Another excellent article Sarah! Thank you for addressing these athletes in their proper category: males/he/him/his. These athletes have never been discriminated against; they have ALWAYS been eligible to participate---in the male division. The females have been the ones who have been expected to tolerate the discrimination. And then demeaned by parents, school boards, teachers, coaches and lawmakers for demanding fairness. Hopefully these states, school boards, etc., will soon be called to task for their outrageous behavior.
They have been discriminated against, in a sense--if not these specific boys, then thousands of others who have been convinced, by bullying, school indoctrination, therapeutic gas lighting, etc, that they do not belong with the boys, that they are really girls. All these children, the boys and the girls, are being actively harmed, and my heart breaks for them. How are the boys supposed to understand they are cheating when they are being taught, from before they can read, that they can be (and probably were) born in the wrong body, sometimes by their own parents, and sometimes behind their parents' backs? We must get males out of female sports, but we must not stop there.
Excellent points! If men (coaches, teammates, etc) would be more inclusive of males that are confused about their gender and accept them on the boys teams, we would be a step closer in protecting females.
On the other, toxic abusive narcissistic autogynephilic men don't just fall out of the sky pre-formed at age 18.
They develop from toxic abusive narcissistic autogynephilic boys.
They develop their skills at abuse at a young age, beginning with their families. By the time they are adults they have engaged in plenty of abusive behavior.
So really, it's just a reminder that young abusers may start off as victims and continue to somewhat be victims while simultaneously being perpetrators.
While it's true toxic abusive boys may be the ones to avail themselves of the opportunity to cross into girls' sports and spaces in the current milieu, there would be NO boys in girls' sports and those types of boys would face some shame and stigma for that kind of behavior if they were restricted to male sports and spaces
If confused males could feel comfortable in a male space then why invade a women's space? After all when a young boy says that he "feels like s girl", what he is really saying is that he doesn't feel comfortable with the other males who might be making fun of him. Granted there are autogynaphilic men, but we know from scientific data that a large portion of boys (and girls) will end up accepting their sex and figure out their sexuality if not medically interfered with.
Well, the autogynephilic urge is an obsession with possessing femaleness not a rejection of maleness, so I don't buy the idea that those particular boys are significantly driven by discomfort with other boys.
As far as what they say, they are going to say whatever they think will get them what they want. I wouldn't put much stock in it.
But gay boys with internalized homophobia, the other cohort that makes up young trans-ID'd males, those might be uncomfortable with other boys due to their feelings of attraction being stimulated, as well as whatever bullying might be going on if they're non-conforming.
But please know - if a male is claiming to be afraid of male spaces, it's a 95% chance he is bullshitting you, trying to play on your sympathies to get you to lower your defenses and open the door to the spaces he is erotically obsessed with.
Men or boys who are actually afraid of other men or boys wouldn't be so interested in admitting it.
I happened to notice that the NCAA quietly updated its original Feb 2025 policy (without re-dating it) by adding this text: "The policy is clear that there are no waivers available, and students assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team with amended birth certificates or other forms of ID." So they're trying to close the amended birth certificate loophole. Still inadequate on the enforcement front, and the DSD front, and it can be hard to detect amended ones. But interesting that they're capitulating somewhat to pressure from our side.
Good catch! I see the attempt to close the loophole, but as I pointed out, In MN the amended birth certificate looks exactly like a male was F at birth
I've often wondered about whether this falsification is in any way reversible. Is there a date of issuance on a birth certificate? Or a central register of births and deaths per state or county, collated in order of date and time?
I'm not sure about reversibility. So, do you mean like a detransitioner? Birth certificates can be changed in 44 states. In some of those states, the date the certificate was amended is written on it, so it's apparent it was changed. Some states issue a completely new certificate so it appears as it was the original. In those cases, the original is kept but would be very hard to access other than by owner
I don't think they're capitulating to anything our side says. This is from the Trump executive order. They either had to change their policies or lose money.
How would you handle the DSD issue? What does the WSPG recommend? I'm asking specifically where you think they should be placed, not how DSD affects a person's birth certificate.
There are dozens of types of Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). All of those people, with one exception, are male or female.
The exception is the person with ovotesticular disorder (true hermaphrodite) who has both testes and ovaries, tho these are underdeveloped and these people tend to be infertile. It is not a third sex or third type of reproduction. There have been fewer than 500 ever, worldwide.
The only male DSD who should be eligible for female sports competition is the person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). These are males who produce testosterone like other males, but cannot use it. They appear female externally, and thus can be mistaken for females at birth, but do not have female internal organs and therefore do not menstruate, so are sometimes detected around puberty.
Since they cannot use the testosterone in their bodies (due to the absence of the SRY gene), they have no physical advantage when competing against women. Since this is a rare condition, this can be handled on a case-by-case basis -- or accounted for via genetic testing screening for the SRY gene.
In ovotesticular one predominates and that determines sex. One is usually poorly differentiated and referred to as testicular or ovarian streaks. In Cais they are still male. They have the sry gene on the Y. As such they have male characteristics particularly taller more slender skeletons.
Yes, and Blume is confused about the "list of criteria that determine sex." Nowadays it's only whether your body is designed along the pathway to develop large (ova) or small (sperm) gametes. Regardless of whether you actually develop them or not.
Sorry to keep bothering you, but did you have a subset of WSPWG write the Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport – Free Template? Or was it contracted to another group of professionals? Does WSPWG have any publications that go more in depth for recommendations on assessing on a case-by-case basis?
Mariah, can I suggest you reconsider your definition of female or use different terminology with respect to access to women's changing rooms and shower facilities in Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport? see my other comment about terminology. I tried to respond to your comment but Ss stuck it in the regular comment list.
WSPWG's Model Policy: “Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport” is an excellent framework. But there are a number of DSDs besides CAIS that cause female-appearing genitals on a male body. All those athletes should be allowed as youth to use the female changing and shower facilities. Yet they might, under your and our clear and reasonable recommendations, not qualify for the female category in sport. This is a tricky policy area since the rules should deny inclusion in the female sports category, yet recognize that DSD athletes with breasts and vulvas shouldn't be forced to use male private spaces.
The important thing to emphasize with DSDs is that they affect development of sex characteristics which may or may not provide sports advantages. Imane Khelif may have had female-appearing genitals at birth but he likely figured out during puberty that he is male. If not, then the DNA tests he was required to take clarified his sex. But now he's about to smash another woman's head thanks to his longer male arms, harder knuckles, slim hips, wide shoulders, well you know the male characteristics that give him advantages over female competitors. If Khelif has 5-ARD, your restriction would ban him from female sports. But there are other DSDs that wouldn't restrict an athlete like him from the female category under WSPWG's recommendations. In our policy proposals, we differentiate protection of female spaces from inclusion in the female sports category. We also distinguish innate human conditions from surgically created alterations in policy. To put it crudely, growing moobs or stuffing silicone in your male chest and/or cutting off or inverting your penis doesn't get you into the female shower. Our policies don't say it that way of course, but the intent is to separate innate characteristics from artificially created “opposite sex mimicry.” Our policy proposals go beyond sport, so we redefined “gender affirming care” to “sex mimicry” to help youth and their parents understand exactly what they're signing up for if they choose to “transition.” We hope other organizations like yours also start using this type of terminology.
