Complaint
This podcast looked at the issue of trans women competing in sport. A listener complained “The construction ‘transgender women vs. women’ carries a specific logical implication: that transgender women are not women” and argued this meant the report failed to meet the 91’s editorial standards for impartiality. The ECU considered the output against the relevant section of the 91’s Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The podcast cited a recent systematic review of a number of studies and concluded the evidence “does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender”. The podcast accurately reflected the scope of the review, including the terminology used to distinguish between the groups being studied. In this context, the ECU considered listeners would have understood the programme was examining scientific evidence comparing physiological characteristics between defined groups, using language consistent with the research literature. The podcast did not offer a view on whether or not transgender women are women but simply explained the distinction being made in the context of sporting eligibility and scientific analysis.
Not Upheld