Why this has morphed into “Dubious University Firings Friday” I don’t know, but here goes…
The University of Arkansas rescinded its appointment of Emily Suski (above), a professor of law and Associate Dean for Strategic Institutional Priorities (whatever that’s supposed to mean) at the the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, as its new University of Arkansas Law School dean. It had previously announced on January 9 that Suski would become dean on July 1, beginning a five-year contract with a $350,000 annual salary, according to The New York Times. At the time, University of Arkansas provost Indrajeet Chaubey praised Suski’s “extensive experience in leadership roles in legal education and practice” and said she “is an accomplished scholar” who “has also been very successful in establishing medical-legal partnerships in South Carolina to support children’s health and overall well-being.”
Sounds great! Then an Arkansas state senator and others registered their objections to Suski based on her stated support for trans female athletes competing against biological women in women’s sports, and the fact that she was among 850 law professors who signed a letter urging the US Senate to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
In response, university officials announced that they had rescinded Suski’s offer because of “feedback from key external stakeholders.” It appears that the school acted because of veiled threats from Republican state legislators that having such a progressive law dean would endanger the University’s funding from the state. (“Nice little law school you have here…be a shame if anything were to happen to it…”) After all, Arkansas law was the first state in the US to ban “gender-affirming care”—gag!— for minors.
I’m about 85% certain what the right answer to this one is, but out of respect for that 15% of doubt,
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Ethics Alarms 
If you believe that Jackson was selected because she was an accomplished legal thinker and not a choice based on race then denying her based on signing a support letter would be wrong. If you wonder about Ms Suski’s actual abilities based on her choices of advocacy now that you have been made aware of them then I don’t see rescinding an offer as unethical.
Every employment choice seeks to find the best fit between the prospect and “stakeholders”. In universities stakeholders are just about anyone who touches the university in some fashion. Faculty are major stakeholders and often veto the best hire for the school because they want someone who they can control. In this case, a state senator weighed in. I don’t think one state legislator senator can influence funding at the state level but school officials would rightfully be concerned but if a student group can influence hiring decisions funding sources should also have equal standing
It is a state school. The legislature determines funding. A lot of our state universities are being run as subsidiaries of leftist thought. If the legislature thinks that such a woke Dean cannot serve the students equally, that conservative students might be discriminated against in the Law School, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, then the legislature should let the school know that the state may not feel the need to fund a school that only wants to serve some of the citizens of the state.
Why do state university officials feel they have the right to refuse higher education to state citizens that don’t politically align with the officials?
Nyet! (Bangs shoe on table.)
I believe I have an almost sociopathic ability to compartmentalize. The legal field was the right choice for me.
my firm represents has a large percentage of immigrants clients (both immigration and other things (I have a client who is legal and Hmong)).
I do not practice immigration law; too complex; I would have to specialize; I am proudly a general practitioner.
if everyone here illegally were magically deported tomorrow, I would not be upset, but many of them have legal avenues for relief and my partners help them. And I help my partners help them.
and we also help people come in legally. Coming or going, we help them.
but, we butt heads on the recent ICE enforcement here. We already got smoked out of our offices on lake Street because of George Floyd. I am disgusted by the current unrest.
I have also butted heads with my cousin, who thinks it is deceitful of me to make money off people who I think should not be. I have always maintained that, coming or going, hopefully we can make money. If I can get 1% of the 40 Million people subject to deportation, I could retire on time.
at the same time, ICE is moving people from Minneapolis to Texas within hours of being detained. To me, that is dirty pool. Our non-immigrant side of my practice is ramping up our habeas corpus practice. I am fine with that.
if this dean is as sociopathic as I am, leave her be.
-Jut
Why does this phrase “trans female athletes” always make my head hurt? Isn’t clearer/better to say “men who think they’re women”? Anyway . . .
I don’t know this person and I have no idea about her background or pedigree or leadership skills. Chris, Michael, and Jut make great observations. I am not opposed to a hard leftist as the dean of my law school, as long as that political alignment does not have an impact on course material or school mission.
See, when I was on the pastoral council for our parish, we deliberated supporting a local “advocacy” group (which, oddly, advanced solely progressive causes, one of which was to push an amendment to the local taxing authority charters that would allow for contributing $.01 of every $10,000 of collected property tax revenue to some homelessness slush fund – that doesn’t sound like a lot of cash but when you do the math, it is a huge amount of money). I expressed my disagreement with the group, recommended against funneling any money to it for its programs, and strenuously objected that our parish would be listed as a donor along side Planned Parenthood, which I thought flew directily in the face of parish, diocese, and Church teaching. The final vote was 10 to 2. Yet, my objection was noted and quickly dispatched (perhaps landing me in a few more eons in Purgatory, but hey, at least I’ll know a lot of people . . .).
