Washington (AFP) – American transgender women will no longer be able to compete in women's events at the Olympics and Paralympics after a recent policy change by the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC).
A new note on the USOPC website regarding the participation of transgender athletes in sports says: "As of July 21, 2025, please refer to the USOPC athlete safety policy."
The policy update, following US President Donald Trump's "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" executive order, was added to the USOPC Athlete Safety Policy on its website as a new subsection entitled "Additional Requirements."
"The USOPC is committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport," the addition reads.
"The USOPC will continue to collaborate with various stakeholders with oversight responsibilities... to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201 (Trump's order) and the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act."
The Stevens Act, adopted in 1988, provides a means of handling eligibility disputes for Olympic sports and other amateur events.
A memo to Team USA from USOPC chief executive Sarah Hirshland and president Gene Sykes on Tuesday obtained by ABC News and ESPN made reference to Trump's February executive order, saying: "As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations."
Trump's executive order threatens to remove federal funds from any school or institution allowing transgender girls to play on girls' teams, claiming that would violate Title IX rules giving US women equal sport opportunities.
The order requires immediate enforcement against institutions that deny women single-sex sports and single-sex locker rooms.
"Our revised policy emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair and safe competition environments for women," ESPN quoted the USOPC letter to governing bodies as saying.
"All National Governing Bodies are required to update their applicable policies in alignment."
ESPN also said the officials noted the USOPC "has engaged in a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials" in the wake of Trump's executive order.
The move comes as Los Angeles awaits a host role for the 2028 Summer Olympics.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) also altered its policy for transgender athlete participation to limit women's sports competitors to athletes assigned female at birth after Trump's executive order.
This theoretical scenario about transitioning just to win medals seems like a strawman argument. And the question of "who is stealing medals" is loaded.
...But let me back up a bit to where we probably agree.
Of course these athletes don't want to take steroids, because.. these are not the type of people who want to do that.
I'd like to believe that trans athletes do want to win, AND that they have good intentions. (not trying to steal medals).
Let's put ourselves in their shoes - these athletes get to participate in the sport they love at a high level, and their transition is affirmed. So this is the best of both worlds for them.
If it turns out there is still an advantage left over, however small or large, I don't think the althetes would want to acknowledge it for fear of their opportunities being taken away. This is understandable, no?
As it turns out, estrogen doesn't overwrite absolutely everything. Skeletal structure (taller, longer arms), lung capacity, and heart size for example... these can all give an athletic advantage.
I think these are important to consider.
See, the thing is, I disagree. No one would take the years it takes to transition for the unknown potential advantage. We do not know what amount of advantage or disadvantage transitioning would give, and the evidence we currently have says that there isn't a statistical advantage.
These policies don't even protect cis-women. Women born with hormonal abnormalities or genetic advantages are directly impacted. These are seen as beneficial in male competitors (Michael Phelps is a genetic lottery winner and should probably be in his own league), but if a woman happened to benefit by having naturally higher testosterone production, height, or skeletal structure, should she be excluded from competing against women? Then the only difference between that hypothetical trans athlete and cis athlete is... That they are trans.
Most of this issue is really due to how we segregate sports. We arbitrarily use gender/sex because there are genetic and cultural differences that mostly correlate to difference in outcomes. There are better ways to segregate sports (ala weight classes in boxing) that would more fairly match opponents, but we don't do these. Why? Mostly laziness, somewhat historical systems of oppression.
So, no, I don't agree. When you can find a trans athlete that transitioned for am advantage, I will acknowledge your point.
Let me clarify a bit - that's exactly what we agree on: that no one transitions for the advantage. Cause that would just be ridiculous. So no, I can't provide you an athlete who transitioned for that reason...
but that doesn't make my concerns invalid, because it doesn't all rest on that point. People can have good intentions and still cause a result that is unfair (but not because they wanted it to be unfair). That's why I see the hypothetical scenario as a strawman/diversion.
I might respond to the rest later, but I wanted to at least get this out for now.
Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then... Why is there even a problem?
These aren't inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn't true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.
Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don't. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.
Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.
I was busy the last few days but I think this conversation is important.
I'm right there with you for lots of the things you bring up. Women's sports are severely underfunded, and women's accomplishments are severely under-appreciated. What would you name as the reasons for this outcome? I think there are many... For one, many people are sexist and just don't care for women's sport. Another reason is that women's sports are on average less extreme. Men are setting the records and pushing the human boundaries when it comes to sport. Women are pushing boundaries, too, (within women's specific sports categories), but generally not beating the highest of all human records.
