Revealing 1984 in 2025

‘the Controversy is a joke’

Yacine Arab, the Algeria National Olympic Committee’s sport manager, said the controversy around Imane Khelif has been a “joke”.

No, it absolutely isn’t. Whether the IBA disqualifying Khelif and Taiwan boxer, Yu-Ting, at the 2023 World Championships was the right decision or totally wrong, it wasn’t a joke then and the controversy at the 2024 Paris Olympics isn’t a joke either. If there is a “joke” in this controversy (using the word very badly) it might be the actions or better, the lack of action, taken by the IOC, the NCAA and other organizations to address an issue that has been simmering for years.

Here in part 2 we will get into an aspect of women’s sports that is very controversial, that is transgender men/boys competing against biological women/girls. Do I run the risk of being labelled transphobic or anti-trans? I suppose that is a possibility but if you actually take the time to read this, you might come to a different conclusion. Before we get to that, I said in part 1 that I would discuss Casper Semenya a little more. Semenya’s story just shows how confusing this issue is.

I stated that it was possible Imane Khelif could have the same condition as South African, Casper Semenya, that being SDS (intersexuality). It has been reported that Semenya has XY chromosomes but was identified as a female from birth. At theconversation.com in an article published back in 2016 we read “High testosterone levels have also been used to explain the performance of intersex athlete Caster Semenya.”

Moving forward… Semenya has been barred from running in her favorite race, the 800-meter race, since 2019 because the rules established by World Athletics, the organization that oversees Track and Field, limit testosterone levels for the 800 meter race and she has refused to artificially suppress her testosterone. If you read between the lines of that last sentence, YES, there are different testosterone rules for different length races. It is my understanding that higher levels of testosterone are viewed as a greater benefit in “longer” races so Semenya was eligible to run in the 400 meter race.

Semenya filed appeals but lost them until….

In 2023 “…Semenya won a potentially landmark legal decision for sports on Tuesday when the European Court of Human Rights decided she was discriminated against by rules in track and field that force her to medically reduce her natural hormone levels to compete in major competitions. But the two-time Olympic champion’s success after her two failed appeals in sports’ highest court in 2019 and the Swiss supreme court in 2020 came with a major caveat. The ruling didn’t strike down the rules and the world track and field body said soon after the decision was released that the contentious testosterone regulations would “remain in place.” (FYI – The decision by the European Court of Human Rights was decided by a 4 to 3 vote so even those making that decision were split.) I need to dig a bit deeper into the court ruling because it sounds like the European Court of Human Rights is saying hormone levels should never be used to determine eligibility.

The Response… “World Athletics showed no sign of changing its position in the wake of the verdict, saying two hours after it was released that the rules would stay…. We remain of the view that the regulations are a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of protecting fair competition (my emphasis) in the female category as the Court of Arbitration for Sport and Swiss Federal Tribunal both found,” World Athletics said.

Here we have the organization governing track and field for women’s sports around the world stating that levels of testosterone play such an important role when it comes to fair competition in women’s sports that they are not going to change their rules despite the court’s ruling. The Court for Arbitration for Sport, the body where athletes go to challenge things like drug tests etc. agreed with World Athletics.

Is anyone going to suggest that the World Athletics or the Court for Arbitration for Sport are misogynistic or transphobic? Or are they, as they said, concerned with fair competition? If I oppose transgender men competing in women’s sports some automatically conclude that I must be transphobic or anti-trans.. i.e. I must hate or fear transgender people. Using that logic… If I oppose college age male athletes competing against 14 year old high school boys, do I hate male college athletes? Or is it more likely that I think male college age athletes competing against 14 year old boys is unfair from a competitive point of view and possibly dangerous depending on the sport?

So let’s see what some groups have to say about transgender men competing as women in women’s sports competitions. I begin with an article by Laura Scott published in 2021. You can read it at https://www.bbc.com/sport/58732146

In the article The Sports Councils Equality Group (SCEG) states “for many sports, the inclusion of transgender people, fairness and safety cannot co-exist in a single competitive model”. (My emphasis) Is the SCEG transphobic? Actually just the opposite but they are also committed to the truth in these matters. Really think about this next quote from that same report by the SCEG.

“It says the governing bodies for each sport should work out their priorities, and choose whether they will focus on inclusion or “competitive fairness” – and safety if relevant – within the current format of their sport. So for example, contact, collision and combat sports which choose to prioritize safety – or sports based on strength, stamina or physique which choose to prioritize “competitive fairness” – could create extra “universal admission” categories for transgender athletes.”