Given the inch of “be kind” concessions given to male transgenders that have turned into miles of damage to female sports, we think it's important to be explicit about any exceptions that can be used to destroy female sex-based rights. That's because a large part of the success of the transgender movement relies on “the intersex gambit.” Instead of schools and athletic organizations being allowed to stretch the rules with “case-by-case” inclusion, we are trying to specifically define DSD categories that should have access to female showers but not female sports. Cheaters and confused boys are destroying HS girls sport using their magic identifying words backed by the religious belief that humans can change sex, but at the elite level, males with DSDs are the biggest threat to female success. A good example are the three DSD athletes who took gold, silver & bronze in the Rio 2016 Olympics 800m. They could be restricted from the female category under your recommendations, but other DSD athletes wouldn't. If individual athletes are only challenged after they win, over time, every elite women's record will be set out of the reach of female athletes by DSD males. Our analysis shows they could be a large number of men, and the more they are discovered around the world as “amazing female athletes,” the faster they'll rise to the top of women's sports. The idea of checking for bioavailable testosterone works for transgender athletes who are non-DSD males with a chosen gender identity of woman, but that won't work to bar all male DSD athletes.
Details are important, as is language. As my other comment here suggests, it's best to discontinue using terms such as intersex and hermaphrodite, even though older scientific articles, TQ+ organizations and current AI systems use that terminology. Transgender activists deliberately use those words to imply there's a third category of human between male and female. It would help if your model policy consistently say, “formerly called” or “previously called” throughout the document instead of “Also called intersex conditions.”
Finally, we call the advantages that males have over females in sport MPAs for Male Physiological Advantages. We incorporate the concept of bioavailable testosterone, but some DSDs give MPAs even without using athlete's own testosterone. We're identifying them in advance of the next DSD males poised to beat women. Perhaps your recommendations can include these concepts.
Sorry for the long response. Do you have any thoughts on this? Does the entire WSPWG team work on all issues, or is there a subset that has worked on the sex/DSD components of your recommendations?
Hi Sally, wow, now I really appreciate the deep dive you and your group are taking into the WSPWG's model policy - and how hard you're working on your own.
Just a point or two here: The Women's Sports Policy Working Group agrees with you that physical alterations do not turn males into females, and should not grant men access to female showers (or sports).
We have not considered which DVD males, if any, should have access to the female showers. My instinct is zero, but we have not discussed it. I hear you about female-appearing bodies before puberty, but how would ambiguous genitalia be handled? How much ambiguity?
And DSD female-appearing genitals can change to a more male appearance at puberty, which can happen young... Is anyone really concerned about 7-year-old female-appearing DSD males and where they shower? Do young children even shower in school?
I agree we should not send female-appearing people into the male showers, but... Is that a problem we need to solve? How many of those youth are there? Maybe we don't need to get that detailed - sometimes high-level is better at this stage, to get decision-makers focusing on the most important decisions, and not overwhelmed. Will give that more thought.
The six of us do not have a subcommittee re: DSDs. Doriane Coleman, author of Sex and Gender and law professor at Duke, might know more than all of us; we collaborate with her. If you haven't read her book, I recommend it.
While I think this might be of interest to other readers, since we're so deep into the weeds, we should probably take it offline. I'd be happy to respect your anonymity. MariahBNelson@gmail.com.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. We're establishing federal policy with an eye to international impact, so stakeholders such as WSPWG and others may want to have a say. In addition to shared terminology, we want to ensure there aren't conflicts between feminist organizations around goals. Taking a big picture approach allows us to work across multiple organizations and even countries to solve the problems transgender ideology has created for girls and women. We want a clearer definition for sex because we know from experience that allowing organizations to assume some males are girly enough to participate in girls and women's sports leads to male dominance in the female category. And clearly, letting men self-identify as women and receive female sex-based rights is a regressive step backwards from equality women and especially lesbians have achieved over the past century.
Since we don't want politicians, school officials or other students/parents to focus on an athlete's genitalia, we're clarifying the science before they muddy the water. While the Democrats pretend the existence of DSDs means sex isn't real, we just had another Republican admit he doesn't know what intersex means. Yep, he even displayed his ignorance on camera. When it comes to child safeguarding and female rights, it's clear we can't trust either Democrats or Republicans to make good policy decisions.
Our proposal is a federal bill that defines sex more comprehensively than Trump's (May Mailman's) executive order. Athletic participation in sex-segregated sports will require doctors, not parents or coaches, to determine an athlete's sex based on our definition. Doctors who lie will risk their licenses. While some feminist organizations want to throw the word gender in the trash, we feel it's better to define it in a way it cannot be used to bludgeon women. Hence, gender identity is defined in a manner that makes it irrelevant to sex-segregated activities. We hope Repubs pass this bill with the support of a few brave Dems because it's so clear and reasonable that Democrats won't be able to subvert it when they come back into power. And perhaps European TERFs will jump in to help, then promote these ideas there as well. With the recent UK Supreme Court decision clarifying that “trans women” are not women, we think they should press on with even more clarity before the government rewrites science with new laws that reinstate men's rights above women's.
Some of our policy details are pretty obvious. Ambiguous genitalia does not a woman make. A micropenis is a penis, plain and simple. Adult men who have children may have transitioned later in life because they hated their penis, but it obviously worked to father offspring. The more important impact of fetal and lifelong male levels of testosterone is the affect on male brains. While we don't know if the high incidence of historic and contemporary rape comes from male physiology or societal oppression of women (or both), we know child safeguarding requires us to separate males from females at camps and on overnight school trips as well as in showers. Still, DSD youth with a male genotype who have a vulva and vagina are as vulnerable as typically developed girls. Since our policies go beyond sport, we're addressing the bigger picture as well as the problematic details.
If the 0.18% estimate is accurate, there could be over 60,000 DSD people currently living in the US alone. Imagine how many exist across the world. As poor nations become more advanced, those DSD athletes will be trained and can compete. It's not just the finalists who are impacted. 30-50,000 people may have participated in the national or international trials but didn’t qualify for the 2025 Olympics. DSD males who don't make it to the Olympics still knock out female athletes trying to get there.
Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is signed up for the female category again next month. World Boxing just announced he will be required to take another genetic sex test, this time using PCR to look for the Y chromosome. If he has 46 XY DSD 5-ARD, he won't be allowed to compete. But he could be any number of other DSDs that result in female appearing genitals on a male body. That's why we use the MPA description. A boxer with his MPAs could kill a female competitor.
Some DSDs that requires specialized tests to identify are 46-XX&46-XY, 46-XX male syndrome (the SRY translocates to dad's X chromosome or an allosome) and SRY-negative 46,XX. That can't be found looking for bioavailable testosterone, a Y chromosome or even the SRY gene. It might be caused by mutations in the SOX9, DAX1, SF1, WNT4 or other genes.
If your eyes are glazing over, I'm with ya. I'm pretty creative and insightful, but we need more experienced people than us clarifying solutions to the problem of a series of male DSD athletes eventually setting EVERY female record out of reach of all elite female athletes. We think that the few male athletes who can get past WSPWG's proposed bioavailable testosterone test will beat women in every sport, meaning even exceptional women won't be able to compete against them or reach the “female records” these men will set over time. I know a few geneticists who could help with this, but they all think we're being mean to poor little trans girls.
Mariah, we'll contact you via email, but it would be helpful if you ask Doriane Coleman to take a look at this thread so she knows what we're up to and can reach out if she wants to.
Thanks to Sarah Barker for providing space for this in-depth conversation. To anyone else who's made it this far into the discussion and is interested in learning more and helping promote better policies, feel free to contact me via Substack DM.
We're working with elected Republicans because Democrats refuse to discuss women's rights with us, aside from promoting the right to an abortion. Dems are steadfast in their belief, or their adherence to a lie they refuse to challenge, that it's not misogynistic or oppressive to allow trans athletes to beat the crap out of females because those athletes are ACTUAL women. Lol, Cool-aid, meet Democrats.
