Student chat
Transgender Athletes in Sports
Privacy Notice: Student names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy. The audio is AI-generated narration, not the students’ voices. Emoji reactions are illustrative. Plain transcript.
The conversation, then the understanding quiz and the post-chat survey that followed it. All three are written out below in order.
01Chat transcript
Guide
👋 Welcome, everyone!
Our topic is Hormones and sports. We'll be discussing this statement:
Transgender women who went through male puberty but who have used hormone therapy for at least two years to reduce their testosterone levels to within the female range should be able to compete in women’s sports at all levels.
- Emery agrees with the statement.
- Wesley disagrees with the statement.
My name is Guide, and I'm here to support your discussion. If you need anything, start your message with “Hey Guide” 🤓
the next day
Emery
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
the next day
Emery
Guide
Emery, you're raising an important distinction here. Let me help clarify what's at stake in your exchange with Wesley.
You're focusing on testosterone levels specifically — whether two years is enough time to bring them into the female range. Wesley seems to be pointing to something broader: the lasting effects of going through male puberty for roughly 18 years.
The key question is whether reducing testosterone levels alone eliminates all competitive advantages from male puberty. Male puberty creates changes beyond just circulating testosterone — things like bone density, skeletal structure, muscle fiber composition, lung capacity, and heart size. Some of these changes may be permanent or only partially reversible.
So Wesley might be arguing that even if testosterone levels drop to the female range, other advantages remain. Is that what you're getting at, Wesley? Or are you specifically disputing whether two years is enough time to lower testosterone itself?
Emery, does this distinction change how you think about fairness in competition?
Emery
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
Guide
Wesley, you're arguing: Two years of hormone therapy isn't enough because male puberty creates lasting physical advantages (bone structure, muscle composition, etc.) that don't disappear when testosterone drops.
Emery, you're arguing: If testosterone levels reach the female range, competition is fair — though you've acknowledged you initially overlooked permanent changes from male puberty.
The core disagreement: Does fairness require only similar testosterone levels, or does it require eliminating all physical advantages from male puberty?
Emery, now that you recognize some advantages might be permanent, does that change your view on fairness? Or do you think those advantages are acceptable/minimal?
Emery
Emery
Guide
Sure. Male puberty creates several lasting changes:
Skeletal structure: Broader shoulders, longer limbs, larger hands/feet — advantages in reach, leverage, and power generation
Bone density: Denser, stronger bones that may not fully reverse
Muscle composition: Higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers (explosive power)
Cardiovascular: Larger heart and lungs — greater oxygen capacity
Height: Generally taller, which matters in many sports
Studies show hormone therapy reduces some advantages (like muscle mass and strength) but may not fully eliminate others. The degree of reversal and timeframe needed are actively debated in sports science.
Emery, given these details, where do you draw the line on fairness? What level of advantage, if any, is acceptable?
Wesley, do you think any amount of hormone therapy could make competition fair, or are some advantages simply too permanent?
Emery
the next day
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
Guide
Emery: Acceptable if transgender women's advantages overlap with the natural variation among biological women — not a separate category.
Wesley: Male puberty creates permanent advantages that hormone therapy can't eliminate, even after 20+ years. Genetic advantages remain.
Key tension: Emery focuses on overlap (some biological women are tall/strong too). Wesley focuses on average advantages that persist regardless of overlap.
Wesley, here's the challenge to your view: Elite sports already have huge natural variation. Should we exclude tall women from basketball? Women with naturally high testosterone? Where's the line?
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
the next day
Emery
Emery
Emery
Emery
Guide
You're doing well — engaging substantively with each other's points!
Wesley, Emery is challenging your core claim. She's saying:
1. Advantages might be mixed (stronger grip but weaker lungs)
2. Net effect unclear — could be a disadvantage overall
Does this change your view that transgender women will inevitably dominate? You mentioned records being "destroyed" — but is that actually happening systematically, or are there just a few high-profile cases?
Wesley
Wesley
Emery
Wesley
Wesley
Emery
Guide
Wesley, that source is questionable. The "900 medals" claim has been debunked — it conflates all levels of competition and doesn't verify hormone therapy compliance.
Emery's making a key point: Does bigger body = better performance? In distance running, cycling, gymnastics — smaller, lighter bodies often have advantages.
Wesley, your "bigger build" theory seems sport-specific, not universal. How does that affect your blanket opposition to trans women in all women's sports?