But, the issue was vetted and the council had the proper vote and the measure carried. Any blowback on the parish could be blunted by the vetting process because it wasn’t just some vote on a Saturday morning, but a vote after many weeks of deliberation by all sides.
All of that is say that, if the law school vetted her, then it should stand behind her. One thing you can say about Bill Clinton and his SCOTUS nominees, he did not withdraw any of them even when he knew they would not pass Senate confirmation. That, to me, was a signe of leadership, someone who was willing to stand behind his actions. This school caved and sent a message far and wide that the Almighty Dollar controls the school’s decisions.
jvb
850 law professors … signed a letter urging the US Senate to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
What did they know and when did they know it? Whew!
Fair? No. Responsible? Yes, definitely. Their funding would be cut otherwise.
**********************https://archive.is/laeFF**********************Few issues ignite as much controversy as whether transgender women should compete in women’s sports. Some opposition is outright bigotry, such as claims of “protecting women’s sports from men”. Other objections cite genuine-sounding concerns for the safety and well-being of female athletes.
This essay asks whether the push to bar trans women from women’s sports rests on solid evidence of unfair advantage — or whether it’s propelled by politics and fear.
Please note: if any of the information presented here happens to contradict your personal views and you feel compelled to challenge it, I ask only this: bring evidence, not outrage. Provide references. Offer credible sources.
Reframing Fairness
We often describe sport as a level playing field, yet excellence has never depended on effort alone. Long before any competition begins, genetics, body morphology, coaching, equipment, and socioeconomic privilege tilt the odds.
Consider long‑distance running, a discipline I pursued competitively until injury took me off the track. Hours of training and formidable mental grit are essential — because when you “hit the wall” around the 18th mile, it’s willpower that will carry you forward, not your legs.
But no matter how hard you train, an athlete blessed with a naturally higher VO₂ max can outpace rivals who work just as hard. That head start is genetic, not earned.
The pattern repeats elsewhere. Swimmers benefit from long limbs and broad shoulders; cyclists thrive on large muscle mass; height dominates basketball; compact builds excel in lighter wrestling classes. Access matters too: a talented coach, high-quality gear, or having access to a premier facility can turn potential into wins.
We cherish underdog upsets — the runner who wins barefoot because she couldn’t afford shoes, the swimmer from an improvised pool — but they stand out because they are exceptions. For every fairy‑tale finish, countless talented athletes are quietly hampered by factors beyond their control.Governing bodies tweak equipment standards, weight classes, and drug policies in the name of balance, yet sport ultimately celebrates peak performance, not perfect equality.Absolute fairness remains an aspiration, not a given condition.
What Does Science Say
Before we debate policy, we need to know not only what the evidence shows but also where its limits lie. Most primary studies follow fewer than 50 participants, and data on elite competitors are especially scarce; in total we have roughly 25 peer‑reviewed cohorts covering about 600 trans women and 300 trans men, largely from military or recreational samples.
With those constraints in mind, the next sections examine sex‑linked physiology research and the newer gender-affirming hormonal therapy findings, marking clear patterns while flagging gaps that still spark debate.
Physiological Performance Differences
In aggregate, people who experienced testosterone‑driven puberty — most often those assigned male at birth (AMAB) — tend to develop larger cross‑sectional muscle area, higher lean‑body mass, greater hemoglobin concentration, and longer limb segments. These traits translate into greater absolute power, oxygen‑carrying capacity, and leverage in many sports.On average, adults with a testosterone‑driven puberty carry roughly 10–12% more hemoglobin and about 35% (SD ≈ 9%) more upper‑body muscle mass than adults who underwent estrogen‑dominant puberty — typically those assigned female at birth (AFAB).
Conversely, shorter femurs and a wider pelvis can confer biomechanical advantages in flexibility and certain endurance events for many AFAB athletes. Yet performance ranges overlap: elite AFAB sprinters routinely outperform untrained AMAB individuals, and individual variation often exceeds these population averages.
From Baseline to Transition
Because these performance‑relevant traits are hormonally modulated, most sports policies hinge on what happens when transgender women suppress testosterone through gender‑affirming hormone therapy (GAHT).
Longitudinal studies show serum testosterone typically drops into the cis‑female range within 12 months², accompanied by measurable declines in hemoglobin, muscle mass, and strength. The magnitude and timeline vary from athlete to athlete, but the overall trend narrows many — though not all — average male–female gaps.