If sports organizations and groups like yours agree with our policy positions, Republicans/bill sponsors could simply cite already published recommendations.
I’m of the mindset that one is too many. I understand that nobody really wants to put pressure on high school athletes by naming them publicly (unless you’re Alison Wade and condemn others while doing it yourself) but when the athletes, the media, and their parents are already so publicly vocal (and in the case of AB Hernandez‘ mom, so very, very condescending) I don’t have a problem with anyone bringing additional attention to them.
I was a competitive athlete throughout my younger years, and no matter what anyone else said, I knew right from wrong. I agree that it’s not entirely the fault of the boys who are encouraged by those around them, but when they were competing as boys and not placing well, only to switch and start winning or placing well, that alone should be enough to clue them in to the fact that they have an innate advantage over girls.
I do feel for them, but it’s all so wrong, and I’m so sad and angry on behalf of every single girl who was forced into competing against a boy.
Agree. Don't get me wrong—I think no matter how ideologically brainwashed, those boys know what they're doing is not right. I just don't want to be seen as attacking a kid. It's the same with people saying the only solution is for girls to refuse to compete. NO! This is notfor kids to sort—it's for cowardly adults
Yes, that's what I can't understand either?! These men/boys are so incredibly selfish, clueless, callous about crushing someone else's chances, so mercenary about the far-reaching reaching damage they do to all girls and women down the line who will never be able to top a man's record even a thousand years in the future. Its partly the testosterone fueled competitiveness, but even given that, they have the intellectual capacity to know the damage they're doing. No shame? No embarrassment? And the effects of their intrusion is ten times worse in battered women's shelters, rape crises centers, bathrooms, and medical settings. Their damage is irreparable and yet... females are exhorted to be kind, to capitulate in our own humiliation, degradation and regression. I don't get it!
To be honest, I don't like calling out individual high school age kids for a number of reasons. 1) These boys absolutely would not be competing on the girls' team if they were not encouraged/facilitated by a RAFT of adults who should and do know better. It's the other side of the coin that says high school girls should not have to stand up for their rights and protections. These are things adults should do. Parents should not be telling their boys they are actually girls; coaches should not be allowing boys on girls' teams; school administrators and school boards should protect girls' rights, especially in light of executive order; gender doctors and therapists should not lie to boys that they are actually girls and that they will be accepted by girls as girls; and state and local politicians should protect girls' rights based on facts/sex rather than ideology. If these many many adults were doing their job there is no way even a single boy would be competing in girls' sports. As was the case about 10 years ago. 2) These boys, 14-18 years old, have unfortunately been steeped in gender ideology since kindergarten. to them, it's completely normalized for a boy to declare himself a girl. That's why they feel no shame in it. To the contrary, there's a certain amount of cultural cache to being trans. Sadly, girls too, have been steeped in this same ideology, and many seem to be unaware of how it erodes their rights. They've never experienced anything different; they were not alive when it would have been wrong for a boy to be in girls' sports or in the locker room. And 3) they are kids. Yes,an 18 y.o. knows he's got a male body but for the reasons above, he may not really see competing in girls' sports as wrong. Just like the boys-will-be-boys excuse of the 1950s, gender ideology teaches boys that their feelings and desires matter more than girls
I don't see any true equivalence between the boys positions and the girls position. The girls haven't taken any initiative in this situation - they're passive victims till they resist and they shouldn't be put in the position to have to extricate themselves from something they had no part in causing. The boys/men on the other hand, have played a key role by allowing themselves to be used as weapons against girls even if encouraged by adults. They're not innocent bystanders, but appear to relish their role, the attention, the dominion over girls, their advantage and their winning. I think they need to take a share of accountability for their part.
I agree with what you're saying here. Boys do have some agency in choosing to compete in girls' sports, and girls do not have agency in that decision. I guess I meant girls are conditioned from a very young age to accept boys who say they are girls in their sports and spaces
Thanks Sarah. As anyone with a modicum of sports knowledge knows, one is too many.
It's like breaking lanes in a track race, being a heavy weight in a light weight division, being 19 in an under 16 category. How many times it happens is irrelevant.
The big issue is how come the swathes of administrators, coaches, clubs, legislators have let girls sports down for the last decade by failing in their role to do the 'right thing'.
We don't use terminology such as “true hermaphrodite” because it implies that if a person has enough atypical sex traits, they can be classified as a third sex. The same problem arises with the term Intersex – people start to believe (or try to convince others) that a third sex category exists that is not male or female.
In nature, some organisms are hermaphroditic such as worms, snails, insects, plants, etc. But those animals and plants have fully functioning reproductive parts and gametes. While that term was used historically for people, no human is actually a hermaphrodite. Using the older terminology is problematic in terms of policy.
Also, 46-XY CAIS individual have a functional SRY gene. Complete Androgen Insensitive Syndrome is caused by the inability of cells to utilize the testosterone made by the testes. Can I suggest you reconsider your definition of female or use different terminology with respect to access to women's changing rooms and shower facilities in Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport?
Thank you for giving the boys' names. Much of the talk about media censorship is rooted in conspiratorial thinking that bears little resemblance to reality. One exception is the trans beat, where mainstream media still overtly slants its coverage in favor of gender ideology, trans activists, trans individuals and trans allies. I know from experience how difficult it can be to find trans girls' "dead names" by searching the Web. The phenomenon of trans female athlete exists only because so many of our institutions, including the mainstream media, support and spread the lie that trans girls are girls. Few things are more important to a person's identity than their name. Whatever else might be required to end the male incursion into female-only sports, the first step is to deny that the athletes are girls or women. Can there be a better to accomplish that than by using the person's real male name instead of their female alias?
"Maine governor Janet Mills is suing the Trump administration essentially to allow Soren Stark-Chessa to continue his three-sport, two-year trampling of girls’ rights."
Maine sued (and won) because the Trump
regime illegally withheld funding appropriated by Congress, including for child nutrition programs. Gov Mills has said she will follow the law, that excluding trans identified males from female sport conflicts with Maine's human rights law, the Exec orders are NOT law, and that there is a debate to be had on males in female sport.
I like your work, and emphatically disagree with allowing males to compete in female sport, but in refusing to bow down to authoritarian edicts, Gov Mills has stood up for democracy and the rule of law, but you are so focused on this one issue, you refuse to consider the broader political issues. Without democracy, there are no women’s rights. They work in tandem (see, for example, the work of Erica Chenoweth).
Let's pressure Gov Mills into that debate she says is worth having, but let's NOT misrepresent her position.
I admit, I don't understand the tortured laws and politics of this but democracy gave us Title IX and later the Ted Stevens Act to ensure female sports for females. Title IX is a federal law which, as I understand it, overrides state law. Why is Maine, and other states, able to disregard federal law?
Unfortunately, two Democratic administrations (via the Dept of Ed), the Supreme Court, and the medical establishment have muddied the waters, to the point where I think this will have to be adjudicated at the highest level, similar to the UK where the Supreme Court had to finally say that “sex” refers to biological women and girls.
The executive does not get to make or interpret law and EOs do not have the force of law. Congress makes the law, gov’t agencies develop regulations related to the law, and the courts decide the law. So when Trump bellowed at Gov Janet Mills, “We are the law!” she was right to say, see you in court (even though I agree she’s wrong on males in female sport).
