A Gender Victory
In a rare moment of sanity, the International Olympic Committee finally took action to protect women’s sports. They acknowledged that there is a difference between men and women and that it is illogical for them to compete in the same events. We have three granddaughters, and this is welcome news, as we hope it will be adopted at all levels of sport. Competition is a great thing; ideologically and politically driven competition, where we pretend the impossible is possible, benefits no one.
Earlier Ban Based on Cheating
This is nothing new; it is just a return to the rules I remember from watching the Olympics as a kid. Many people born after 1999 might not realize that this was an issue long ago. But as I recall, it was a ban to prevent the USSR from cheating.
In earlier Olympics, there was always suspicion that the Soviets and East Germany were either giving their female athletes testosterone or performance-enhancing drugs. There was even skepticism in rare cases that men were masquerading as women to compete in women’s events.
The allegations were always denied, and there were no proven cases. However, there were confirmed instances of “doping” where the Soviets used anabolic steroids or other drugs to give women an advantage. Soviet women sometimes showed male traits, including deeper voices, facial hair, significantly increased muscle mass, and changes in bone density. But these were pharmacologically induced changes, not gender faking. At least, they were never proven.
I do not doubt that other countries and people cheated; I can only hope that American men and women were not involved. Today’s debate is not a throwback to the era of Cold War doping; it is a gender identity eligibility argument, which is almost impossible to prove or disprove.
Biological sex-based competition has existed for centuries. Sex-based categories of sports were created not because of cheating, but because performance differences between men and women are large, consistent, and well-documented.
Stolen Valor
One of the main and most obvious imbalances in this debate is the loss of opportunities for women in scholarships, competitions, and ultimately, jobs. Women and men who train their whole lives and sacrifice time, money, and energy to reach college or Olympic levels in sports deserve to compete on an equal footing.
The IOC issued guidelines on the participation of transgender athletes as early as 2021. But it seems to me that the criteria for determining eligibility were not well defined and left the door open to cheating.
It is undisputed that higher testosterone levels lead to increased bone density and muscle mass. It is also undisputed that transgender athletes in women’s sports make up a small percentage, perhaps as little as 2%. However, those numbers are “fuzzy” due to privacy and legal concerns. But if your daughter or granddaughter misses out on a scholarship or loses an Olympic medal because of unfair competition, then for you, it is 100%.
And then there is Title IX, specifically designed to create fair opportunities for women in college sports. Title IX assumes two sexes. If the definition of ‘woman’ expands to include biological males, the legal framework collapses. The law cannot protect a category that no longer has boundaries.
The only solution I see would be to disband all college gender-specific sports—one basketball team, one football team, one volleyball team, one tennis team, and one wrestling team. May the most skilled player make the roster, with no gender quotas or bias, effectively gutting and ending Title IX. If sex categories are erased, the logical endpoint is a single roster for each sport, an outcome that would eliminate women’s athletic opportunities.
When transgender athletes participate in women’s sports, they distort the intended purpose of Title IX. Where recruiting decisions, scholarship limits, roster caps, positional depth, school budgets, and NCAA limits exist, there is discrimination.
Stolen Opportunity
In the era of NIL (name, image, likeness) deals, making a team can be the difference between millions of dollars in endorsements, both in college and beyond. Athletes can now monetize their personas through social media and endorsements.
Not all college athletes make it to the pros. Their only shot at compensation for years of training and sacrifice is in college and in the Olympics. Imagine Caitlin Clarke missing the opportunity to play college basketball at the Division I level and to be drafted by the WNBA. If she had not played at the college and pro levels, her recent Nike $28 million deal might never have happened.
The issue is not just making the team and a scholarship; it is about lifetime earnings. Because NIL earnings are unregulated by Title IX, any shift in roster composition directly affects who receives endorsement income and long-term visibility. If roster spots shift, then the economic ladder also shifts with them, disadvantaging women.
Silent Acknowledgements
Any honest observer can see that the debate was nothing more than nonsense. This was nothing more than an ideological argument that ignored biological reality. We know this because of where the transgender athletes chose to compete. Rarely, if at all, did any woman want to compete in men’s sports. In college football, I am only aware of one woman competing at the Division I college level, and she was a kicker. Her coach’s instruction was to kick off and then exit the field as quickly as possible to avoid getting hurt. If transgender is truly gender neutral, then there should be more women who want to compete in men’s sports.
But there are no women competing in men’s football, rugby, soccer, basketball, tennis, or many other male-dominated sports. Men have such a clear advantage in size, strength, and speed that women would be foolish even to try, and they know it. Without sex categories, women would be excluded from elite competition entirely.
Some men’s sports, especially American football, are as close to true gladiatorial sports as we permit. There are no women who can safely play college or professional football in America. Women cannot generate the required strength, speed, and agility. I do not believe they can even achieve it with performance-enhancing drugs.
If you doubt this, attend a practice session of a major college football team and get close enough to see what really happens on the field. There are no women who can compete with a 6”7”, 360-pound man who can run forty yards in under five seconds. They know it, and they stay away. Women are smart! This is not prejudice; it is physiology.
Applause to the IOC
For once, the IOC got something right. Sometimes, you must go back in time to get things right, and this time, they did.
“Eligibility for women’s events is restricted to athletes who are biologically female at birth.”
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”
If you watch the Olympics, you realize the difference between winning and losing can be only hundredths or thousandths of a second. The IOC clarification reflects a simple truth that every athlete understands. At the 2024 Paris Olympics, the fastest woman, Julien Alfred, would have finished ninth in a mixed race with the men.
Julien Alfred is an Olympic Gold Medalist, as she should be. But put her in a race with the men, and she fades into obscurity. The eighth-place finisher in the men’s race was Oblique Seville of Jamaica, and the difference in time was 0.12 of a second. The differences between men and women are greater fast-twitch muscle mass, stride length, and ground reaction force, all of which lead to greater maximum velocity. The Gold Medal went to Noah Lyles, whose time was 9.785 seconds, and the second place went to Kishane Thompson with a time of 9.789 seconds, a difference of 0.004 seconds.
Even Olympic participation creates opportunities long after the games are over. I believe an Olympic athlete has an edge in endorsement and job opportunities. Their lifelong dedication to sports can create benefits long after the applause and fanfare die down.
This historical move by the IOC offers an opening for the NCAA and high schools to adopt parallel rules. It will be difficult, but it will preserve fair competition for women at all levels. Fairness in women’s sports requires clear, sex‑based categories, and the IOC has taken the first step toward restoring that clarity.
Resources and Further Reading
International Olympic Committee Bans Transgender Women from Female Events, Latestly, latestly.com, March 27, 2026.
Olympic women’s sport to be limited to “biological females,” by Agence France-Presse, ABS-CBN, abs-cbn.com, March 27, 2026.
Olympics ban transgender athletes from all women’s sports, by Ben Talintyre, News.com.au, news.com.au, March 27, 2026.
The Number Of Scholarships Awarded To Transgender Athletes?, by Jeff Blank, Sports Law Blogger. sportslawblogger.com, July 24, 2024.
Thirty Years Later, the International Olympic Committee Reintroduces the Femininity Test, LA NACION, nacion.com, March 26, 2026.
Trans athlete sues university and college sports org after losing women’s volleyball scholarship, by Jackson Thompson, FOXnews, foxnews.com, August 14, 2025.