Effects of GAHT
Most GAHT studies are small longitudinal cohorts (n ≈ 8–46) that follow participants for 6–36 months with repeated lab measures. Effect estimates therefore come with wide confidence intervals, but the direction of change is remarkably consistent across studies.
Strength & lean‑body mass. In trans women, upper‑body strength falls ~5–10 % and total lean mass 3–5 % within the first year of estradiol plus androgen blockers.² ³ In Wiik et al.’s longitudinal cohort of untrained trans women (n = 11), relative upper-body strength — bench-press 1-RM expressed per kilogram of body mass — dropped into the cis-female reference band by month 24, while absolute loads were still ≈ 4–6 % higher than those of cis women.
Hemoglobin and aerobic capacity. Testosterone suppression (< 1 nmol · L⁻¹) normalizes hemoglobin within four to six months³, provided the athlete is not training at altitude. Running‑time⁵ and cycle‑ergometer⁶ studies show VO₂ peak and 1.5‑mile run times converging on cis‑female reference ranges after 18–24 months.Residual differences & performance overlap. A modest 3–7 % surplus in lean mass or sprint power may persist, yet this sits well inside the broad inter‑individual spread among cis women.⁶Independence from training load. Cohorts that tracked habitual activity observed performance shifts that paralleled hormonal change, not reduced training volume — underscoring an endocrine rather than behavioral driver.¹
What GAHT Can’t Change
Gender‑affirming hormone therapy can lower testosterone and shrink lean mass, but it cannot re‑sculpt the skeleton or organs that matured during puberty. Those fixed traits can bring sport‑specific upsides — yet they also fall inside the broad performance envelope already tolerated among cis athletes.
Stature & limb length. Final adult height and limb lengths lock by late adolescence. Extra reach is useful in volleyball, basketball, rowing catches, and racket sports; nonetheless, women’s leagues already span nearly 30 cm in height — from Simone Biles (1.42 m) to Brittney Griner (2.06 m).
Shoulder and pelvic geometry. Wider bi‑acromial breadth and narrower pelvis may aid throwing velocity, swimming starts, and some contact sports. GAHT reduces surrounding muscle mass but leaves bone angles unchanged.
Cardiopulmonary structure. Hemoglobin falls⁷, but the heart‑chamber volume and lung size decline only modestly, which could matter in power‑endurance events like rowing or time‑trial cycling. Evidence remains scarce and ranges overlap with those of cis women.⁸
To put it in perspective, these residual anatomical attributes might confer measurable benefit in a handful of height‑ or power‑centric events. Blanket exclusions assume that any residual physiological difference — no matter how minor — renders competition unfair.
The Hilton & Lundberg 2021 Study
Frequently cited by critics of trans inclusion, Hilton & Lundberg’s narrative review argues that testosterone suppression fails to erase male-puberty performance advantages, therefore blanket exclusion of trans women is justified⁹.But it fails to settle the question.
Their review is narrative, not systematic, so the authors pick which studies — and which metrics — get airtime. They substitute cis-male world-record data for actual trans-athlete performance and lean on absolute numbers that overstate the gap once body mass is factored in. ¹⁰
For example, their table shows a 9% strength gap on absolute bench load; corrected for body mass, the gap is 2%, within cis-female SD.
Crucially, their analysis stops at 2020 and uses the now-defunct 10 nmol L⁻¹ testosterone limit; newer cohorts operating under <5 nmol rules show relative strength and endurance falling squarely inside the cis-female range within two to three years of GAHT.¹⁰Taken together, the paper is a useful historical snapshot but nowhere near the definitive evidence some policy documents claim it to be.
From Physiology to Policy
With the scientific baseline established, the next section evaluates whether sport‑governing bodies — IOC, World Athletics, NCAA, World Aquatics, and others — translate these findings into proportionate eligibility rules or veer into over‑correction.
What the Governing Bodies Say
The International Olympic Committee first cleared trans athletes in 2004, allowing trans women to compete in women’s categories, and its 2015 policy set a 10 nmol/L averaged over 12 months limit for blood testosterone levels. The IOC’s 2021 framework abandoned a universal testosterone cap and told each federation to set evidence-based limits.¹¹
Initially, many federations adopted a ≤ 2.5 nmol/L cap, but from 2022–24 the biggest bodies in athletics, swimming and cycling replaced caps with blanket exclusions for anyone who has undergone male puberty.
A notable exception is the International Tennis Federation, which still has a provision allowing transgender women and non-binary people who were assigned male at birth to compete in women’s categories, provided their testosterone levels were ≤ 2.5 nmol/L for 24 months prior to their competition.¹²
So–Why the Bans?
