
Going back to Aristotle, women were considered to be ruled by their reproductive system and reproductive responsibilities. People believed that women could not handle the strain of athletic pursuits outside of a very few specific ones such as tennis, croquet, and archery. Additionally, athletic pursuits were seen to be at odds with or dangerous to reproduction. “Public athletic performance by women and girls was condemned as immodest, selfish, and attention-seeking, the trinity of bad-girl behaviors. And athletic risks undertaken in prime childbearing years were seen as foolhardy” (National Women’s History Museum).
Women persisted however and in 1920, a special “Women’s Olympics” was held with 65 women competing in swimming, diving, figure skating, and tennis. Hélène de Pourtalès from Switzerland was the first woman to ever compete in and win a gold medal at the Olympic Games (in sailing). Charlotte Cooper from Great Britain was the first female individual Olympic champion, winning the women’s singles and mixed doubles in tennis. The first woman from the United States to win a medal was Margaret Abbott in golf. Though not in the first “Women’s Olympics,” many people are familiar with the name Babe Didrikson. She was a superstar in the 1932 Olympics, winning in gold in the 80-meter hurdles and javelin, and silver in the high jump (women were only allowed to participate in three events). She became the first athlete, male or female, to win medals in running, jumping, and throwing events simultaneously. She went on to achieve more fame pitching in exhibition baseball games and competing in both men’s and women’s golf tournaments.
After the US entry into World War II, women were recruited to work in war factories, and the conceptualization of rough or tough women came to the fore. Rosie the Riveter was a famous symbol of these women. During this time, the All-American Girls Baseball League was embraced. Made famous by the movie A League of Their Own, the league was active from 1943 to 1954. Although the athletes were incredibly talented, the all-white league still perpetuated a “lady-like” air with publicity emphasizing appearance and family connections more so than talent or performance in the sport. After WWII women were forced to return to roles in homemaking or traditional careers such as nurses or teachers and men’s baseball crowded out the league.
As late as 1967 Boston Marathon officials declared that women were physiologically incapable of running 26 miles. In 1966, Bobbi Gibb was the first woman known to finish the Boston Marathon, but her time was not recorded. In 1967, Kathrine Switzer registered using the name K.V. Switzer so race officials wouldn’t know she was a woman. During the race, course officials tried to rip off her bib and force her off the course. She prevailed however and finished the course in 4 hours and 20 minutes.
Many of the amazingly talented women athletes prior to 1972 are not documented in records but that began to change after 1972 and the passage of Title IX.
The Rule of Law and Transgender Women in Sport
In 1972, Title IX was established which provided everyone with equal access to programs or activities receiving federal funds. One of the things that Title IX did was to require that schools provide boys and girls with equitable athletic opportunities. Before Title IX, 1 in 27 girls participated in sports. As of 2016 that number was 2 in 5 according to the Women’s Sports Foundation.
Despite the requirement for equitable opportunities, men were critical and asserted that female sports were and would always be inferior to male sports. Assertions such as this led to a famous “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match on September 20, 1973, in which Billie Jean King defeating Bobby Riggs. This was not the first match up between a woman and man though. Previously, in 1931, Jackie Mitchell famously struck out Babe Ruth in four pitches in an exhibition game against the New York Yankees.
Since the 1970s there has been a great deal of controversy over transgender women participating in women’s sports. The crux of the argument by those opposing participation is that transgender women (women who were assigned male at birth but who identify as female) have an unfair advantage over cisgender women (women who are assigned female at birth and identify as female). While 1-2% of the population is made up of transgender people, very few of those participate in collegiate or Olympic athletics. According to one source, transgender people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and only (0.001%) of Olympians identify as trans. (sf.gov). This has not stopped a myopic focus by legislators on prohibiting transgender athletic participation.
One of the earliest well known transgender female athletes is Renee Richards who participated in the 1977 U.S. Open. Since that time, transgender participation in athletics has been rigorously regulated by national and international athletic organizations to ensure fairness. In the 2003–2004 Stockholm Consensus, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) established formal guidelines for transgender women athletes requiring gender-affirming surgery, legal gender recognition, and a minimum of two years of hormone therapy. In 2015-2016, the requirement for gender-affirming surgery was dropped and the focus became testosterone levels. As will be discussed later, there are unintended consequences for this focus on testosterone levels.
Science of Testosterone Levels
Many in favor of delimiting athletic performance to cisgender women only do so over a stated “inherent difference” between men and women physiologically. However, prior to puberty there is minimal difference in the production of testosterone between cisgender females and males. So, for youth sports the difference is negligible. After puberty, there is a bimodal distribution in testosterone production with cisgender males having average higher testosterone level than cisgender females. This means that there is minimal overlap in testosterone levels between cisgender males and cisgender females. It is important to note that some females have testosterone levels that are in the lower range of those found in males. While these are labeled as outliers by some, others posit that this represents that there is an overlap in the distributions.
