Lia Thomas, a male-to-female swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania who competes in women’s collegiate swimming, followed the NCAA’s guidelines for transgender athletes, which primarily focus on maintaining a certain level of testosterone over a specific period of time.
But their dominance in the women’s category has led to debates and discussions, and more recently, direct protests in the form of the opposing team’s refusal to compete. Their main argument? “It’s not fair.”
To ensure fair competition, sports have historically been gender-segregated. This essentially biological separation ensured that gender-specific physiological advantages did not skew results. The rise of transgender athletes like Thomas complicates this binary distinction and forces us to rethink our notion of “fairness.”
It’s important to distinguish between two aspects: the right of transgender people to live and compete in the gender they identify with and the concept of competitive justice. Both are valid and deserve recognition.
The team’s refusal to compete against Thomas draws attention to the latter. Their argument is based on the physiological advantages—such as muscle mass, bone density, and aerobic capacity—that athletes born male can retain even after gender reassignment surgery.
While the opposing team’s position is clear, the swimming community as a whole appears divided. Some support the team’s decision, emphasizing that fairness in competition is paramount. Others, however, believe this stance marginalizes transgender athletes and turns the sport into yet another battleground of identity politics.
Amy Riedel, a former college swimmer, said, “Sports is about pushing your limits, understanding your body, and respecting your opponents. It’s tough, but our guidelines should reflect these core principles.”
James Hollander, a coach with more than two decades of experience, said, “While I respect and support the rights of transgender people, it is also important to ensure that cisgender athletes do not feel disadvantaged.”
Much of the debate revolves around scientific data. Does suppressing testosterone for a year (as current recommendations suggest) negate any benefits a man born with that body type might have had? While testosterone plays a role in muscle growth and maintenance, other factors such as cardiovascular performance, lung capacity, and even limb length also play a role in athletic performance.
Sports scientist Hannah Lawrence says: “The human body is complex. It’s difficult to reduce performance to a single factor. However, the argument is not only biological, but also emotional and psychological.”
Sports often reflect societal beliefs and changes. As society grapples with broader issues of gender identity, gender rights, and inclusion, it’s no surprise that these debates are taking place in stadiums, on running tracks, and in swimming pools. A team’s refusal to compete may be an isolated incident, but it raises a larger, pressing question: How can we ensure inclusion while maintaining equity?
The controversy surrounding Lia Thomas is, as it appears, a microcosm of society’s larger dilemmas. As the opposing team’s decision comes to light, it becomes clear that the debate isn’t just about a race or an athlete. It’s about defining the competitive spirit in a changing world.
Ultimately, the challenge is to create a framework in which every athlete, regardless of their gender identity, feels respected and recognized and has a fair chance to realize their dreams. The path to such a solution, as recent events demonstrate, is fraught with pitfalls, but necessary.