There is limited and contested evidence of residual advantages after GAHT that I’ve mentioned in the previous section. With only ~25 cohort studies — none on world-class athletes — some leaders fall back on the “precautionary principle”, formally embedded in IOCs 2021 policy.¹³ That leaves plenty of room for social pressures to fill the gap.
And there has been intense PR pressure after a handful of high-profile cases. Federations depend on commercial deals and TV contracts negotiated in jurisdictions where anti-trans sentiment polls well. A vocal minority threatening boycotts can appear larger than silent fans, especially to risk-averse sponsors.Governing bodies worry that a single lawsuit from a cis female athlete who loses a medal could cost millions. By contrast, cases brought by excluded trans women have (so far) been thrown out on standing grounds, as happened to Lia Thomas in 2024. Politics influences which lawsuits seem scarier.
Examples
◘World Aquatics (FINA) banned trans athletes who transitioned past the age of 12, to ensure “competitive fairness and integrity”. The vote happened three months after Lia Thomas’ NCAA win triggered worldwide media outrage and U.S. state-level anti-trans bills. 71% of member federations approved the ban.¹⁴ They have also briefly floated an “open” category, but it was shelved following failure to attract any participants.¹⁵
◘World Athletics made a decision in March 2023 to “protect the future of the female category” after it saw “little support” for a hormone-limit compromise. Sebastian Coe openly said stakeholder feedback — not new data — drove the change; the ban followed months of lobbying by Fair Play for Women and UK politicians.¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸
◘UCI banned all athletes who underwent male puberty on July 2023, citing “remaining scientific uncertainties” and bone-structure advantages. The ban came six weeks after Austin Killips’ overall win at the Tour of the Gila ignited complaints from riders, sponsors, and conservative media.¹⁹
◘World Rugby banned trans athletes in October 2020, citing studies estimating a 20–30 % higher head-impact force on tacklers.²⁰ Although officials framed the final decision as player-welfare driven, certain reports indicate that some unions warned of litigation and commercial repercussions if a ban was not introduced.²¹ What Politicians & Activists Say
Policy shifts rarely unfold in a vacuum. Elected officials and advocacy groups supply the moral language that turns marginal athletic outcomes into headline‑grabbing crises.
◘“Protect girls’ sports” as a legislative hook. Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act flanked by high‑school athletes, declaring that “biological males will never displace our daughters on the podium.” Similar sound‑bites accompanied nearly identical bills in Idaho, Texas, and Kentucky — drafted with model text circulated by Alliance Defending Freedom.
◘Parliamentary pressure in the UK. MPs Miriam Cates and Sharron Davies have repeatedly claimed that “male‑bodied athletes will dominate women’s sport within a decade unless action is taken,” citing the Lia Thomas NCAA result as proof. The assertion persists despite zero British podiums by trans women at national championships.
◘Lobby groups framing fairness. Fair Play for Women (UK), Women’s Sports Policy Working Group (US), and Save Women’s Sports persistently argue that hormone suppression “cannot undo male puberty,” urging blanket bans as the only non‑discriminatory option. Their policy briefs are widely quoted in World Athletics and World Rugby consultation papers.
◘Digital amplification. A 2024 Media Matters audit counted 424 weekday segments mentioning trans athletes between February 5 and June 6 2025 on FOX News TV channel alone.²² During the first 31 days of Trump’s second term, the three major cable news channels spent eight hours and 50 minutes on the president’s anti-trans orders, which comprised 156 segments and 187 teasers.²³ The rhetoric follows a consistent script: trans women are portrayed as imminent podium-sweepers — even though their actual representation sits below 0.02 % of women’s sports participants. Such messaging shapes public opinion, which in turn pressures federations and lawmakers, completing a cycle where perception eclipses empirical evidence. Are Trans Women Athletes a Danger?
Opponents often warn that trans women pose two distinct threats: (1) a physical safety risk to cis women — especially in contact sports — and (2) a competitive threat that will push cis women off podiums en masse.
Injury Risk in Contact Sports
World Rugby’s 2020 ban relied on head‑impact models indicating a 20–30 % higher tackle force when “male‑puberty” players hit.²⁰ Yet their own surveillance database has never recorded a serious injury attributable to a trans woman in women’s rugby.Aside from the model mentioned, there are currently no studies that examine transgender athletes posing a realized or potential safety risk to cis women in sport.²⁴
While there are anecdotal reports and documented cases of transgender athletes causing injuries to cisgender competitors, it remains unclear whether any potential physiological advantages contributed to these incidents.
