Fair Play: How Sports Shape the Gender Debates by Katie Barnes

I'll start by saying that I think a more accurate subtitle for this book would be something like "A discussion of the gender controversy in sports in the United States, and how it has been weaponized by the Trumpian Right Wing" 

That makes the book a bit of a puzzling read for me because:

• I am not an American
• I am not a sports person

But given how the very existence of trans people (particularly trans children) has become a key way for current "conservative" parties to generate outrage, I thought this book could be a timely and perhaps informative read.

My thoughts? 

First of all, Katie Barnes is an excellent journalist.  They have been covering trans folks in American sport since 2016 (the book was published in 2023), and bring their in-depth knowledge, personal experiences, and full professionalism to the discussion. This feels particularly impressive given that Barnes was a child athlete and is trans themselves. No matter how understandable it might have been for Barnes to write either a rant or a polemic, they have not done so.  Instead Fair Play is a thoughtful and well-informed book that benefits from Barnes' empathy, insight, and deep knowledge of the subject matter.  Throughout they go beyond the obvious to tell the human stories of people like Lia Thomas or Mack Beggs (who are more often treated as talking points than people), while also diving into what we know about the science of gender-based athletic difference, the history of post Title IX American women's sport, and the known history of trans/intersex people's involvement. 

In other words, Barnes did an excellent job with Fair Play.  

Does that mean that I think everyone should read this book? The answer for me would have to be, yes but. And the reasons for that but really boil down to the fact that fundamentally, this is a sports book and an American book:

• Example #1:   Barnes expresses as a supposed truism that "Sports are important; all kids should be able to play them".  This sounds admirable, but I don't believe sports as a whole actually believes that in any real way.  For example, when some of the trans/gender-non-conforming athletes interviewed for this book speak about how they felt isolated or excluded within their sports, my gut reaction was "I'm so sorry you experienced that, but that's sports and sports people for you. That's exactly what they're like." 

In other words,  I find it sad but unsurprising that gender-non-conforming kids have the same experience within sports that I did as an unathletic nerdy child. 

• Example #2:  The book is full of "inside baseball" details about American sport. The most literal example comes when Barnes describes the experiences of a kid who started their sports career playing girls softball before transitioning. I have sympathy for the difficulties that kid faced, but:

•  the idea that softball is gendered as a female is weird (which Barnes acknowledges. Unlike in Canada or Australia, in the US softball is purely a women's sport.)  
•  the idea that softball and baseball are somehow completely different sports is hilarious to me. (I played league softball as a kid.  IIRC, the differences are underhanded pitching in softball vs. overhand pitching in baseball, a different ball, and a few minor rule differences around strikes and outs. In other words, softball and baseball are essentially the same sport! We aren't comparing rugby and rhythmic gymnastics here.) 

In other words, as with many books, its specificity is both its weakness and its strength. Which is to say, once again, that fundamentally Fair Play is both an American book and a sports book.  

My last observation is that I found the discussion in Chapter 8: The Breakup in Women's Sport heart-breaking.  This is where Barnes covers the attempt of a group of 'old school feminist sports advocates' and a group of 'new school LGBTQIA+ activists' [my words, fwiw] to come up with a common position and an agreed-upon set of policies around trans inclusion in women's sport. 

They failed. 

The resulting fracture was seized upon and weaponized by those who wanted nothing more than to stoke hatred and division (ie/ Trumpian politicians). You could say that we are seeing the repercussions of that failure everywhere today (including in the despicable laws recently enacted by the Alberta government).

What happened?  

A reductionist view is that one side favoured "fairness" while the other favoured "inclusion". But in some ways the division reminds me of a division that I've seen in the world of computer programming.  

To be a good UI designer (and to make a truly awesome user interface), your designs must make the tasks that most people do most of the time easy and intuitive. Sure, there are less-common tasks, and there are people who need to do unusual things. But if your user interface focuses on that 20%? Disaster. Most people will dislike your software, avoid using it, use it incorrectly, or even hate it.

On the other hand, to be a good back-end programmer, you need to obsessively concentrate on edge conditions. If you don't account for every 'uncommon' case that could possibly happen, your code will fail -- probably spectacularly and at the worst possible time.  In other words, to make a system work you need to spend 80% of your time concentrating on the 20% of edge conditions that could make everything fall apart. 

 In the world of computer programming, the best software comes from teams with both sets of skills, of course, where each kind of expert can focus on their area of expertise. Then the team can work together to build something great.  

But outside of the technical sphere? Well, even within it we live in a world with UIs built by back-end specialists, and back-ends that fail because they don't account for easily predictable situations. And outside? I wonder what kind of software we'd have if every bug was treated as a deliberate provocation and if stoking outrage was a goal written into the product specs?

Overall, Fair Play is an interesting and often thought-provoking read.