The article below, recounting the Olympics’ tortuous attempts to distinguish members of sexes for women’s sports, comes from the Reality’s Last Stand Substack site. It’s by Linda Blade, identified as “a sport performance professional coach in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada [PhD Kinesiology; ChPC in T&F] who trains athletes in many different sports, mentors coaches, and advocates for sex-based eligibility and single-sex spaces.”
Blade sees four phases in the history of testing whether an athlete was a man or a woman, although in fact there has been more than four changes of policy. But in the end, pressured by gender activists, the Olympics has simply punted, abandoning the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) sports-wide standards and saying that each sport needs to devise its own way to separate men from women. That takes an unfair system (allowing trans women to compete with women) and makes it even less fair.
Click below to read:
Blade’s text is indented; mine is flush left. Her four “key moments” are those when the “IOC failed women” with regard to determining sex. Here they are in temporal order:
MOMENT 1: The Decision to Stop Sex Verification (1999)
The descent into chaos began in 1999 when the IOC discontinued the practice of verifying the biological sex of female Olympians.
Apparently from 1968 to 1992, the chromosomes of women competitors were checked with a buccal (cheek) swab, looking for the telltale sign of female-ness: the presence of an inactive sex chromosome (“Barr Body”) in the cells. If there was one, the athlete was XX, having the sex-chromosome constitution of women. (In many animals, including us, one sex chromosome is inactivated in XX females so they have the same X-chromosome gene dosage as XY males, who have only one X [the Y has almost no genes]). Here’s a photo from the article, taken from Wikipedia. The arrows point to the inactivated X chromosomes of females.
As you can see, you have to know your onions to distinguish the Barr body from other inclusions, so there were false negatives. In 1996, the IOC went to “gene testing”, seeing if the Y-chromosome gene SRY, which starts the developmental cascade of secondary sex traits, was present in the athlete. If so, the person was ruled out as male. This method, too, was imperfect, identifying as females about 8 males among roughly 3400 contestants identifying as females. Yet despite this, the putative males were still allowed to compete against women.
Eventually, this practice too was discontinued due to, says Blade “social and political pressures”, for the genetic test was deemed “discriminatory” and a cause of “emotional and social injury”. (Sound familiar?). This led to the second attempt:
MOMENT 2: The Stockholm Consensus (2003)
In 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Commission, claiming guidance from “the best information available at the time,” decided to allow male transsexuals to compete in the women’s category. This decision was contingent upon several conditions to ensure fairness: a) the removal of their testes at least two years prior to competition; b) legal recognition as “female”; and c) hormone profiles aligned with those of natal females.
Emma Hilton, a biologist at Manchester Uni, pointed out that despite the IOC’s contention that they were using the “best available data” to make this criterion, the best available data (which has since been confirmed many times over) showed that men who became trans women still retained physical and physiological advantages over women for a long period after transitioning. (We now think the advantages are permanent.) Blade concludes that the decision was “driven by politics rather than science or common sense.” This led to the elimination of castration and to the use of testosterone level alone the criterion for sex. The problem was that the levels specified did not distinguish males from females, allowing a lot of trans females to qualify for women’s sports:
MOMENT 3: The IOC Transgender Consensus (2015)
Astonishingly, in 2015 the IOC made it even easier for males to wedge themselves into female competition. Previously, a surgical transition was required, but the new rules eliminated this requirement. Instead, a male athlete simply had to “identify” as a woman and maintain testosterone (T) levels at or below 10 nmol/L for one year to compete as a woman. Notably, this testosterone threshold is still many times higher than that of any female athlete.
Here’s Blade’s chart, showing no overlap between men and women (the data come from here). This has been known forever, so the use of T levels as a sex determinant is baffling (the same non-overlap holds for “free” testosterone):
These criteria were apparently pushed onto the IOC by two trans women: a Canadian cyclist and a long-distance runner/medical physicist. Their data: one study of eight male runners who identified as women and gave self-reported running times. This study apparently showed no difference in running times between women and trans women. Blade notes that this study has since been discredited despite obvious flaws in methodology (see here). But the IOC accepted it, and it led to a spate of trans women, including cyclists, weightlifters, and swimming, taking medals away from women.