But what happens when transgender women undergo medical hormonal transition? Doctors typically prescribe two types of medication. One is anti-androgens like spironolactone for example, which directly inhibits testosterone production and its effects on secondary sex characteristics. The other is estrogen which both depresses testosterone production and enhances secondary sex characteristics associated with cisgender females. The target for transgender women is typically a testosterone level that is in the range of cisgender women. For most transgender women this target is reached by twelve months. For a more thorough discussion see this article by the Mayo Clinic.
The concern over unfair advantage by transwomen in sport is not born out in research. Scientific studies, such as a 2024 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, have concluded that not only do transgender women not have advantages over cisgender women, but they in fact have many disadvantages. Here are a few results from that 2024 study:
- Transwomen performed worse than ciswomen in tests measuring lower body strength
- Transwomen performed worse in tests in lung function
- Trans women had higher percentage of fat mass and weaker handgrip strength as compared to ciswomen
- Transwomen bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cis women (bone density is linked to muscle strength)
- There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance).
Studies such as these show that the perception that transgender women are uniformly stronger as compared to cisgender women is incorrect.
However, facts have not prevented politicians from pressuring athletic organizations to prohibit participation by transgender women and girls or from pursuing legislative prohibitions. State legislative efforts to restrict transgender women and girls’ participation in athletics in the United States began in 2020 with Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” which established that only cisgender women and girls could compete in women and girl’s athletics. The law was picked up by many other states in the following years although the name of the laws varied. In 2025 alone in the US there were over 745 anti-trans bills introduced in state legislatures.
In April 2020, a month after Idaho enacted the first “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act“, the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm Cooley LLP, and the nonprofit organization Legal Voice filed suit on behalf of four plaintiffs. The plaintiffs won in district court and in subsequent appellate courts. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled on June 30, 2026, in favor of the states right to restrict participation as outlined in Idaho’s state law (West Virginia v. B. P. J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), 609 U.S. (2026)). This case sets the stage for exclusion of transgender girls and women from athletic pursuits.
Unintended Consequences
This focus on “ensuring fairness” and limiting transgender women’s participation in female athletics has had numerous unintended consequences. There have been cases where athletes have been outed as having differences in sex development (born with naturally occurring variations in chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, or other secondary sex characteristics) and also cases where cisgender women have been forced to undergo sex verification, testosterone suppressing medications, or have been excluded from participation. Currently sex verification involves the use of tests to identify chromosomes and testosterone levels but no longer includes genital examination as once was used.
Often people are unaware that they are born with differences in sex development. Policies that require chromosome or hormone screening often expose athletes’ private biological variations without their consent. In 2019, Ugandan middle distance runner Docus Ajok was required to take a testosterone test by World Athletics, the governing body of track and field championships. Soon after, she was barred from competition by World Athletics. Similarly, in 2014, Kenyan sprinter Maximila Imali was required to take a blood test and undergo a physical examination. She was subsequently prohibited from competition due to naturally occurring high levels of testosterone.
Naturally occurring variations in testosterone levels have prevented cisgender women from competition as well. In 2009, Caster Semenya, a south African cisgender woman and middle-distance runner won gold and was required to undergo “sex verification” by World Athletics. In 2019 she had to take medication to suppress her naturally occurring high levels of testosterone to compete. In 2014, Dutee Chand, an Indian athlete, was investigated and excluded from selection for the Indian team over accusations of her appearance. And in the 2020 Olympics, six African runners were withdrawn from their events because they did not meet the eligibility regulations due to their naturally occurring testosterone levels. Black and brown women are more frequently targeted for their appearance or performance suggesting a component of racial discrimination in addition to gender discrimination (sf.gov).
My Opinion?
First, since prepubertal youth have similar testosterone levels and there is no inherent advantage in transgender girls over cisgender girls, there scientifically should not be such fuss over banning transgender girls from youth sports. Any fuss is more about either a lack of factual knowledge or presence of anti-trans bias.
Second, what about post puberty where there are differences between cisgender males and cisgender females? Where transgender women have pursued feminizing hormone therapy, there are no meaningful differences hormonally between cisgender women and transgender women after twelve months. Research has documented that where there is difference in things like red blood cell production, strength, or hemoglobin profiles, it is often the case that cisgender women have the advantage.
Third, the testing requirements are such that cisgender women who naturally have more secondary sex characteristics associated with cisgender men or who naturally have higher than average testosterone levels are being prohibited from competing.
In summary, my opinion informed by facts and science, is that the focus of legislative and regulatory attempts to prevent transgender girls and women from participating in sports is much ado about nothing. This shouldn’t be an issue. Transgirls and transwomen should be able to pursue athletics in accordance with their gender identity and hormone profile. Prohibition via legislation and regulation is the result of uninformed people at best and anti-trans beliefs at worst. Both are possibilities. How about if those who are advocating against transgender girls and women in sport pursue some education? Then when the science debunks their arguments, we will be able to tell conclusively what is really behind the legislative and regulatory prohibitions.





