Malcolm Gladwell Thought the Case for Trans Athletes Was ‘Nuts,’ But Feared Saying So
“Changing sides years late, and only after you’ve realised the non-elite opposition is winning, isn’t a mark of integrity but of arse-covering.”
Malcolm Gladwell — the well-respected liberal journalist, author, and public speaker — revealed that while he had long opposed the participation of biological men in women’s sports, he was afraid to admit it publicly. He made the remarks during a Tuesday appearance on The Real Science of Sport podcast, hosted by sports scientist Professor Ross Tucker and sports journalist Mike Finch.
Tucker explained that in 2022, he served as one of three panelists in a discussion on transgender participation in women’s sports at the Sloan Conference, the annual analytics event held at MIT in Boston. Gladwell served as the moderator.
[Transcript via National Review.]
Gladwell told Tucker, “They stacked the panel. They stacked against you, Ross. They put a trans athlete and a trans advocate and you on the panel. … My suspicion is that 90 percent of the people in the audience were on your side, but 5 percent of the audience was willing to admit it.”
“My recollection of it is that everything I said was met with deathly silence, and everything the other two said got cheered,” Tucker replied.
Recalling the event, Gladwell said:
I think there was a hardcore of people who were ideologically committed to the position. … One was that it was a particular moment which has passed. If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan conference this coming March, it runs in exactly the opposite direction.
And it would be, I suspect, near unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in in the female category. I don’t think there’s any question. I just think it was a strange — I mean I felt I mean I was — the reason I’m ashamed of my performance on that panel [is] because I share your position 100 percent, and I was cowed. The idea of saying anything on this issue — I was in I believe in retrospect — in a dishonest way. I was . . . I was objective in a dishonest way.
Referring to the trans athlete on the panel, Gladwell noted:
At one point they turned to you, Ross, and they said, “Ross, you have to let us win.” And it was at that moment that I realized this position has gone, this argument has gone to the furthest extreme. What the trans movement is not asking for — they’re not asking for, you know, a place at the table. They’re not asking to be treated with respect and dignity. What they’re asking is for no one to question the considerable physical, physiological advantage they bring to the sport, and no one to question — if they’re gonna win these races by five seconds, suck it up! That’s what they were asking, right?
Gladwell continued:
If a really good Caster Semanya (South African middle-distance runner) comes along, who can run 147, what they’re saying is you just have to like — so they win by ten meters. So, they win by 15. Well, I mean, you would win by almost 100 meters, right? What they’re saying is you should have to live with that. And that when I heard that, I was like, “This is nuts.” And yet I didn’t say anything.
🚨 Malcolm Gladwell says “trans athletes have no place in the female category.”
He admits he was cowed into saying that it was ok.
He knows it’s not.
He was bullied into it and he’s ashamed that he gave in.
Good for him. Mad props. pic.twitter.com/GGm1oCiNbv
— Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) September 2, 2025
[The full interview can be viewed below. It begins with the discussion of transgenders in women’s sports.]
I’ve often wondered whether liberals genuinely believe the nonsense that comes out of their mouths or if they’re just toeing the party line to avoid being canceled. Sadly, I suspect it’s often the latter.
What’s remarkable is that someone of Gladwell’s stature — a man who has reached the pinnacle of his profession — would still be afraid to speak his mind on this issue.
And while it’s encouraging that Gladwell is finally setting the record straight, the timing matters. He is speaking up now, when public support for biological males in women’s sports has already begun to wane. That is not the kind of courage history remembers. Real courage would have been taking a stand in 2022, when the cultural tide was still running strong in the other direction. Imagine the impact if Gladwell had spoken those words at the Sloan Conference, challenging the progressive orthodoxy in real-time. That would have been a moment of true conviction, not just safe commentary after the shift had already begun.
J.K. Rowling wasn’t terribly impressed by Gladwell’s confession either. Weighing in on social media, she wrote: “Changing sides years late, and only after you’ve realised the non-elite opposition is winning, isn’t a mark of integrity but of arse-covering.”