Possibly the worst “muddying of the waters” was the Bostock decision which defined discrimination on the basis of gender identity as “sex discrimination.” They tried to limit it to Title VII (employment), but how does that work? How, in federal law, can “sex” sometimes include gender identity and sometimes not? Everyone knew at the time that the trans lobby would use the decision to bolster their case in other arenas.
Moreover, Title IX is not just about sport, nor even originally about sport. Education was left out of Title VII, so one reason for Title IX was to prohibit employment discrimination in educational institutions. Previously, women were routinely discriminated against in things like tenure, and even faculty organizations. (Some institutions disallowed women faculty from joining faculty organizations; they were directed instead to wives clubs.)
So, Title IX was about discrimination in educational employment, as well as in access for women to higher education and equitable distribution of educational resources between the sexes (which is where sport comes in).
I wanted to speak up for Gov Mills because she is a fearless advocate for democracy and has been for women and girls as well, on other issues. A friend of mine, years ago, worked as a sex crimes prosecutor in Maine, when Mills held some other office, and she said Mills was terrific on women’s issues. My friend is also a sex realist, so doesn’t agree with males in female sport.
Moreover, I’m grateful to Mills for bravely standing up for democratic principles, not only because I fear the rapidly increasing authoritarianism of the Trump regime, but also because there are no women’s rights without democracy. Authoritarian regimes are by nature hierarchical; in our case, with white men at the top; women and minorities subjugated. Political scientists say that women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, are the canary in the coal mine of democracies. When you begin to see them eroded, democracy is threatened.
So, yeah, the Trump regime “knows what a woman is.” Those are the people to fire from high level jobs in the military, whose contributions are removed from institutions, whose vote to target with things like the SAVE act. One of their goals is to dismantle the Dept of Ed, which has been the primary enforcer of Title IX. I have said over and over, yeah, the Trump admin may disallow males in female sport, but what will female sport look like in their regime? Already the Trump regime has said that NCAA revenue sharing does NOT have to be equitably distributed between women and men. And the regime is undermining many other laws and constantly violating the Constitution. Who’s to say they won’t eventually violate Title IX, and say that even public funding does not have to be equitably distributed between women and men in ed institutions?
So, that’s why I was defensive of Gov Mills. It was brave of her to stand up against Trump; and they targeted her state in many ways, even a grant to fisheries, etc. We just need to get her to that debate she says can be had on males in female sport. ;) Anyway, sorry for the long essay. I appreciate engaging with you and very much value your work. Thanks for all you do!
Thanks for this thoughtful reply! You are obviously very well informed about legal aspects and history. I am still confused about something—you admire Janet Mills for standing up to the Trump administration's "rule by EO" but I don't see how that's different from what the Biden (and possibly Obama) administration did by changing the wording in Title IX, a federal law, to replace sex with gender identity, which literally trashes the entire purpose of the law. I also don't see how you can say Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls, because I think when the opportunity to vote in a democratic fashion to preserve women's sex-based sports and spaces, she has voted against it. In a very tribal Democrat (capitol D) way. I admit that Republicans in the larger sense do not have women's rights in mind, but Democrats don't either, as they have demonstrated. I fail to see how Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls in Maine when they actually have zero sex-based rights, and any man can claim to be a woman and use services meant for women
"I don't see how that's different from what the Biden (and possibly Obama) administration did by changing the wording in Title IX" - and that was challenged in court by multiple states.
"I also don't see how you can say Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls, because I think when the opportunity to vote in a democratic fashion to preserve women's sex-based sports and spaces, she has voted against it. "
Agree on the trans issue - but I am not a single issue feminist.
"I admit that Republicans in the larger sense do not have women's rights in mind, but Democrats don't either"
You say, "Without democracy there are no women's rights." Sounds good, catchy phrase. But when did men ever refrain from calling themselves democratic and their governments democracies while openly and self-righteously denying women the vote, equal education, equal wages the right to be free of the fear of domestic violence and rape? Never happened. When "democrats" Joe Biden and Obama decided to give away women's shelters, sports, rape crises centers and scholarships to men and boys, how "democratic" was that? When Biden tried to give a lifetime judgeship appointment to Chad Meredith a right-wing, anti-abortion, Republican on the eve of the SJC decision against legal abortion, how democratic was that? By making excuses for covert-right actors like war-monger, anti-woman Biden hiding under a cloak of "democracy" we keep voting to keep them in power, while they effectively use the threat that the Republicans are worse. The manipulations of the incumbent democrats didn't work this time because a critical mass of voters sat out the elections or voted for their cat. This is not how I envision a Democracy works and many people have chosen not to uphold the farce, despite a lack of good alternatives.
Precisely the point – within the framework of a great democracy, the US government refused to allow women the right to vote for decades. Many of America's bravest suffragists died before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in 1920. Women who protested in the 1800s had to stand by while black men were given the right to vote via the 15th Amendment in 1870. They fought for decades more, many of them growing old and dying before the accomplishment of their goal of women's suffrage. That is a shameful abuse by a democratic country hell bent on oppressing women.
Decades later, we fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with amendments that gave women anti-discrimination rights. Then Title IX of the Educational Act of 1972 established sex-based rights for women and girls in America's schools and colleges.
Unfortunately, our historic first black president began the process of dismantling those sex-based rights by subverting federal law through policy directives. Then, since most Democrats weren't paying attention, the Biden Administration used executive overreach to change the definition of the word “sex” in established law to include in each sex category members of the opposite sex, especially men who pretend to be women. The result is that we no longer had female sex-based rights. Men in women's sports, men in women's showers, and the most horrific Democratic practice, men in women's prisons. Convicted rapists locked in cells with a female prisoners, free to rape those women. That is literally government facilitated rape. Democrats are reprehensible and will go down in history as the misogynists they have shown themselves to be.
Biden's nefarious trickery was accomplished via an executive order which was challenged in federal courts by Republican-led states over a two-year period and successfully taken down. Then Biden worked through the Dept of Education to do the same thing – allow males to sexually harass and oppress females by changing the definition of the word “sex” in settled federal law. Again, that's classic executive overreach. A president doesn't have the constitutional authority to change laws. Wouldn't it be great of those screaming at Trump for “destroying democracy” took a look at what our own Dem Party has done?
Long story short – Democrats hate women. Republicans are worse on other issues, abortion, for instance. But if Republicans are willing to reinstate women's sex based rights, I'm up for firing more Democrats in 2026 and 2028. Trump will take down his own Party. When that happens, we need to ensure the Dems are willing to support women's rights by firing them over and over until they get off the trans train. If that idea scares you, think if it more in terms of replacing bad democrats who prioritize male rights over female with good Dems who support women's rights. But as can be seen in comments here and elsewhere, Dem voters have so much TDS that many will never demand elected Democrats support the rights of half the world. So Democrats will continue to destroy them.
Another excellent article Sarah! Thank you for addressing these athletes in their proper category: males/he/him/his. These athletes have never been discriminated against; they have ALWAYS been eligible to participate---in the male division. The females have been the ones who have been expected to tolerate the discrimination. And then demeaned by parents, school boards, teachers, coaches and lawmakers for demanding fairness. Hopefully these states, school boards, etc., will soon be called to task for their outrageous behavior.
They have been discriminated against, in a sense--if not these specific boys, then thousands of others who have been convinced, by bullying, school indoctrination, therapeutic gas lighting, etc, that they do not belong with the boys, that they are really girls. All these children, the boys and the girls, are being actively harmed, and my heart breaks for them. How are the boys supposed to understand they are cheating when they are being taught, from before they can read, that they can be (and probably were) born in the wrong body, sometimes by their own parents, and sometimes behind their parents' backs? We must get males out of female sports, but we must not stop there.
