World Sports Organizations Wake Up to the Absurdity of Trans-Athlete Policies

By Madeleine Kearns

Sunday, August 13, 2023

 

Fairness for women athletes doesn’t consist in simply suppressing testosterone levels in male athletes. Male advantages over females persist, to say nothing of the insulting suggestion that male mediocrity is equivalent to female excellence. This ought to be obvious, but it has taken several high-profile cases of male athletes’ disrupting female competitions for sports-governing bodies to confront the absurdity of their policies.

 

In the United States, we had Lia Thomas, the mediocre male athlete who dominated the NCAA women’s swim championships in 2022. The NCAA’s cowardice denied justice to Thomas’s female competitors. Later that year, the International Swimming Federation voted to require males competing as females to have transitioned prior to the onset of puberty or age twelve.

 

In the United Kingdom, there was the case of Emily Bridges, a young male who achieved victories in elite men’s cycling competitions before deciding to compete with women. And on the international stage was Austin Killips, awarded first prize at the women’s Tour of the Gila race in New Mexico in June.

 

These episodes were embarrassing for the cycling authorities, which are starting to reconsider their approach. In May, British Cycling announced that the female category would be women-only, while the male category would be “open.” In July — ahead of its Cycling World Championships — the Union Cycliste Internationale adopted the same policy. World Athletics has also barred males from competing in females’ track-and-field events regardless of their testosterone levels.

 

These protections for women in sports are no thanks to the International Olympic Committee, whose leadership on the issue has been lacking. In 2021, the IOC advised that there should be “no presumed advantage” for trans-identifying males. Their 2022 guidance, ahead of the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics, further abdicated responsibility, leaving the governing body of each sport to decide its own “category qualifiers.”

 

What did help sports associations, explains Fiona McAnena, the director of sport at Fair Play For Women, was a 2021 independent sports consultation, which examined the issue of balancing fairness for women with trans inclusion. In their recommendations, the Sports Council Equality Group concluded that “for many sports, the inclusion of transgender people, fairness and safety cannot co-exist.” Sports-governing bodies would have to pick one, it explained. It suggested a male/open category as a possible compromise to accommodate trans-identifying athletes.

 

Having these official recommendations to point to makes it easier for sports associations to justify their policies. In June 2022, the International Rugby League banned males from the female category, citing safety concerns. In February 2023, the British Triathlon replaced the male category with an “open” one and made the women’s category for women only.

 

This week, British Rowing, the sport’s U.K. governing body, banned male athletes from female-only competitions. There will be an “open category” for other eligible rowers. But starting September 11, the women’s category is reserved for women.

 

According to the Telegraph, the policy change fits the majority view of British Rowing’s 31,500 members, 80 percent of whom “are understood to have urged a change in approach that would ensure the fairness and integrity of the female category.”

 

World Rowing is now under pressure to follow suit. The organization last issued guidance in March when it stated that males could compete against women so long as their serum testosterone concentration had been suppressed to less than 2.5 nanomoles per liter (the normal range for men is 10–30) continuously for two years.

 

One of the convenient excuses for sports organizations’ lack of leadership has been the claim that they are following “the science.” But as McAnena explains, trans-inclusive policies were “adopted with practically no evidence and very little consultation.” And yet, “we are having to fight so hard, and people are taking so long and having to do so much work before they can persuade themselves to undo these policies.”

 

“What people have lost sight of is that it was only ever the female bodies that needed their own category to give them an opportunity,” says McAnena. “Instead, they inverted it. . . . Men had a protected category, and the female category was mixed-sex.”

 

Of course, we already know that males have physiological advantages over females and that these differences are relevant in sports. That is why sports are segregated by sex in the first place.

 

Alex Story, a former Olympic rower for Britain, told GB News that the whole idea of men competing in women’s sports is a “ludicrous topic that verges on insanity.” Sharron Davies, the former Olympic gold medalist for swimming, has described the situation as “infuriating.”

 

It appears that most Britons agree. According to a recent YouGov poll: “The public are strongly opposed to trans women athletes participating in women’s sporting events, by 61% versus just 16% who are supportive.”

 

“The world federations of the three biggest participation sports — athletics, swimming, and cycling — have now restricted the female category to those who have not gone through male puberty,” says McAnena. “But in the U.S. none of these has restricted eligibility.”

 

Europe’s changing sports policies shows that the “men/open” category is a compromise that can work well in many sports. It allows sports organizations to protect female athletes while also allowing trans-identifying athletes to compete in a manner consistent with their identity. It’s time U.S. sports associations took notice.