Gladwell’s career wouldn’t have been destroyed if he’d spoken out against the glaring unfairness, not to mention dangers, of allowing men to compete in women’s sport. He’d have faced loss of approval from the cultural elite and received activist blowback, and even that wouldn’t… https://t.co/WnAIf98k5l
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 5, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If you don’t have honor, you have nothing. Be a man of your word.
Just FYI, the correct expression is “Toeing the line”, meaning to follow expected behaviour. “Towing the line” is often used because it sounds the same but does not mean the same.
I believe most articles are run through a word editor (AI) which corrects what it deems to be spelling and grammatical errors. Sometimes, even when you correct the “correction”, the editor slips its own correction back into the text.
Hail AI !!!
You cannot reject the future!!!
Even worse is the newer plague of “word completion.” When you type “cover their asses” and the little IT gremlin turns it into “assess” as soon as you hit the space, and you never even notice.
In fact, I do try to cover my assess whenever I can.
I’d love to be able to blame it on that. But I truly thought it was “towing,” rather than “toeing.” 🤷♀️
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-prison-officers-watch-over-a-prisoner-toeing-the-line-during-an-interview-22840434.html
Thanks DEMC! How did I not know that!
Gladwell has a picture of Mao on the wall behind him.
He’s been making poor decisions for decades.
I noticed that too. Somehow it didn’t surprise me.
The only question that can now be asked is what else did Gladwell lie about. In order to advance his career and gain wealth? Surely, this isn’t his only lie? Criminals seldom commit one crime.
J.K. Rowling’s response was much more scathing. She did not hold back and said a lot more. Deserves a post all by itself.
https://redstate.com/chase-jennings/2025/09/05/jk-rowling-torches-malcolm-gladwells-late-transformation-hes-not-an-ally-hes-a-weathervane-n2193621
Good catch!
Rowling’s is a 100% progressive feminist (but I digress). Her trans stance is completely consistent with feminism. Those so called feminists who demonize her are the cowards that refuse to stand up for women,
Of course she already made billions so there is little downside to her speaking her mind. I do wonder what she would have done if the trans issue became popular before her second Potter book was released or the movies were made.
She’s no Gladwell, but has been consistent throughout. There may be less downside, but she has taken many arrows nonetheless, unlike others. Why wonder about what she would have done? She’s a champion of free speech and women’s rights in the real sense.
Ironically, she rags on “McCarthyism,” in which the cowing effect on truth ran 100% the other way.. If the McCarthyites hadn’t been “cancelled” for speaking the truth, our youth would not be braving such a s*hole today.
Bro is a pussy that is afraid to tell it like it is
Same as Bill Maher, who I believe looked out the window one day, saw a streetlamp, and had a realization that they have other uses than providing illumination and supporting drunks. I enjoy Maher giving grief to Leftists, but in no way, shape, or form will I ever trust him with my PIN. Ditto to this coward as well. He reminds me of the young hyena, called “the Princess,” who was standing in the middle of the watering hole, being rejected by the pack that her now deceased matriarch mother headed on one shore, and also not accepted by the neighboring pack on the opposite shore. Such is the destiny of invertebrates who masquerade as humans.
Clearly Mr. Gladwell, who has been and still is presented with many opportunities to speak the truth to people, does not come off in a good light. But isn’t it the rube rather than the “betters” that proclaims that “the Emperor has no clothes”? This is all the more reason that rule by experts (think Mr. Gladwell types) should be avoided and that freedom of speech should be protected.
The benefit of him speaking out is that there are some who see him as a soothsayer, and are influenced, in this case, that they were also wrong and showed cowardice. Too bad they remain duped about so many other things.
Well respected? By whom?
Well God bless his heart.
On the upside, the trans issue is a losing issue for the left.
Let’s see how this plays out on the left coast where they are still clinging to it in order to repel voters who are sane out of the states.
Seriously Trump needs to start hitting those states hard.