But data continued to accumulate, and I assume that the next and latest step by the IOC was prompted by science: the appearance of many more studies than the single flawed study of eight women. Blade:
Meanwhile, the scientific research on this topic has expanded to 18 studies. All of these studies, including one conducted by Joanna Harper, consistently demonstrate that no amount of testosterone reduction can sufficiently mitigate the natural advantages that a male body has over a female body in sports.
This led to the current situation:
MOMENT 4: The IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination (2021)
In November 2021, the IOC announced its newly revised “inclusion” policy. This neither surgery nor testosterone reduction would be required. Instead, the onus would be on female athletes to “prove” that a trans-identified male athlete in their event possesses a “disproportionate competitive advantage.” This policy change means that decisions regarding male self-identification into women’s sports must be made on a sport-by-sport basis. Essentially, having created an enormous problem starting in 1999, the IOC completely relinquished gatekeeping of the female athlete category in 2021, kicking the can down the road for its international sports federation members to resolve.
As of 2023, global sports policies are all over the place. Some organizations, such as World Rugby, World Swimming, World Athletics, and World Cycling, have taken steps to protect the female athlete category. In contrast, others have adjusted their regulations to focus on the level of testosterone and the duration of time required for a male to self-identify for womens competition.
It is of course unfair to women to argue that trans women can compete against them unless proven otherwise, though perhaps Blade is inaccurate in this characterization. But what is true is that trans women, even when given hormones or surgery after puberty, still retain substantial athletic advantages over women. This means that the default decision should be the other way: given the data, trans women should have to prove that they have no average athletic advantage over women. While hard to get, the data at hand show a substantial athletic advantage of trans women over women.
Now there may be some sports, like equestrian ones, in which untreated men and non-trans women show comparable performances, and in that case there’s no need to distinguish the sexes. But that’s the only sport that’s been suggested as one not needing sex categories, and I don’t know what the data show.
The purpose of having men’s versus women’s sports is, of course, to ensure fairness—to ensure that women are not put at a disadvantage by competing against men who identify as women. It’s often said that allowing such competition is not harmful because “there are so few trans women athletes.” But realize that one victorious trans woman harms every single woman who finishes in second place or lower. And, at any rate, it’s not the number of trans women competing that’s the issue—is 1% okay but not 10%?—but the principle at stake. Given the likely increase of trans women wanting to compete in women’s sports, the problem will only grow, and women will begin quitting women’s sports in droves. That will kill women’s sports.
Nevertheless, trans people who want to compete in athletics deserve some venue to compete. One suggestion has been to have an “other” category for those who identify as being other than tbeir natal sex. Alternatively, all trans people could compete in a “men + trans people” category. These aren’t perfect solutions, but they do allow all people to compete while retaining fairness towards women.
There’s a lot in Blade’s article about how women’s wishes weren’t heeded during this four-step process, and that the decisions were largely in the hands of men. That, too, is unfair, but I’ll let you read the article for yourself.
There is a nice interactive lesson on this issue from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute: https://media.hhmi.org/biointeractive/click/testing-athletes/
It includes some of this history, but it also takes students through the decision-making process (and also shows how the different criteria used in different eras can produce different conclusions about the sex of the athlete).
Excellent pieces.
I’d like to note the Dialectic at work generally :
Male and female are different in kind — not in degree.
Nothing will change that — nothing material. That is what ideological subversion is for.
2 + 2 = 4
Exactly. There’s no amount of testosterone suppression, surgery, HRT, or wishful thinking that makes a man “female enough” to compete with females in sports.
As soon as there’s an official concession that males who identify as women are a type of woman, it’s game over. If a governing sports board would not penalize a race or an individual for having a natural physical advantage, it will be successfully argued that they shouldn’t do the same for trans women, either. Squabbles over where to draw the line on testosterone and age of transition will gradually be replaced by the virtuous moral precept that all women should be able to be respected for whatever talents they may have been born with.
The only way to know someone is transgender is to ask them, and trans people don’t have to go down any medical pathway in order to be as legitimately trans as any other trans person. This aspect of ideology is apparently non negotiable. Start off here, sex testing is out. And no matter where we start out, it will end up here.
“As soon as there’s an official concession that males who identify as women are a type of woman, it’s game over.”
