Wrong about me and wrongheaded about Duke

I’m writing to respond to a guest column The Chronicle published on August 26 titled “Duke University faculty must stop advocating for anti-gay and anti-transgender laws.” This title is misleading. As The Chronicle’s hyperlink “taylor-coleman-trans-rights” makes clear, the essay isn’t about generic “faculty” — it’s about me. I’m responding because it’s wrong about me and my work, and wrongheaded in its institutional message.

I encourage you to read the column for yourself, but the bottom line is this. Its author argues that I’m partly to blame for all that’s gone wrong globally for trans people in sports and beyond: 

The column claims that the “roots” of the “ongoing controversy surrounding Algerian boxer Imane Khelif at the 2024 Paris Olympics” can be “partly trac[ed] back” to me. The “origins” of “the recent surge of anti-transgender sports bills” — that’s partly me too, it claims. Indeed, according to the column, my “work contributes to a nationwide wave of legislation not only banning transgender athletes but also restricting trans medical care and imposing bathroom bills.” Before me, anti-trans activity was “declining.” After me, it has “skyrocketed.” 

Duke is also in the wrong, albeit by proxy, because it employs and even “support[s] and award[s]” me rather than firing me or formally disavowing my work: “This support” itself “has global repercussions,” the column contends. Its takeaway is that Duke shouldn’t tolerate influential faculty whose work isn’t politically palatable — in this case to the author and her allies.

It’s one thing to disagree on a point of policy, but at least in a university, disagreement should be informed, accurate and respectful. I take the author, an alumna, to be part of its extended community. From the top of the column, it’s plain these standards weren’t met.

I’ve never advocated for laws that could be described as anti-gay, as its title implies. Conspicuously absent is any mention of my new book, “On Sex and Gender – A Commonsense Approach.” If you read it, you’ll see I’ve done exactly the opposite.

I’ve never advocated for anti-trans laws. To the contrary, I’m in favor of trans rights, just not by way of denying sex. As I explain in “On Sex and Gender,” it doesn’t have to be either/or. I believe we can hold onto both.

Contrary to what the column implies, I’ve not “contribute[d]” to “restricting trans medical care and imposing bathroom bills.” In fact, I’ve argued for trans people being able to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity and for access to gender affirming care.

There is “concrete evidence” — not just “speculations around IOC language” — supporting a reasonable belief that the boxers whose inclusion in female competition at the Olympics caused controversy are biologically male. This evidence includes genetic test results from two accredited laboratories, in Istanbul and New Delhi, indicating an XY chromosomal complement; statements from the IOC indicating they may have correspondingly high testosterone levels; and, at least for one, statements from her trainer — a renowned sports scientist — that a second opinion from a private endocrinologist confirmed the original lab results — and that she’s been suppressing her T levels since. 

The IOC acknowledged receiving the original results and it didn’t challenge the laboratories’ work; rather, as its spokesperson explained, the organization’s reasons for not “dealing with” them were ethical and procedural: “Partly confidentiality. Partly medical issues. Partly that there was no basis for the test in the first place. And partly that sharing this data is also very much against the rules, international rules.” 

The scientists who co-authored the Consensus Statement for the American College of Sports Medicine on “The Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance” are confident in their findings. Anyone who works in the hard sciences knows that the concluding disclaimer “more research is needed” is standard protocol.

As the abundance of gender diverse female athletes competing and thriving in elite female sports makes clear, sorting trans athletes the same way all other athletes are sorted — by sex — isn’t the equivalent of “den[ying]” them the benefits that flow from elite sports. The fact that some but not all trans women and girls would prefer to compete in the female category where they have an advantage is just that — a preference.

I’m not against transgender girls being included on girls’ school sports teams. I haven’t “change[d]” or “rejected” my “original position.” As the dedicated section in “On Sex and Gender” makes clear, my position on school sports — which is different from my position on elite sports — remains the same as when I co-authored this op-ed arguing against North Carolina’s unnecessarily exclusionary legislation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, read my essay in The Washington Post for yourself: I was correcting misleading statements about the state of the scientific evidence that should inform law and policy.

Finally, GOP politicians have sometimes cited my work, but I’ve not influenced their policy positions. A careful read will show that they typically cite me for the basics about human biology and for my summaries of competition results, both of which are readily available from other sources. Affiliated politicians have also sometimes sought to capitalize on the fact that I’m a liberal and a feminist to make the point that their position on sports isn’t a partisan proposition. This is simply a fact, repeatedly confirmed by national surveys. The truth is that the vote-getting appeal of girls’ and women’s sports — and frankly the disruptiveness of sex denial — is why GOP politicians latched onto the issue, well before they’d ever heard of me and my work.

Now to where this is coming from and to what’s wrongheaded about the column's central message.

In the last six months, through a member of the university faculty and in concert with at least one other alumna, the column's author pursued a course of action — over email — designed to get me to take down my work, to disavow it and to embrace their political cause. They say that my “advocacy for discrimination” — meaning my view that it sometimes makes sense to distinguish sex from gender — “poses a significant threat to trans rights, women’s rights and human rights.” When their insistence escalated into an actual threat — comply or else “our next step is to release and publicize a petition” to pressure me to do so — I reported them to the university. 

The errors in the column – like others they make that falsely claim I’ve testified before legislatures I’ve never encountered and wrote briefs in cases in which I’ve had no role — suggest the facts matter less than that a policy position with which they disagree is sometimes articulated by thoughtful people and platformed in thoughtful places.

They’re wrong on both counts. Facts always matter. And the column's thesis — that Duke shouldn’t tolerate, support or promote faculty who don’t toe a certain political line — has no place in a thriving university.

The questions I work on, including how the law should define ‘sex’ and whether it should go from being smart about it to blind to it, are among the important issues of the day. Because of this, they’re being debated at every level and in every branch of government, as well as in the two presidential campaigns. Universities are exactly where issues of such import should be carefully examined. We have the disciplinary tools, the training, the time and the temperament to do this work well, meaning in depth and taking different perspectives into account. This is especially important in a context like sex and gender, where the solutions will touch everyone’s lives in one way or another. In a very real sense, doing this work is why universities exist.

And yes, we should be polite — not “polite sounding” but actually polite — as we do our jobs. I’m using the word “polite” according to the Oxford Dictionaries via Google, as “having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.” “Polite” characterizes “civil discourse” which — claims to the contrary notwithstanding — isn’t a conservative commitment. It’s also the opposite of “dangerous.” Mutual respect and consideration are essential for well-functioning institutions. Good on Duke for being one of them.

Doriane Coleman is the Thomas L. Perkins Distinguished Professor of Law at Duke Law School