This topic was discussed on Gutfeld, last night, and the best comment came from Todd Pirro, “who the hell is Malcolm Gladwell?”
I am with Todd, sorry/not sorry. That guy strikes me as a namby pamby.
“They stacked the panel. They stacked against you, Ross. They put a trans athlete and a trans advocate and you on the panel.”
This is a basic tactic of the left.
When John Lott published his head-exploding research in “More Guns, Less Crime,” CNN hurriedly assembled a “panel discussion” for TV, pitting Lott to defend the human-rights thesis all by himself against three hand-picked criminologists who specialized in publishing anti-gun papers.
The introductory address was presented by Sarah Brady.
Questions from the “audience” were taken only from people like John Hechinger, of the HCI board; a representative from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a staunchly anti-second-=amendment group; a guy from Marylanders Against Handgun Abuse; and one other whose name I can’t remember but who also represented an anti-gun organization. Lott pointed out a half dozen or so other criminologists in the audience with findings similar to his, but who were not allowed by the moderator to speak.
perplexity.ai: “CNN regularly hosted Lott and major gun-control advocates in the late 1990s and 2000s, sometimes pitting Lott as the sole pro-gun-rights advocate against a multi-person control panel… “Multi-person control panel” in this context specifically means a panel made up of multiple guests, all advocating for gun control policies, with John Lott as the sole advocate for gun rights or less restrictive gun laws. This format has been described in analysis and media coverage as a way to pit Lott against several prominent gun control proponents, often to challenge or counter his research and book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
How did Lott do?
Surprisingly well, at least as well as a Christian could show up against six lions. He hit his acme near the end by noting for the audience that his research had permanently moved the question of concealed carry from “does it make crime better or worse” to “does it make crime better or make no difference.”
I recall now that I have the entire program on VHS, but of course no way to play it back.
This is easier to do now that the lie “trans men don’t have any advantage over natural females” has been exposed by actual experimentation. Some who may have been taken in by the lie may now see the reality and are forced to agree, “That was a mistake.” Yeah, we told them so, but some people just don’t listen.
First of all, it’s “men”, not “biological men”.
Secondly, if Gladwell was so scared then he could have just said nothing and not participated in the debate. But he didn’t just demur from talking about it, he actively took part and argued on the side of obvious, naked lunacy and degeneracy.
But he doesn’t even have the integrity to admit this, now, when it’s safe for him to do so.
Also, apologies are worthless. Words mean nothing and are free. In the West, when one sins he must atone for it – he must make up for the damage he caused and make people right who he hurt by his actions. Just saying, “I’m sorry” is cheap and worthless. What actions has Gladwell taken to actually atone for his insane and destructive behavior? Has he talked about any of the people who pushed and threatened him over the position? Has he named any companies, government officials, employers, etc. who pushed him to try and do so much damage to society by making the most idiotic, insane, deranged claims that a human could make?
Gladwell has shown himself to have ZERO integrity. He will do the same thing again when the circumstance returns. I’m sure you could ask him about 50 stupid, insane issues that are obviously false that he’ll take the stupid, insane, indefensible side on. Because that’s what he does.
“First of all, it’s “men”, not “biological men”.
When writing an article, you often have to take into account that it may get read by people whose first language is not Reality.
Well, THAT is certainly not true. Female trans (females who like to pretend they are guys) are welcome to participate in female sports, subject to the same drug and hormone rules that all the other women are subject to. Because they are, after all, females.
And female trans (women pretending to be men) are also allowed to participate in male sports, because women have long been allowed to try and compete with the men (save ridiculous and dangerous sports like boxing, etc.). Women have tried to play in the PGA, MLB, and the NBA, to name a few. The mens categories were always the “Open” categories.
It is only male trans (men who pretend they are women) who are not allowed to compete in women’s sports.
——————————-
I would like to hear someone ask Gladwell if he thinks Farangi Jackson Browne should be taken off of the SCOTUS because she did the same cowardly, anti-intellectual, destructive thing that he did – but her opinions can actually affect people.
Such a profile in courage and integrity.