On average, women have significant disadvantages when it comes to sport... The short list I gave previously is obviously non-exhaustive. This is why women (as a class) outperform men (as a class) when it comes to physical sports. <- just so its very clear, I'm speaking of classes here, not individuals.
One class out-performing another then brings about the most natural way to make categories in sports: sex. This way, each class can have their own champions. Women are given opportunities to win in fairness and gain recognition for amazing feats.
Ultimately you and I are both concerned with giving the best possible opportunities to athletes. The whole idea of sports is that there is an established class who is participating, and within that class - may the best competitor win. Because of the stark differences in outcomes among men and women competitors, the easiest and most fair class distinction to draw is based on sex. It uplifts women as a class, and gives women a spot on the largest stages. I think this is a wonderful thing, and I would never want to threaten it.
So that's my perspective. As a quick direct response, (so I don't seem as if I'm avoiding anything):
Thanks for the good discussion, and for the patience.
But, I think you don't want sports segregated by sex assigned at birth, either. If you did, you would have trans men competing against women. And again, trans men still compete and win at sports while competing against other men just like any other masc athlete, and if your argument is that men, as a category, are better than women at sports, then you won't accept trans men competing against women, either.
The thing is, there's not much point debating you. It feels like you would probably be okay with excluding trans people from sports, and that feels more and more like the point with these types of debates. And if you are okay with trans men competing against men, then is it not kinda bigoted to not also be okay with trans women competing against women? Why exclude them for doing everything they can to make it fair? Even the Olympics had a plan for trans athletes that was statistically shown to be fair for competitors based on medical experts.
Like, in a perfect world, there would be better sports categorization, but until that point, we see trans women perform like women and trans men perform like men, so that is where we should allow them to compete. And if there is some sort of issue where someone (male or female, trans or cis) dramatically over performs, that would be a better time to deal with that particular one-off.
Anyway, feel free to look into long- and ultra-distance running for instances of women getting closer to men's times, but, heck, women are closing the gap in shorter running competitions as well, even if at a slower rate. As for the 7% to -13% advantage, trans athletes were compared against cis athletes in a variety of activities, testing things from jump height to grip strength to wingspan, and the advantages in most categories ranged from a 7% advantage to a 13% disadvantage for the trans athlete on average. The biggest issue is that there just aren't enough trans athletes to know how much of an advantage or disadvantage being trans gives you, but, on average, it is likely to be pretty minimal if there even is one.
Hey, I'm genuinely sorry if anything I've said has come off as hurtful or insincere. I don't like to think of this thread as a debate, myself. I like to have conversations, and I really don't like debates full of gotchas and personal attacks that some "anti trans" people use. I wouldnt call myself anti trans at all. I try to just talk and listen, and let people know when I agree with them. If you aren't super comfortable talking here, I don't want to pressure you to continue. I try to see you as a conversation partner and not an opponent since we're all humans after all. Hope I'm not overexplaining here. In short - these conversations get heated sometimes, but that's not what I want at all. For now, you asked some questions and made some statements, so I'll answer those:
You're right actually, I don't think segregating by sex is the best possible solution. I might have said something different before, so please excuse me if I misspoke. Thanks for catching me out there. I think that it is important that women have the right to their own protected category, to increase opportunities and recognition. I probably explained that better in my last response. But in general, I think it would be nice if there were two categories: Women and Open. As far as the Open category goes, anyone would be able to participate there no matter their sex/gender, as long as they can perform at the level required. This gets rid of a lot of silly debates, while still allowing women athletes to have guaranteed access to opportunities and recognition in the Womens category, or choose to compete on the Open stage if they qualify. Since I can't have my ideal world, though, I think that having Mens and Womens categories is... an ok solution. How much can we reasonably change? As far as your question of: "trans men competing against women" goes, most sporting authorities have rules that athletes can't compete if they've taken a steroid (extra testosterone for example) in the last X months. Do you think this is a good rule?
Ah! Yes, I'm actually familiar with this. Thanks for bringing it up. Long distance / endurance competitions are one of the few cases where women may outperform men. This is pretty interesting, and I haven't looked into why it is. Maybe pain tolerance? Either way, this is pretty cool.
I'd really like to understand you point of view better. If you have some time, I'm curious. Can I ask:
I'd also like to ask, based on your last comment:
How would you define being trans? This might seem like a silly question, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Personally, I think that anyone who says "I'm trans" is trans. This means that no medicalization is necessary, cause trans is just an identity. So according to that definition, "being trans" alone gives you literally 0 advantage/disadvantage! (lol at the technicalities of definitions). But yeah, What do you think?