This statement is so important. It states that governing bodies have a choice to make… inclusion or competitive fairness and safety if relevant. That might be the most logical, lucid statement I have read regarding transgender boys/men competing in girl’s/women’s sports. They note that in some cases safety should be an issue. I would think boxing would be one of those cases. The SCEG also states that a choice has to be made between “inclusion” and “competitive fairness.” Note that SCEG puts forth a possible solution. Create a third category, i.e. men’s, women’s and a universal or open category where anyone can compete. Whatever is decided, the SCEG is clear that you can’t, in many cases, have both competitive fairness and inclusion, when it comes to transgender males competing against females. So all three groups, World Athletics, the SCEG and the IBA seem to have some agreement on competitive fairness being a real issue when it comes to transgender men competing against women.

The National Library of Health (NLH) website is part of the NIH (National Institute of Health) and an official website of the U.S. government. In an article on the site (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/) you will read the following: “Testosterone drives anatomical and physiological sex differences in the human body (Figure 1). These sex differences can be architectural and therefore permanent, or can be influenced by adult-level, circulating testosterone concentrations, and therefore modifiable. Permanent sex differences that affect athletic performance involve the (i) brain, (ii) skeletal structure, and (iii) cardiorespiratory system. Modifiable sex differences include testosterone effects on (i) muscle mass and strength and (ii) aerobic capacity.”

This article goes into greater depth on a lot of things impacted by testosterone. I would suggest that far too often when it comes to this controversy, the fact that “sex differences can be architectural and permanent” is completely ignored. Following is one section concerning one of those permanent effects… skeletal structure. The section is really good at describing some things when it comes to physical differences between males and females that most of us probably never thought of. It reads…

“2.3. Testosterone and Bone Structure

Bone structure and bone length changes in both sexes as children progress through puberty, with estradiol and testosterone having important roles in bone growth [37,38]. However, the effects of testosterone are stronger than those of estradiol, as exemplified by the 10% greater bone mass density and the larger and longer bones in post-pubertal males. These sex differences in bone structure provide males with increased fulcrum power, improving jumping, throwing, and other movements requiring explosive actions. The stronger bones also tolerate more trauma and thus males are more resistant to injury. Larger bones in males provide a greater articular surface that, in turn, allows placement of more skeletal muscle. For example, broader shoulders in males allows the build-up of more muscle, thereby increasing upper body strength [39].

Sex differences in bone shape driven by early life testosterone exposure can affect athletic performance. The most obvious structural difference between males and females is pelvis width, with estradiol driving the wider shape required for childbirth [40]. A narrower pelvis has a direct impact on the Q angle at the knee joint. The Q angle forms between the quadricep muscles and the patellar tendon and is responsible for generating force during a knee extension. The smaller Q angle of males generates a greater force upon extension [41]. This has implications for sports that involve standing from a squatting position, kicking a ball, or a pedaling motion. There is also a sex difference in the angle formed between the humerus and ulna at the elbow, with the angle smaller in a male [42]. The smaller angle for males again allows a greater force upon extension, benefiting sports involving throwing and hitting with bats and rackets.”

I don’t know what your reaction is to that section but my reaction was to be a bit stunned!! I will admit that I have never heard of a Q angle or an angle between bones in an elbow that impacts throwing, hitting etc. Pure speculation on my part but that might explain Angela Carini saying she has never been punched so hard. Bottom line, I had no idea how much testosterone impacts the human body in a permanent way. We simply can’t sweep these differences aside and treat them as if they do not matter.

Another issue… A Mountain out of a Mole Hill… Once in awhile someone states that these “controversies” are rare and their impact is negligible in most cases. People are making mountains out of mole hills. Is that accurate?

I might also ask…Did any girl lose out at a chance for a college scholarship because they had to compete against trans boys which lowered their results? There is an easy stat that really doesn’t need any fact checking… Two biological girls were denied spots on that Connecticut high school track team every year from 2017 to 2020. How many other biological girls have been denied spots on girl’s athletic teams because transgender boys have taken their spots?

Going back to the SCEG report, it seems to me that the powers that be that oversee Connecticut high school track opted for inclusion rather than competitive fairness. That I suppose is their right! However because it was their right, it doesn’t make it right. One answer for those who think they are wrong is to press for resignations or if it is an option, run against them, vote them out. A third option which is occurring more and more are law suits. Sad when the courts have to get involved but maybe in a way it is a good thing… it might force those in charge from local schoolboards to the IOC to come up with some “universal” standards.

One Sided… We could put our head in the sand and pretend the following isn’t true but… if physical/biological characteristics don’t matter why do we not seem to have any of these issues with transgender women competing in men’s sports? I love to play golf. Once in awhile the PGA tour (the men) will invite a woman golfer to play in one of their tournaments. There are however some problems. The golf courses that PGA men play are considerably longer than the courses LPGA women play. If you make our LPGA golfer play from the same set of tees as the men, i.e. play the golf course at the same length, she is at an enormous disadvantage. The average for LPGA women hitting a driver is about 255 to 260 yards per drive. The average for PGA men is about 298 yards. Players like Rory McIlroy average 320+ yards with their driver. Imagine the disadvantage a woman incurs if every hole where her and Rory hit driver she was 60 or 70 yards behind after one shot. And if you play golf you also know the advantage men would have hitting shorter clubs into greens, the advantage that comes from being able to generate more spin on the ball due to clubhead speed, the advantage men have hitting out of long rough due to physical strength etc.