This, exactly
Excellent points! If men (coaches, teammates, etc) would be more inclusive of males that are confused about their gender and accept them on the boys teams, we would be a step closer in protecting females.
On one hand, that's technically true.
On the other, toxic abusive narcissistic autogynephilic men don't just fall out of the sky pre-formed at age 18.
They develop from toxic abusive narcissistic autogynephilic boys.
They develop their skills at abuse at a young age, beginning with their families. By the time they are adults they have engaged in plenty of abusive behavior.
So really, it's just a reminder that young abusers may start off as victims and continue to somewhat be victims while simultaneously being perpetrators.
While it's true toxic abusive boys may be the ones to avail themselves of the opportunity to cross into girls' sports and spaces in the current milieu, there would be NO boys in girls' sports and those types of boys would face some shame and stigma for that kind of behavior if they were restricted to male sports and spaces
All the more reason to stop the cycle.
If confused males could feel comfortable in a male space then why invade a women's space? After all when a young boy says that he "feels like s girl", what he is really saying is that he doesn't feel comfortable with the other males who might be making fun of him. Granted there are autogynaphilic men, but we know from scientific data that a large portion of boys (and girls) will end up accepting their sex and figure out their sexuality if not medically interfered with.
Well, the autogynephilic urge is an obsession with possessing femaleness not a rejection of maleness, so I don't buy the idea that those particular boys are significantly driven by discomfort with other boys.
As far as what they say, they are going to say whatever they think will get them what they want. I wouldn't put much stock in it.
But gay boys with internalized homophobia, the other cohort that makes up young trans-ID'd males, those might be uncomfortable with other boys due to their feelings of attraction being stimulated, as well as whatever bullying might be going on if they're non-conforming.
But please know - if a male is claiming to be afraid of male spaces, it's a 95% chance he is bullshitting you, trying to play on your sympathies to get you to lower your defenses and open the door to the spaces he is erotically obsessed with.
Men or boys who are actually afraid of other men or boys wouldn't be so interested in admitting it.
I happened to notice that the NCAA quietly updated its original Feb 2025 policy (without re-dating it) by adding this text: "The policy is clear that there are no waivers available, and students assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team with amended birth certificates or other forms of ID." So they're trying to close the amended birth certificate loophole. Still inadequate on the enforcement front, and the DSD front, and it can be hard to detect amended ones. But interesting that they're capitulating somewhat to pressure from our side.
Good catch! I see the attempt to close the loophole, but as I pointed out, In MN the amended birth certificate looks exactly like a male was F at birth
I've often wondered about whether this falsification is in any way reversible. Is there a date of issuance on a birth certificate? Or a central register of births and deaths per state or county, collated in order of date and time?
I'm not sure about reversibility. So, do you mean like a detransitioner? Birth certificates can be changed in 44 states. In some of those states, the date the certificate was amended is written on it, so it's apparent it was changed. Some states issue a completely new certificate so it appears as it was the original. In those cases, the original is kept but would be very hard to access other than by owner
Genetic testing may be the only solution.
I don't think they're capitulating to anything our side says. This is from the Trump executive order. They either had to change their policies or lose money.
How would you handle the DSD issue? What does the WSPG recommend? I'm asking specifically where you think they should be placed, not how DSD affects a person's birth certificate.
There are dozens of types of Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). All of those people, with one exception, are male or female.
The exception is the person with ovotesticular disorder (true hermaphrodite) who has both testes and ovaries, tho these are underdeveloped and these people tend to be infertile. It is not a third sex or third type of reproduction. There have been fewer than 500 ever, worldwide.
The only male DSD who should be eligible for female sports competition is the person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). These are males who produce testosterone like other males, but cannot use it. They appear female externally, and thus can be mistaken for females at birth, but do not have female internal organs and therefore do not menstruate, so are sometimes detected around puberty.
Since they cannot use the testosterone in their bodies (due to the absence of the SRY gene), they have no physical advantage when competing against women. Since this is a rare condition, this can be handled on a case-by-case basis -- or accounted for via genetic testing screening for the SRY gene.
In ovotesticular one predominates and that determines sex. One is usually poorly differentiated and referred to as testicular or ovarian streaks. In Cais they are still male. They have the sry gene on the Y. As such they have male characteristics particularly taller more slender skeletons.
This short video is of a girl called Blume who has that condition. Nobody would know she's actually male with internal testicles. It's remarkable.
https://youtube.com/shorts/A68-MCGq0EU?si=xZ9C4GlVQD8YaW5U
She quotes the 1.7% intersex statistic, which is actually false. It's more like 0.02% if I remember correctly.
Yes, and Blume is confused about the "list of criteria that determine sex." Nowadays it's only whether your body is designed along the pathway to develop large (ova) or small (sperm) gametes. Regardless of whether you actually develop them or not.
Is that your perspective or has WSPWG come to the same conclusion?
WSPWG.
I'm trying to figure out the process you used to come to your conclusions on DSD individuals.
Sorry to keep bothering you, but did you have a subset of WSPWG write the Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport – Free Template? Or was it contracted to another group of professionals? Does WSPWG have any publications that go more in depth for recommendations on assessing on a case-by-case basis?
Mariah, can I suggest you reconsider your definition of female or use different terminology with respect to access to women's changing rooms and shower facilities in Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport? see my other comment about terminology. I tried to respond to your comment but Ss stuck it in the regular comment list.
What's your concern with the current definition?
WSPWG's Model Policy: “Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport” is an excellent framework. But there are a number of DSDs besides CAIS that cause female-appearing genitals on a male body. All those athletes should be allowed as youth to use the female changing and shower facilities. Yet they might, under your and our clear and reasonable recommendations, not qualify for the female category in sport. This is a tricky policy area since the rules should deny inclusion in the female sports category, yet recognize that DSD athletes with breasts and vulvas shouldn't be forced to use male private spaces.
The important thing to emphasize with DSDs is that they affect development of sex characteristics which may or may not provide sports advantages. Imane Khelif may have had female-appearing genitals at birth but he likely figured out during puberty that he is male. If not, then the DNA tests he was required to take clarified his sex. But now he's about to smash another woman's head thanks to his longer male arms, harder knuckles, slim hips, wide shoulders, well you know the male characteristics that give him advantages over female competitors. If Khelif has 5-ARD, your restriction would ban him from female sports. But there are other DSDs that wouldn't restrict an athlete like him from the female category under WSPWG's recommendations. In our policy proposals, we differentiate protection of female spaces from inclusion in the female sports category. We also distinguish innate human conditions from surgically created alterations in policy. To put it crudely, growing moobs or stuffing silicone in your male chest and/or cutting off or inverting your penis doesn't get you into the female shower. Our policies don't say it that way of course, but the intent is to separate innate characteristics from artificially created “opposite sex mimicry.” Our policy proposals go beyond sport, so we redefined “gender affirming care” to “sex mimicry” to help youth and their parents understand exactly what they're signing up for if they choose to “transition.” We hope other organizations like yours also start using this type of terminology.