Emery
Emery
Wesley
Wesley
Emery
Emery
Emery
Wesley
Wesley
Wesley
Guide
You've found significant common ground! Both agree on:
- Sport-specific policies needed
- Trans women acceptable in some sports
- Evidence-based approach for restrictions
But here's what's unresolved: The original statement says trans women "should be able to compete in women's sports at all levels" after 2 years of hormone therapy.
Wesley, you'd exclude them from contact/power sports regardless of hormone therapy, right? So you still disagree with the statement?
Emery, you want evidence first. If evidence showed permanent advantages in most sports, would you change your "agree" position?
Wesley
Emery
Emery
Emery
You have completed the chat! You may continue chatting after the Understanding Quiz 🤠
02Understanding quiz
Sway asks each student five questions about what their partner argued. Scores are accurate. Questions and responses may be updated from time to time to reflect improvements to Sway.
Wesleydisagrees
Understanding Quiz
5 questions about what Emery argued.
- Because two years seemed sufficient to reverse skeletal structure, muscle composition, lung capacity, and heart size.
- Because recreational participation mattered more than competitive fairness, even when physical advantages remained.
- Because reducing testosterone into the female range seemed to remove the relevant biological advantage, although Emery lacked biological detail.
- Because natural differences in height and strength already exist among women, so puberty-related advantages were acceptable.
correct Justification
Emery initially focused specifically on testosterone, saying that reaching "the female range" meant "there won't be any biological advantage... so it's fair." Emery also admitted, "I don't know much about the biological details." The other choices reflect later arguments or claims Emery did not make.
- Guide explained that two years was generally insufficient even to lower circulating testosterone into the female range.
- Guide showed that the reported medal count established systematic domination across every level of competition.
- Guide separated testosterone reduction from lasting puberty-related changes, prompting Emery to recognize that hormone therapy might not alter everything.
- Guide argued that natural variation among women made all remaining physical differences irrelevant to fairness.
correct Justification
Guide distinguished lowered testosterone from changes such as "bone density, skeletal structure, muscle fiber composition, lung capacity, and heart size." Emery then acknowledged, "I did neglect things that couldn't be changed by hormone therapy," and later said more than hormone therapy might be needed in elite sports.
- The difference could be acceptable if separate transgender leagues were unavailable and no records were broken.
- The difference could be acceptable if it overlapped with variation among other women or did not matter in that particular sport.
- The difference could be acceptable if it resulted from genetics rather than hormones taken for participation.
- The difference could be acceptable if an athlete had completed two years of treatment and entered only individual sports.
correct Justification
Emery said the gap was acceptable if it was not "binomial/totally separate," giving the example that some women may share the same height or skeletal structure. Emery added, "if the biological gap doesn't matter in the specific sport, that sounds fine to me."
- Emery argued that hormone therapy fully removes every meaningful advantage, making further research unnecessary.
- Emery argued that traits can involve tradeoffs and may be sport-specific, so isolated advantages do not establish a net advantage.
- Emery argued that medal totals prove advantages occur only among athletes who did not follow hormone requirements.
- Emery argued that larger bodies improve performance in most sports, but natural variation makes the improvement fair.
not quite Justification
Emery cited "greater handgrip strength but lower lung function" and compared this to "carring a big skeleton with a smaller engine." Emery also noted that a bigger body can hinder performance in sports such as ping pong. Thus, Emery's point was that mixed, sport-specific traits do not by themselves prove an overall advantage.
- Emery favored sport-specific, evidence-based restrictions at elite levels while generally accepting recreational participation.
- Emery supported a single two-year hormone rule at every level while remaining open to minor adjustments.
- Emery supported separate leagues because biological overlap could not provide a workable fairness standard.
- Emery favored excluding transgender women from all power and contact sports regardless of future evidence.
correct Justification
Emery concluded that "sport-specific policies are needed" and that bans require "rigid evidence." Emery would accept exclusion where good evidence showed unfairness, but said recreational participation was acceptable because it is "for fun rather than absolute fairness." This was a shift from the initial broad agreement.
Emeryagrees
Understanding Quiz
5 questions about what Wesley argued.
- He thought hormone therapy mainly changes lung function while leaving testosterone levels above the female range.
- He thought two years could not undo the bodily advantages developed through many years of male puberty.
- He thought two years was arbitrary because different sports require athletes to have different testosterone levels.
- He thought fairness depended mainly on whether transgender athletes had as much experience as other competitors.
correct Justification
Wesley argued that a person had spent roughly 18 years producing biological hormones and that "two years is enough time" was doubtful. He later confirmed that his concern included "all the other advantages that were gained during puberty," not just current testosterone levels.