The Fairness Issue… One of the most frequent arguments used to support transgender male athletes competing against biological females is “FAIRNESS!” It isn’t fair if they are not allowed to participate in their chosen women’s sport. Somehow that aspect of fairness is viewed as more important so it triumphs over the competitive fairness aspect. WHY? Some try and make it a “rights” issue… A transgender male has the “right” to compete in women’s sports. WHY? If competitive fairness is to be discarded, why have weight classifications in women’s boxing? Why have age restrictions in some sports? In my hometown, why are really skilled 12 year old hockey players who play high level travel hockey not permitted to play in house leagues where other 12 year old boys play, some who are playing hockey for the first time in their life? The primary answer in every case… competitive fairness! A secondary one could be participation. That highly skilled 12 year old hockey player doesn’t need to play house league and take a spot away from the 1st time playing hockey kid.

Before jumping to conclusions read this. From Wikipedia… On 19 June 2022, FINA (World Aquatics) “committed to the separation of Aquatics sports into men’s and women’s categories according to sex” by a 71% vote, adopting a new policy on eligibility for the men’s and women’s competition categories.^[49][50][51] This policy effectively bars all transgender women from competing in professional women’s swimming, with the exception of athletes who “can establish to FINA’s comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 (of puberty) or before age 12, whichever is later”. Athletes who previously took masculinizing hormone therapy (namely testosterone) may also compete in the women’s category as long any testosterone use was post-puberty and less than a year in total, and the person’s testosterone levels are back to pre-treatment levels. Transgender men remained fully eligible to compete in the men’s category. FINA also announced the development of a separate “open” category for some events, to be determined by a working group over the next six months, so that “everybody has the opportunity to compete at an elite level”.^[52][53][54] The decision was criticized as “discriminatory, harmful, unscientific and not in line with the 2021 IOC principles” by LGBT advocacy group Athlete Ally.^[55]

So the “ban” isn’t total, there is an exception clause that would allow some transgender males to compete in women’s water sports. I find the comments by Athlete Ally to be puzzling. The decision was “unscientific” and yet part of the decision is dealing with “male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2.” That sounds scientific to me. It is “harmful.” To who… the person not allowed to participate or the swimmers who face competitive unfairness? And how enlightening is the criticism that it is “not in line with the 2021 IOC principles.” Let me paraphrase that… “we liked the rules at the Tokyo Olympics much better than these NEW rules being set out in June of 2022.”

Is it possible that World Aquatics might have new data, new information or dare I say, new science to go by and have accordingly updated their participation rules? It sounds to me like a lot of study and thought went into the decision by World Aquatics. They even suggested the formation of an “OPEN” category where everyone could compete. Why am I not going to be surprised if that idea is rejected by those who disagree with the rules World Aquatics has put in place.?

Not all that many years ago, no one would have believed we would find ourselves where we are today, having this discussion or debate and often argument. Obviously I line up on the competitive fairness side of the issue. In fact, after doing the research necessary to write these articles I am more and more convinced that it has to be the priority when it comes to competitive women’s sports. If we are dealing with a non-competitive situation where everyone is getting a participation ribbon and there are no rewards for 1st, 2nd or 3rd, where this are no “rewards” like moving on to city or state/provincial championships, where scholarships aren’t up for grabs or spots on national Olympic teams are at stake, then feel free to include whomever you want. But the second the word competitive is involved who competes needs to be carefully defined.

I do recognize that everything is not as black and white as some people pretend it to be. Casper Semenya is a terrific example. Who would have thought years ago that this would be so complicated that we have different testosterone level rules for different lengths of races, when whether you have experienced “any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 (of puberty) or before age 12, whichever is later” is a deciding factor for participation in World and Olympic Championships!

I do think the idea of an “open” category mentioned by both the SCEG and World Aquatics is an interesting alternative although, being honest, I really wonder how many would participate. It might be an idea that sounds good but practically won’t work but it is certainly worthy of consideration.

If somehow you have managed to make it to the end, thank you for spending your precious time reading this. If it helps you better understand this controversy even a little bit, if it answers a question you had, or even if it creates more questions, if you see something about this that you never considered before, that would be great. In fact, I would welcome your comments and criticisms. Feel free to ‘fact check” all of this.

My only admonition would be this… if you get into a discussion (no arguments hopefully) don’t use anything I wrote as a “hammer.” That was not my purpose and it will do no good. I did my best to approach the controversy facing women’s sport from a logical, fact based perspective. I hope you will do the same.

Thanks again….

Doug