Yes, and that’s why we should try to avoid the wording of “trans women”–because that forfeits the game from the start. If they’re “trans women,” then they’re women, and must be allowed to compete in women’s sports, just like “tall women,” “Korean women,” “gay women,” “blond women,” “black women,” “deaf women,” or any other adjective you put in front of “women.” Instead, use “trans-identifying men,” or “men who believe they’re women,” or other terminology that correctly identifies the sex of the individuals in question. Once you call them “women,” you lose standing to exclude them from women’s sports.
There are modifiers which indicate that explicitly exclude the thing being talked about from the category–modifiers like “fake”, “false”, “pseudo”, “pretend”, “would-be”, and so on. I think of trans as being another example of such a modifier (at least in regards to sex). By definition, a “trans woman” is not a woman.
Notice that I no longer use the term “cis woman” or “biological woman”, except very rarely. I will just use, in light of the fact that there are just two sexes, “man” and “woman” (or “male” and “female”), and “trans woman” or “trans man” for those who feel that they’re not really members of their natal sex. This is an implicit rejection of the idea that “trans women are women”, which is a misleading and ambiguous phrase that has led to a lot of harm and nonsense. I don’t see anything wrong with using the term “trans women”, and will, out of civility, refer to them in person as “women”, as per their request.
Civility cuts both ways. It is really an emergent property of the communication between sender and receiver. Regardless of the sender’s intent, a receiver feels entitled to feel incivility and her feeling will be regarded as probative if she is in an oppressed group. Specifically, defining a trans(wo)man as someone who “feels” they is not really a member of their birth sex is denying the objective reality of their existence and is cis-normative violence, say the activists. The only permissible terms in all circumstances are “man” and “woman” as self-defined. “Transwoman” is coming to feel like “Negro” and “coloured people” did in the 1970s: maybe not yet quite slurs but no longer au courant for civility in mixed company.
OK, you will refer to a theoretical transwoman as a woman in the third person in the interests of civility, at least where you might be overheard or recorded and shamed on TikTok, or where an actual one isn’t naked with your 11-year-old daughter. But what if you are a front-line service worker who is trained to say polite things like “Enjoy your oysters, Sir”, or “Have a nice flight, Sir,” or “Please use the men’s change room, Sir.”? If an obvious man in a dress with lipstick makes trouble for you with your employer for misgendering “her”, who is being uncivil there? Should you be fired from your minimum-wage job? Should the state punish the employer with fines for civility-rights violations?
That’s not a bad compromise. The problem I think is the way the other side is using language to try to bypass a debate on substantial issues.
While I prefer “trans-identified (male or female), I also use “transwoman,” to avoid giving verbal support to the idea that being male is one variety of being a woman. I won’t call them women, but transwomen.
I used to be more relaxed in how I used what started out as “preferred” terms. I’m getting less concerned with protecting feelings. To me, it’s like a nonbeliever deciding to stop the courtesy of referring to Catholic priests as “Father” after the Catholic Church has successfully attacked Church/State separation enough to maneuver itself into political power and mandate it. It’s not wrong to continue, but it feels different.
I just wanted to explore a tiny idea I seem to perceive – I’m not arguing per se :
Kimberlé Crenshaw invented intersectionality, which has the ideological effect of making each individual a representative — of anything – while sex has nothing to do with representatives. It has to do essentially with, for athletics, material structure. Build, perhaps.
So what I perceive is an ideological subversion of athletic divisions as a division based on intersectionality — when it was first and foremost a material / structural distinction.
That’s ranging into some other parts of history, but it is a matter of fairness in athletics, which intersectionality appears to be subverting – that I wanted to look at.
I recommend Sharron Davies’s book, “Unfair Play,” published in June. She not only goes through this history in more detail, but recounts her own experience losing Olympic swimming medals to East German women who had been doped with androgens, and how the IOC turned a blind eye to that problem, too. https://www.amazon.com/Unfair-Play-Battle-Womens-Sport-ebook/dp/B0BD6FQSN2
Demoralization is the first stage of Ideological Subversion.
I actually restrained myself above, but the post by PCC(E) explicitly refers to fairness. That is an idea in the moral dimension.
That is how strong subversion is – I thought “demoralization” was just me blathering about I.S. again, but it has everything to do with this topic – athletics.
I read Sharron Davies’s book Unfair Play (2023). It’s a good one. Since Davies is a former elite-level swimmer (she won a silver medal at the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow), she communicates very clearly how demoralizing it is, for the athletes who train very hard and play by the rules, when sports competition is no longer fair (in her case: from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, East German swimmers dominated her sport because of systematic state-organized doping).