Some such reports, such as those claiming that the trans woman MMA fighter Fallon Fox supposedly has broken the skulls of two cis women opponents during bouts have been debunked.²⁵
Governing bodies already modulate risk through weight classes, padding, scrum‑height limits, and foul penalties; none require blanket exclusions to keep injury rates within acceptable thresholds.
Podium Takeovers
Actual medal tables expose the exaggeration: in the 2024–25 international season, trans women won 0 Olympic or World Championship medals²⁶, 1 continental gold (Track Cycling Masters, 35‑39 age group), and 3 national‑level titles — all outside the ten most lucrative women’s sports leagues. Across NCAA Division I championships since 2010, only Lia Thomas owns a single-event win out of 2,122 women’s titles awarded (< 0.05 %).
What does this tell us?
Claims that trans women endanger cis athletes or will dominate podiums rest on hypothetical models, isolated anecdotes, or headline amplification — not on systematic injury surveillance or medal counts.
Risk management should target behaviors (dangerous tackles, illegal strikes) and event‑specific factors (weight, skill class), rather than blanket bans tied to identity.
Inclusion at the Grassroots
At the non-elite level — schools, local leagues, community clubs — the presence of transgender athletes is exceptionally rare. Studies and institutional data consistently show that trans athletes make up a tiny fraction of all participants. For example, out of over half a million student-athletes in the U.S. college system, fewer than ten were known to be transgender, according to the NCAA president himself.²⁷
Similar underrepresentation holds at the youth level, where trans-identifying teens make up roughly 1–2% of the population²⁸, but are significantly less likely to participate in organized sports compared to their cisgender peers.
The reasons for this underrepresentation are not biological, but social. A growing body of research highlights the key barriers faced by trans youth and adults in sports: lack of inclusive policies, fear of harassment, absence of appropriate facilities, and a cultural climate that treats their presence as a threat.²⁹In one major survey, only 44.6% of transgender and gender-diverse teens reported engaging in regular physical activity, compared to over 70% of cisgender girls.³⁰ Rather than dominating, many trans youth are simply opting out.
Importantly, where inclusive policies do exist, there’s no evidence that they undermine cis women’s participation. Data from U.S. states with trans-inclusive school sports rules between 2011 and 2019 shows that girls’ sports participation remained stable — hovering around 48% — with no declines attributable to trans inclusion.³¹ If anything, fostering inclusive environments appears to support overall engagement.
This reality is further supported by the experiences of grassroots and recreational leagues that have already implemented trans-inclusive models. Organizations like the Women’s Sports Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, and LGBTQ sports associations in Canada and the U.S. affirm that inclusion does not create competitive imbalance at the community level.³² Instead, it helps create safer, healthier, and more welcoming spaces for all.
The argument that trans women are overrepresented, or that they threaten cis women’s opportunities in sports, simply doesn’t stand at the grassroots level. What’s far more common is the quiet exclusion of trans people from physical activity altogether — at a cost to their health, their confidence, and their community participation.
Conclusion
This issue might not be simple — but neither is it the catastrophe some claim it to be. If transgender women had truly upended women’s sports, there would be evidence: a flood of medals, a trail of injuries, and an overwhelming presence at every level.None of this has materialized.
What we have instead is a fragile balance between fairness and fear, between science and scapegoating. The data shows measurable—but—narrowing — performance shifts under gender-affirming care.
It also shows that trans women remain statistical outliers not because they dominate, but because they are often excluded before they begin. Participation is rare. Domination, rarer still.Yet bans are multiplying. Not because science demanded them — but because fear did. Because media outrage travels faster than nuance. Because policymakers worry more about appeasing boycotters than about creating equitable systems. Because the myth of the “invading male body” still holds cultural sway, even when the body in question has been reshaped, reconditioned, and recontextualized entirely.
We do not achieve fairness by drawing harder lines. We achieve it by recognizing complexity — and by responding to that complexity with proportionate, evidence-based policies that respect the dignity of all athletes, not just the majority.It is not radical to ask for inclusion grounded in science. It is not radical to say that trans women should be judged on the same terms as anyone else: their training, their performance, their conduct — not their past. And it is certainly not radical to insist that rules should reflect reality, not amplify hysteria.
This is not about denying differences. It is about rejecting the idea that those differences automatically disqualify someone from competing — or from belonging.
Author:Dayna and quoted with her permission.
Warning: citing the facts in this in whole or in part may be forbidden in your jurisdiction, and may result in academic exclusion or being held at borders.