Given the inch of “be kind” concessions given to male transgenders that have turned into miles of damage to female sports, we think it's important to be explicit about any exceptions that can be used to destroy female sex-based rights. That's because a large part of the success of the transgender movement relies on “the intersex gambit.” Instead of schools and athletic organizations being allowed to stretch the rules with “case-by-case” inclusion, we are trying to specifically define DSD categories that should have access to female showers but not female sports. Cheaters and confused boys are destroying HS girls sport using their magic identifying words backed by the religious belief that humans can change sex, but at the elite level, males with DSDs are the biggest threat to female success. A good example are the three DSD athletes who took gold, silver & bronze in the Rio 2016 Olympics 800m. They could be restricted from the female category under your recommendations, but other DSD athletes wouldn't. If individual athletes are only challenged after they win, over time, every elite women's record will be set out of the reach of female athletes by DSD males. Our analysis shows they could be a large number of men, and the more they are discovered around the world as “amazing female athletes,” the faster they'll rise to the top of women's sports. The idea of checking for bioavailable testosterone works for transgender athletes who are non-DSD males with a chosen gender identity of woman, but that won't work to bar all male DSD athletes.
Details are important, as is language. As my other comment here suggests, it's best to discontinue using terms such as intersex and hermaphrodite, even though older scientific articles, TQ+ organizations and current AI systems use that terminology. Transgender activists deliberately use those words to imply there's a third category of human between male and female. It would help if your model policy consistently say, “formerly called” or “previously called” throughout the document instead of “Also called intersex conditions.”
Finally, we call the advantages that males have over females in sport MPAs for Male Physiological Advantages. We incorporate the concept of bioavailable testosterone, but some DSDs give MPAs even without using athlete's own testosterone. We're identifying them in advance of the next DSD males poised to beat women. Perhaps your recommendations can include these concepts.
Sorry for the long response. Do you have any thoughts on this? Does the entire WSPWG team work on all issues, or is there a subset that has worked on the sex/DSD components of your recommendations?
Hi Sally, wow, now I really appreciate the deep dive you and your group are taking into the WSPWG's model policy - and how hard you're working on your own.
Just a point or two here: The Women's Sports Policy Working Group agrees with you that physical alterations do not turn males into females, and should not grant men access to female showers (or sports).
We have not considered which DVD males, if any, should have access to the female showers. My instinct is zero, but we have not discussed it. I hear you about female-appearing bodies before puberty, but how would ambiguous genitalia be handled? How much ambiguity?
And DSD female-appearing genitals can change to a more male appearance at puberty, which can happen young... Is anyone really concerned about 7-year-old female-appearing DSD males and where they shower? Do young children even shower in school?
I agree we should not send female-appearing people into the male showers, but... Is that a problem we need to solve? How many of those youth are there? Maybe we don't need to get that detailed - sometimes high-level is better at this stage, to get decision-makers focusing on the most important decisions, and not overwhelmed. Will give that more thought.
The six of us do not have a subcommittee re: DSDs. Doriane Coleman, author of Sex and Gender and law professor at Duke, might know more than all of us; we collaborate with her. If you haven't read her book, I recommend it.
While I think this might be of interest to other readers, since we're so deep into the weeds, we should probably take it offline. I'd be happy to respect your anonymity. MariahBNelson@gmail.com.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. We're establishing federal policy with an eye to international impact, so stakeholders such as WSPWG and others may want to have a say. In addition to shared terminology, we want to ensure there aren't conflicts between feminist organizations around goals. Taking a big picture approach allows us to work across multiple organizations and even countries to solve the problems transgender ideology has created for girls and women. We want a clearer definition for sex because we know from experience that allowing organizations to assume some males are girly enough to participate in girls and women's sports leads to male dominance in the female category. And clearly, letting men self-identify as women and receive female sex-based rights is a regressive step backwards from equality women and especially lesbians have achieved over the past century.
Since we don't want politicians, school officials or other students/parents to focus on an athlete's genitalia, we're clarifying the science before they muddy the water. While the Democrats pretend the existence of DSDs means sex isn't real, we just had another Republican admit he doesn't know what intersex means. Yep, he even displayed his ignorance on camera. When it comes to child safeguarding and female rights, it's clear we can't trust either Democrats or Republicans to make good policy decisions.
Our proposal is a federal bill that defines sex more comprehensively than Trump's (May Mailman's) executive order. Athletic participation in sex-segregated sports will require doctors, not parents or coaches, to determine an athlete's sex based on our definition. Doctors who lie will risk their licenses. While some feminist organizations want to throw the word gender in the trash, we feel it's better to define it in a way it cannot be used to bludgeon women. Hence, gender identity is defined in a manner that makes it irrelevant to sex-segregated activities. We hope Repubs pass this bill with the support of a few brave Dems because it's so clear and reasonable that Democrats won't be able to subvert it when they come back into power. And perhaps European TERFs will jump in to help, then promote these ideas there as well. With the recent UK Supreme Court decision clarifying that “trans women” are not women, we think they should press on with even more clarity before the government rewrites science with new laws that reinstate men's rights above women's.
Some of our policy details are pretty obvious. Ambiguous genitalia does not a woman make. A micropenis is a penis, plain and simple. Adult men who have children may have transitioned later in life because they hated their penis, but it obviously worked to father offspring. The more important impact of fetal and lifelong male levels of testosterone is the affect on male brains. While we don't know if the high incidence of historic and contemporary rape comes from male physiology or societal oppression of women (or both), we know child safeguarding requires us to separate males from females at camps and on overnight school trips as well as in showers. Still, DSD youth with a male genotype who have a vulva and vagina are as vulnerable as typically developed girls. Since our policies go beyond sport, we're addressing the bigger picture as well as the problematic details.
If the 0.18% estimate is accurate, there could be over 60,000 DSD people currently living in the US alone. Imagine how many exist across the world. As poor nations become more advanced, those DSD athletes will be trained and can compete. It's not just the finalists who are impacted. 30-50,000 people may have participated in the national or international trials but didn’t qualify for the 2025 Olympics. DSD males who don't make it to the Olympics still knock out female athletes trying to get there.
Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is signed up for the female category again next month. World Boxing just announced he will be required to take another genetic sex test, this time using PCR to look for the Y chromosome. If he has 46 XY DSD 5-ARD, he won't be allowed to compete. But he could be any number of other DSDs that result in female appearing genitals on a male body. That's why we use the MPA description. A boxer with his MPAs could kill a female competitor.
Some DSDs that requires specialized tests to identify are 46-XX&46-XY, 46-XX male syndrome (the SRY translocates to dad's X chromosome or an allosome) and SRY-negative 46,XX. That can't be found looking for bioavailable testosterone, a Y chromosome or even the SRY gene. It might be caused by mutations in the SOX9, DAX1, SF1, WNT4 or other genes.
If your eyes are glazing over, I'm with ya. I'm pretty creative and insightful, but we need more experienced people than us clarifying solutions to the problem of a series of male DSD athletes eventually setting EVERY female record out of reach of all elite female athletes. We think that the few male athletes who can get past WSPWG's proposed bioavailable testosterone test will beat women in every sport, meaning even exceptional women won't be able to compete against them or reach the “female records” these men will set over time. I know a few geneticists who could help with this, but they all think we're being mean to poor little trans girls.
Mariah, we'll contact you via email, but it would be helpful if you ask Doriane Coleman to take a look at this thread so she knows what we're up to and can reach out if she wants to.
Thanks to Sarah Barker for providing space for this in-depth conversation. To anyone else who's made it this far into the discussion and is interested in learning more and helping promote better policies, feel free to contact me via Substack DM.
Love it. I’m sharing your comments w WSPWG. Looking forward to collaborating on the bill.
We're working with elected Republicans because Democrats refuse to discuss women's rights with us, aside from promoting the right to an abortion. Dems are steadfast in their belief, or their adherence to a lie they refuse to challenge, that it's not misogynistic or oppressive to allow trans athletes to beat the crap out of females because those athletes are ACTUAL women. Lol, Cool-aid, meet Democrats.