- Whether elite competition should prioritize athlete inclusion or the preservation of longstanding sports records.
- Whether policies should distinguish individual sports from team sports when measuring competitive advantages.
- Whether Wesley disputed testosterone reduction itself or the persistence of other effects from male puberty.
- Whether natural genetic variation should be treated differently from physical changes produced through athletic training.
correct Justification
Guide asked whether Wesley meant that advantages such as bone density and skeletal structure remain even after testosterone falls, "or" whether he was "specifically disputing whether two years is enough time to lower testosterone itself." Wesley replied, "Yes that is exactly my point," and then said it was "more of both."
- At having a larger body structure than most competitors, rather than at testosterone levels or hormone use.
- At taking hormones for the purpose of participating in the other gender's sports, rather than at naturally inherited size differences.
- At participation in elite sports with longstanding records, rather than at participation in newer or recreational competitions.
- At any physical trait that places an athlete outside the average range for women, regardless of how the trait developed.
correct Justification
Wesley distinguished inherited variation from intentional hormone use, saying, "We cannot change our size and how we will develop" and "The line is drawn once a person is taking hormones for the sole purpose to participate in the other genders sports." The other choices use different lines that Wesley did not identify at that moment.
- He shifted his concern from permanent skeletal advantages to trainable traits such as grip strength and lung capacity.
- He focused on sports such as boxing, MMA, and track, then accepted participation in gymnastics, shooting, and equestrian.
- He limited his objection to elite competitions in which transgender athletes had already broken decades-long records.
- He limited his concern to athletes whose competition results matched men's recorded performances after hormone therapy.
correct Justification
After the sport-specific challenge, Wesley said, "I'm mainly regarding sports that have a physical disadvantage like boxing, mma, track." He later agreed that trans women could participate in "gymnastics, shooting and equestrian." This narrowed his earlier broad claim that there was no way for transgender women to be biologically equal in competition.
- He accepted hormone therapy as sufficient, but objected because the rule did not require sport-specific skill testing.
- He believed restrictions should depend only on verified medal losses rather than on biological or genetic evidence.
- He believed two years might work in recreational sports, but the original rule applied only to elite competitions.
- He still believed some contact or power sports retain puberty-based advantages that hormone therapy cannot remove.
correct Justification
Guide summarized that Wesley would "exclude them from contact/power sports regardless of hormone therapy" and asked whether he still disagreed with the statement. Wesley answered, "Yes I still disagree with the statement." His acceptance of some sports therefore did not make him accept a rule covering women's sports at all levels.
03Post-chat survey
Last, both students rate the statement again and then rate a randomly sampled subset of our post-chat survey items. Like their transcripts, individual student opinions are never revealed to instructors.
Wesleydisagrees
Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.
Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.
Transgender women who went through male puberty but who have used hormone therapy for at least two years to reduce their testosterone levels to within the female range should be able to compete in women’s sports at all levels.
| Strongly disagree | Moderately disagree | Slightly disagree | No idea | Slightly agree | Moderately agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How much do you agree with each of these?
| Statement | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guide's contributions improved the discussion | |||||
| My partner was respectful | |||||
| My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective | |||||
| This discussion improved my perception of my partner | |||||
| It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective | |||||
| This discussion led me to change my mind about something related to the topic |
Emeryagrees
Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.
Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.
Transgender women who went through male puberty but who have used hormone therapy for at least two years to reduce their testosterone levels to within the female range should be able to compete in women’s sports at all levels.
| Strongly disagree | Moderately disagree | Slightly disagree | No idea | Slightly agree | Moderately agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How much do you agree with each of these?
| Statement | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guide's contributions improved the discussion | |||||
| Guide treated me and my partner with equal respect | |||||
| Guide supported both sides of the discussion equally | |||||
| I felt comfortable sharing my honest opinions with my partner | |||||
| This discussion led me to change my mind about something related to the topic | |||||
| Sway helped me articulate my thoughts/feelings better |
Opinion change
Wesleydisagrees
-1
Emeryagrees
-3
before the chat after the chat
Up next
All the chats
Sixteen transcripts of students paired with a classmate who disagreed with them.
Back to the examples →The student app
Every screen a student can reach in Sway, drawn as a wireframe you can click around in.
Explore the app →The research
What we measure after chats like this one: opinion change, and how students rate the people they disagree with.
Read the research →