In yet another episode of men experiencing an absolute meltdown over a woman, Anaya Bangar’s mere prospect of returning to competitive cricket via Australia is raising many a bushy eyebrow. An overwhelming majority of her haters on X are bot-adjacent profiles bearing male names. And the arguments they use are steeped in the bigoted diction of Trumperica.
If the entire episode isn’t dismissed by these ardent fans of women’s sports as ‘nonsense’, they ask for Bangar to be ‘banned’ along with other trans players. They misgender her with great joy—I imagine them typing the male pronoun in all caps and asking ChatGPT if they’ve done a good job. Anyone using the term ‘biological male’ should be required to upload a photo of their 10th class marksheet. Let’s see how much you really understand about chromosomes and human physiology.
The lone woman in the comments said: “JK Rowling was right”. In the absence of Indian guidelines on trans athletes, the country is forced to turn westward. Since that part of the world is a dumpster fire at the moment, Indians high on its toxic fumes arrive, frothing at the mouth, to argue opinions and prejudices that have no bearing on the reality.
Bangar is the first trans woman pursuing competitive cricket, and she’s not even doing it in India. There is no trans takeover of the world-renowned wonder that is the Indian sports scene. The way things are, it’s a miracle for even cis women athletes to make it to the top. The only other trans sportsperson in the country I can name is Aryan Pasha. But he is a trans man, and that isn’t exciting territory for those obsessed with genitals.
Unfair advantage in sports
Away from the battleground of X, two of my colleagues argue that transwomen have an “unfair advantage”, since undergoing male puberty strengthens bones and muscles in a different way than it does in female puberty. They maintain that they’re not transphobes—they’d welcome trans women in any occupation but sports. Of course, one can’t easily recognise every form of hatred one holds. Often, it’s expressed as an instinct. But the argument holds some merit.
Until about five years ago, it was widely understood that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for trans women reversed most of the effects of male puberty. But recent studies suggest that this may not be the case. The findings show that even after HRT, trans women athletes have a higher absolute hand grip strength—taken to indicate total body muscle strength—than cis women. The problem is that these studies tend to have small cohorts, ranging between 40 and 100 participants.
On the other hand, a meta-analysis of 52 studies, published in February 2026, that together included over 5,000 trans people showed that trans women’s physical fitness after HRT was comparable to that of cis women.
The science is evolving, and studies will continue to be conducted. What I find funny is the idea of ‘unfair advantage’. What about competitive sports is fair? It only has space for a certain kind of body. Are 7-foot-tall men at an unfair advantage in basketball? Should they have a separate league of their own? What about Michael Phelps, whose genetic anomalies give him a biological advantage in swimming?
The central paradox of elite sports is that its goal is to be fair, when it is fundamentally the opposite. Not only does the industry privilege some bodies over others, but it took decades to win inclusion for women and disabled individuals. Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the International Olympic Committee, didn’t want female athletes in the Olympic Games. According to him, women’s sports were ungraceful and impractical. Paralympics, now a $5 billion market, were once seen as a ridiculous idea.
Also read: Indian queers will settle for flower over the bouquet. No marriage equality? Recognise live-in
Let her play
The question isn’t one of ‘unfair advantage’; it’s one of inclusion. Author Malcolm Gladwell called sports “the willing acceptance of arbitrary constraints”. The rules are always open to tweaking. If boxing can have 17 weight categories, a space can be found for trans women in women’s sports.
Let’s not forget that the mighty sport we’re discussing here is cricket, a game that famously involves standing around for long intervals, with a little running thrown in. What extraordinary advantage would Bangar gain from having undergone male puberty? As long as the boundary remains fixed, how does her supposed muscle strength matter? It’s not as if the umpire will grant her 12 runs instead of six for an ultra-powerful shot. You may have guessed that I am no cricket expert (given I have better, more entertaining hobbies), but even I know that bowling is more about skill than raw strength.
If raw speed were all it took to get a batter out, finger and wrist spinners bowling at 70-80 kmph would never have become an integral part of cricket.
From Dutee Chand to Emane Khelif, arbitrary rules about testosterone levels have hurt cis sportswomen too. Human bodies are endlessly diverse, and in women’s sports, this upsets the pure, delicate definition of what a ‘woman’ is supposed to be. The way to resolve this diversity with notions of fairness is to work toward inclusion, not away from it.
So far, Bangar has only set foot in the arena. She is yet to train, compete, and earn a spot on the team. Let her play, score a century (or 10), and win a trophy. Observe her performance with hawk-eyes for ‘unfair advantage’, if you will. Wait for the critical mass of evidence before you call for a ban based on fear. In other words, kindly unclutch your pearls.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)