordance with their gender identity, the PDGA demonstrates a commitment to these values. In-group advocates argue that transgender females on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may experience muscle mass and strength reductions, bringing them more in line with cisgender women’s physiological profiles. They also argue that the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports competitions is also a matter of human rights. Denying transgender athletes, like Natalie Ryan, an opportunity to compete because of their gender identity is discriminatory and contravenes the principles of equality and non-discrimination. In-group advocates…show more content… In the case of Natalie Ryan, the out-group be the female competitors, who argue against transgender females competing in the FPO. When discussing transgender athletes competing in female sports competitions, an out-group argument should be concerned about fairness, competitive balance, and the integrity of women's