If sports organizations and groups like yours agree with our policy positions, Republicans/bill sponsors could simply cite already published recommendations.
We do all our own writing and only publish work under our group name that represents consensus among the 6 of us.
As always, you bring up excellent points.
I’m of the mindset that one is too many. I understand that nobody really wants to put pressure on high school athletes by naming them publicly (unless you’re Alison Wade and condemn others while doing it yourself) but when the athletes, the media, and their parents are already so publicly vocal (and in the case of AB Hernandez‘ mom, so very, very condescending) I don’t have a problem with anyone bringing additional attention to them.
I was a competitive athlete throughout my younger years, and no matter what anyone else said, I knew right from wrong. I agree that it’s not entirely the fault of the boys who are encouraged by those around them, but when they were competing as boys and not placing well, only to switch and start winning or placing well, that alone should be enough to clue them in to the fact that they have an innate advantage over girls.
I do feel for them, but it’s all so wrong, and I’m so sad and angry on behalf of every single girl who was forced into competing against a boy.
Agree. Don't get me wrong—I think no matter how ideologically brainwashed, those boys know what they're doing is not right. I just don't want to be seen as attacking a kid. It's the same with people saying the only solution is for girls to refuse to compete. NO! This is notfor kids to sort—it's for cowardly adults
💯!!
Why are so many people so sympathetic to these ex-men? I guess they’re seen as “victims.” I don’t agree! They’re cheating, plain and simple.
Yes, that's what I can't understand either?! These men/boys are so incredibly selfish, clueless, callous about crushing someone else's chances, so mercenary about the far-reaching reaching damage they do to all girls and women down the line who will never be able to top a man's record even a thousand years in the future. Its partly the testosterone fueled competitiveness, but even given that, they have the intellectual capacity to know the damage they're doing. No shame? No embarrassment? And the effects of their intrusion is ten times worse in battered women's shelters, rape crises centers, bathrooms, and medical settings. Their damage is irreparable and yet... females are exhorted to be kind, to capitulate in our own humiliation, degradation and regression. I don't get it!
See: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/accuracy-criminal-statistics-matters
To be honest, I don't like calling out individual high school age kids for a number of reasons. 1) These boys absolutely would not be competing on the girls' team if they were not encouraged/facilitated by a RAFT of adults who should and do know better. It's the other side of the coin that says high school girls should not have to stand up for their rights and protections. These are things adults should do. Parents should not be telling their boys they are actually girls; coaches should not be allowing boys on girls' teams; school administrators and school boards should protect girls' rights, especially in light of executive order; gender doctors and therapists should not lie to boys that they are actually girls and that they will be accepted by girls as girls; and state and local politicians should protect girls' rights based on facts/sex rather than ideology. If these many many adults were doing their job there is no way even a single boy would be competing in girls' sports. As was the case about 10 years ago. 2) These boys, 14-18 years old, have unfortunately been steeped in gender ideology since kindergarten. to them, it's completely normalized for a boy to declare himself a girl. That's why they feel no shame in it. To the contrary, there's a certain amount of cultural cache to being trans. Sadly, girls too, have been steeped in this same ideology, and many seem to be unaware of how it erodes their rights. They've never experienced anything different; they were not alive when it would have been wrong for a boy to be in girls' sports or in the locker room. And 3) they are kids. Yes,an 18 y.o. knows he's got a male body but for the reasons above, he may not really see competing in girls' sports as wrong. Just like the boys-will-be-boys excuse of the 1950s, gender ideology teaches boys that their feelings and desires matter more than girls
I don't see any true equivalence between the boys positions and the girls position. The girls haven't taken any initiative in this situation - they're passive victims till they resist and they shouldn't be put in the position to have to extricate themselves from something they had no part in causing. The boys/men on the other hand, have played a key role by allowing themselves to be used as weapons against girls even if encouraged by adults. They're not innocent bystanders, but appear to relish their role, the attention, the dominion over girls, their advantage and their winning. I think they need to take a share of accountability for their part.
I agree with what you're saying here. Boys do have some agency in choosing to compete in girls' sports, and girls do not have agency in that decision. I guess I meant girls are conditioned from a very young age to accept boys who say they are girls in their sports and spaces
Thanks Sarah. As anyone with a modicum of sports knowledge knows, one is too many.
It's like breaking lanes in a track race, being a heavy weight in a light weight division, being 19 in an under 16 category. How many times it happens is irrelevant.
The big issue is how come the swathes of administrators, coaches, clubs, legislators have let girls sports down for the last decade by failing in their role to do the 'right thing'.
We don't use terminology such as “true hermaphrodite” because it implies that if a person has enough atypical sex traits, they can be classified as a third sex. The same problem arises with the term Intersex – people start to believe (or try to convince others) that a third sex category exists that is not male or female.
In nature, some organisms are hermaphroditic such as worms, snails, insects, plants, etc. But those animals and plants have fully functioning reproductive parts and gametes. While that term was used historically for people, no human is actually a hermaphrodite. Using the older terminology is problematic in terms of policy.
Also, 46-XY CAIS individual have a functional SRY gene. Complete Androgen Insensitive Syndrome is caused by the inability of cells to utilize the testosterone made by the testes. Can I suggest you reconsider your definition of female or use different terminology with respect to access to women's changing rooms and shower facilities in Model Policy: Eligibility for the Female Category in Competitive Sport?
Yep.
HeCheated lists 22 such instances in the US in May 2025 so far:
https://hecheated.org/Totals_results_2020s.html
The logic is the same as “female genital mutilation is rare, who cares”.
Thank you for giving the boys' names. Much of the talk about media censorship is rooted in conspiratorial thinking that bears little resemblance to reality. One exception is the trans beat, where mainstream media still overtly slants its coverage in favor of gender ideology, trans activists, trans individuals and trans allies. I know from experience how difficult it can be to find trans girls' "dead names" by searching the Web. The phenomenon of trans female athlete exists only because so many of our institutions, including the mainstream media, support and spread the lie that trans girls are girls. Few things are more important to a person's identity than their name. Whatever else might be required to end the male incursion into female-only sports, the first step is to deny that the athletes are girls or women. Can there be a better to accomplish that than by using the person's real male name instead of their female alias?
Thank you. Correct.
Thank you. Correct.
Thank you. Correct.
"Maine governor Janet Mills is suing the Trump administration essentially to allow Soren Stark-Chessa to continue his three-sport, two-year trampling of girls’ rights."
Maine sued (and won) because the Trump
regime illegally withheld funding appropriated by Congress, including for child nutrition programs. Gov Mills has said she will follow the law, that excluding trans identified males from female sport conflicts with Maine's human rights law, the Exec orders are NOT law, and that there is a debate to be had on males in female sport.
I like your work, and emphatically disagree with allowing males to compete in female sport, but in refusing to bow down to authoritarian edicts, Gov Mills has stood up for democracy and the rule of law, but you are so focused on this one issue, you refuse to consider the broader political issues. Without democracy, there are no women’s rights. They work in tandem (see, for example, the work of Erica Chenoweth).
Let's pressure Gov Mills into that debate she says is worth having, but let's NOT misrepresent her position.
I admit, I don't understand the tortured laws and politics of this but democracy gave us Title IX and later the Ted Stevens Act to ensure female sports for females. Title IX is a federal law which, as I understand it, overrides state law. Why is Maine, and other states, able to disregard federal law?
