Why is an “Open” sports category harmful to trans and nonbinary athletes?

A month ago, in a rhetoric similar to that of World Aquatics and World Athletes, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)—the governing body of cycling—followed the growing trend by prohibiting trans women who have transitioned after “male” puberty from participating in women’s events. To mitigate the exclusivity of this transgender policy, UCI became the second sports federation (preceded by British Triathlon, and soon followed by World Aquatics) to rename the Men’s category as “Open”. This change aimed to align with the guiding principle of “inclusion” set forth by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

 

An “Open” category encompasses “athletes who do not meet the conditions for participation in women’s events”, according to UCI President David Lappartient.

 

If we uphold the principle that “sports is for everyone”, and that “fairness” must always take precedence, then an “Open” category becomes justifiable to counteract the toxic exclusionary policy that compromises the inclusion of trans women, trans men who have undergone gender-affirming hormone therapy, and nonbinary athletes assigned male at birth. It seems more sensible to integrate trans and nonbinary folks with cis men within the same category, rather than segregating them into a “Transgender” (or however you call it) category, doesn’t it?  

 

So, why would an “Open” category be harmful to trans and nonbinary athletes?

 

Upon close examination of the official statements from these governing bodies, a deliberate effort is obvious in enforcing the binary division between “fairness” and “inclusion”. To pursue fairness is to demand that sexed categories—male and female—be determined by physiology, distinct from gender identity. Inclusivity, on the other hand, entails allowing people who identify differently with their genders the opportunity to compete (notice that these federations never mention “equal” opportunities). By framing gender identity as a cultural construct and sex as biologically determined, the fairness-versus-inclusion divide is a sex-versus-gender divide is a biology-versus-culture divide. These divisions are harmful precisely because they obscure the presence of patriarchy in sports—a societal structure where men dominate and suppress women.

 

By asserting that sex-biology-fairness outweighs gender-culture-inclusion, sports governing bodies overtly advocate for stricter regulations in the women’s category by banning trans women who have experienced “male” puberty. This action is based on the unscientific belief that such puberty is physiologically beneficial for all transwomen in all sports, under the pretext of protecting (cis)women’s sports. Forcing all trans and nonbinary athletes into an “Open” category reinforces the notion that biologically and genetically determined men are superior to women. This supremacy remains unchallenged by trans women and nonbinary folks assigned male at birth, whether or not they have received gender-affirming hormone therapy to align their appearance with their gender identity. Trans men, on the other hand, do not threaten male dominance due to their “female” genetic composition, which justifies women as the “weaker” sex necessitating “protection” from men.

 

The selective celebration of some genetic compositions over others hinges on whether these physiological advantages undermine the male-dominant structure in sports. Consider Michael Phelps’ notably wide wingspan and low lactic acid production, deemed “innate gifts” because he is a cis man excelling in the men’s category. Meanwhile, Lia Thomas’ transgender identity garners criticism for allegedly exploiting her “male” physiological advantages when competing against cis women swimmers.

 

Championing the superiority of genetic makeup also conceals the intricate interplay between physiology and environmental influences in sports. Even the most gifted athletes in the world cannot achieve success without adequate access to training, nutrition, and equipment tailored to their sport. Nevertheless, equal access to financial resources and opportunities for all athletes is far from guaranteed, given that competition is inherently shaped by cultural, economic, and political factors—never truly embodying fair play.

 

The superficial “inclusive” gesture of sports governing bodies in creating an “Open” sports category, which compels trans and nonbinary athletes to compete alongside cis men, thereby distancing them from the “protected” female category, maintains that patriarchy is alive and well. If the “Open” sports category fails to rectify both fairness and inclusion in sports, what alternative options exist? How can we imagine better sports categories that fully acknowledge the diversity of gender identities and bodily forms?

​

Original Article posted in TransGriot.com