Unfortunately, two Democratic administrations (via the Dept of Ed), the Supreme Court, and the medical establishment have muddied the waters, to the point where I think this will have to be adjudicated at the highest level, similar to the UK where the Supreme Court had to finally say that “sex” refers to biological women and girls.
The executive does not get to make or interpret law and EOs do not have the force of law. Congress makes the law, gov’t agencies develop regulations related to the law, and the courts decide the law. So when Trump bellowed at Gov Janet Mills, “We are the law!” she was right to say, see you in court (even though I agree she’s wrong on males in female sport).
Possibly the worst “muddying of the waters” was the Bostock decision which defined discrimination on the basis of gender identity as “sex discrimination.” They tried to limit it to Title VII (employment), but how does that work? How, in federal law, can “sex” sometimes include gender identity and sometimes not? Everyone knew at the time that the trans lobby would use the decision to bolster their case in other arenas.
Moreover, Title IX is not just about sport, nor even originally about sport. Education was left out of Title VII, so one reason for Title IX was to prohibit employment discrimination in educational institutions. Previously, women were routinely discriminated against in things like tenure, and even faculty organizations. (Some institutions disallowed women faculty from joining faculty organizations; they were directed instead to wives clubs.)
So, Title IX was about discrimination in educational employment, as well as in access for women to higher education and equitable distribution of educational resources between the sexes (which is where sport comes in).
I wanted to speak up for Gov Mills because she is a fearless advocate for democracy and has been for women and girls as well, on other issues. A friend of mine, years ago, worked as a sex crimes prosecutor in Maine, when Mills held some other office, and she said Mills was terrific on women’s issues. My friend is also a sex realist, so doesn’t agree with males in female sport.
Moreover, I’m grateful to Mills for bravely standing up for democratic principles, not only because I fear the rapidly increasing authoritarianism of the Trump regime, but also because there are no women’s rights without democracy. Authoritarian regimes are by nature hierarchical; in our case, with white men at the top; women and minorities subjugated. Political scientists say that women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, are the canary in the coal mine of democracies. When you begin to see them eroded, democracy is threatened.
So, yeah, the Trump regime “knows what a woman is.” Those are the people to fire from high level jobs in the military, whose contributions are removed from institutions, whose vote to target with things like the SAVE act. One of their goals is to dismantle the Dept of Ed, which has been the primary enforcer of Title IX. I have said over and over, yeah, the Trump admin may disallow males in female sport, but what will female sport look like in their regime? Already the Trump regime has said that NCAA revenue sharing does NOT have to be equitably distributed between women and men. And the regime is undermining many other laws and constantly violating the Constitution. Who’s to say they won’t eventually violate Title IX, and say that even public funding does not have to be equitably distributed between women and men in ed institutions?
So, that’s why I was defensive of Gov Mills. It was brave of her to stand up against Trump; and they targeted her state in many ways, even a grant to fisheries, etc. We just need to get her to that debate she says can be had on males in female sport. ;) Anyway, sorry for the long essay. I appreciate engaging with you and very much value your work. Thanks for all you do!
Thanks for this thoughtful reply! You are obviously very well informed about legal aspects and history. I am still confused about something—you admire Janet Mills for standing up to the Trump administration's "rule by EO" but I don't see how that's different from what the Biden (and possibly Obama) administration did by changing the wording in Title IX, a federal law, to replace sex with gender identity, which literally trashes the entire purpose of the law. I also don't see how you can say Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls, because I think when the opportunity to vote in a democratic fashion to preserve women's sex-based sports and spaces, she has voted against it. In a very tribal Democrat (capitol D) way. I admit that Republicans in the larger sense do not have women's rights in mind, but Democrats don't either, as they have demonstrated. I fail to see how Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls in Maine when they actually have zero sex-based rights, and any man can claim to be a woman and use services meant for women
"I don't see how that's different from what the Biden (and possibly Obama) administration did by changing the wording in Title IX" - and that was challenged in court by multiple states.
"I also don't see how you can say Janet Mills is a strong advocate for women and girls, because I think when the opportunity to vote in a democratic fashion to preserve women's sex-based sports and spaces, she has voted against it. "
Agree on the trans issue - but I am not a single issue feminist.
"I admit that Republicans in the larger sense do not have women's rights in mind, but Democrats don't either"
Agree! The current GOP, however, is far worse.
Redefining woman to include man is about as fundamentally anti-woman thing you can do. You cannot call a man a woman and say you're a feminist
Where have I done that?
You say, "Without democracy there are no women's rights." Sounds good, catchy phrase. But when did men ever refrain from calling themselves democratic and their governments democracies while openly and self-righteously denying women the vote, equal education, equal wages the right to be free of the fear of domestic violence and rape? Never happened. When "democrats" Joe Biden and Obama decided to give away women's shelters, sports, rape crises centers and scholarships to men and boys, how "democratic" was that? When Biden tried to give a lifetime judgeship appointment to Chad Meredith a right-wing, anti-abortion, Republican on the eve of the SJC decision against legal abortion, how democratic was that? By making excuses for covert-right actors like war-monger, anti-woman Biden hiding under a cloak of "democracy" we keep voting to keep them in power, while they effectively use the threat that the Republicans are worse. The manipulations of the incumbent democrats didn't work this time because a critical mass of voters sat out the elections or voted for their cat. This is not how I envision a Democracy works and many people have chosen not to uphold the farce, despite a lack of good alternatives.
Precisely the point – within the framework of a great democracy, the US government refused to allow women the right to vote for decades. Many of America's bravest suffragists died before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in 1920. Women who protested in the 1800s had to stand by while black men were given the right to vote via the 15th Amendment in 1870. They fought for decades more, many of them growing old and dying before the accomplishment of their goal of women's suffrage. That is a shameful abuse by a democratic country hell bent on oppressing women.
Decades later, we fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with amendments that gave women anti-discrimination rights. Then Title IX of the Educational Act of 1972 established sex-based rights for women and girls in America's schools and colleges.
Unfortunately, our historic first black president began the process of dismantling those sex-based rights by subverting federal law through policy directives. Then, since most Democrats weren't paying attention, the Biden Administration used executive overreach to change the definition of the word “sex” in established law to include in each sex category members of the opposite sex, especially men who pretend to be women. The result is that we no longer had female sex-based rights. Men in women's sports, men in women's showers, and the most horrific Democratic practice, men in women's prisons. Convicted rapists locked in cells with a female prisoners, free to rape those women. That is literally government facilitated rape. Democrats are reprehensible and will go down in history as the misogynists they have shown themselves to be.
Biden's nefarious trickery was accomplished via an executive order which was challenged in federal courts by Republican-led states over a two-year period and successfully taken down. Then Biden worked through the Dept of Education to do the same thing – allow males to sexually harass and oppress females by changing the definition of the word “sex” in settled federal law. Again, that's classic executive overreach. A president doesn't have the constitutional authority to change laws. Wouldn't it be great of those screaming at Trump for “destroying democracy” took a look at what our own Dem Party has done?
Long story short – Democrats hate women. Republicans are worse on other issues, abortion, for instance. But if Republicans are willing to reinstate women's sex based rights, I'm up for firing more Democrats in 2026 and 2028. Trump will take down his own Party. When that happens, we need to ensure the Dems are willing to support women's rights by firing them over and over until they get off the trans train. If that idea scares you, think if it more in terms of replacing bad democrats who prioritize male rights over female with good Dems who support women's rights. But as can be seen in comments here and elsewhere, Dem voters have so much TDS that many will never demand elected Democrats support the rights of half the world. So Democrats will continue to destroy them.
Except in a few cases these people are just cheats.