It is no exaggeration to say that the inclusion of trans-identified males would destroy women sports.
By the way, Linda Blade (also a former elite-level athlete) also wrote a book on the topic (it’s about half as long as the one by Davies, and has many positive reviews on Amazon):
Linda Blade (with Barbara Kay): Unsporting: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport. Rebel News Network Ltd., 2021
Sharron Davies was beaten to Olympic gold in the 1980 Moscow Olympics by an East German swimmer who had been given testosterone as part of the country’s systematic doping programme. The injustice is, of course, why she is so determined to protect a new generation of female sports competitors from losing out to those with an unfair, (this time natural) testosterone-based advantage.
An open division and a women’s division seems the best solution.
The only reason we need more than one adult division in the first place is to carve out a space for biological females, who face inherent and largely immutable disadvantages on most sports.
But in endeavors where there are no material and immutable differences in the sexes, we don’t have separate divisions, or shouldn’t. It boggles my mind why there are separate men’s and women’s divisions in chess to “protect women”. If anything, given that women on average tend to have better brains than men, in reality this probably serves to protect the male chess players.
Except that the best male chess players beat the best women. No women would win the women’s division in chess if men were allowed to compete in it. Your statement that women have better brains is simply untrue in the conditions relevant to championship chess and is irrelevant. If a woman plays against a man and she beats him, more power to her. If she’s that good she should be playing for big bucks in the men’s league.
Now if the male division refused to let women play, then you might have a point. But postulating the opposite doesn’t prove that point.
“It boggles my mind why there are separate men’s and women’s divisions in chess to “protect women”.”
Tell that to all the girls and women who play chess and are not named Judit Polgar, who is long retired. Among active players, Hou Yifan is the highest-ranked woman in the world in classical time controls; she ranks #127 in the open category. The #2 woman in the world in classical chess, Ju Wenjun, ranks #309 in the open category. The two women change positions in rapid chess, with Ju Wenjun ranking #1 and Hou Yifan #2. In that time control they rank #174 and #330, respectively, in the open category.
You do know that FIDE hosts open tournaments, don’t you? How many women do you believe could win any of these tournaments against the top male competition today?
Given that the general intelligence of women is at least equal to that of men, and that the so-called “spatial advantages” that men on average have over women are vastly overblown, then I find it odd that we would assume that women are less able to play chess than men, necessitating a separate division.
We now live in a society in which more women than men graduate from university, and women are now outpacing men in graduate degrees as well. Women are on average better able to handle the rigors of mental work. The fact that the sex with the higher native intelligence cannot move pieces around a board as well as the slightly duller male cohort makes no sense to me.
The fact that Judit Polgar was once ranked in the top ten proves the point…women have as much innate “chess ability” as men. Chess is obviously one of the last “boys clubs” that justifies gender segregation on dodgy science.
Eliminate the women’s division entirely, make all tournaments “open” and watch the women rise to the occasion.
Judit Polgar’s extraordinary upbringing, and that of her sisters, was experimental and unlikely to be replicated for any other female chess player.
One way to develop a small enough frame to be a professional thoroughbred racing jockey is to be lucky enough to experience childhood malnutrition. By the logic you’re applying to trans athletes, a childhood-malnutrition-experiencer should be tested for evidence of this advantage and if found to hold it, banned from the sport of thoroughbred horse racing.
That’s a really crazy comment. There are many ways to be small, and I doubt that many jockeys have been malnourished. Moreover, there are no weight or height requirements for jockeys; they are small so as not to overburden the horse.
So if you were malnourished and small, but now healthy, what is the advantage you have over small jockeys who were not malnourished? They have no advantages similar to that of trans women over women.
This is about the most convoluted logic I’ve ever heard.
I recall reading that there was one female athlete exempt from gender/sex testing at the 1976 Montreal Olympics.
Princess Anne competed in Equestrian.
We routinely suffer from discriminatory vision tests for a driving license; and some of us are licensed only on condition of wearing glasses, even when we “identify” as having perfect uncorrected vision. At my last license renewal, the letters in the vision test looked a little like Russian characters to me. When I mentioned this to the DOL clerk, she caused me “social and emotional injury” by advising a new eyeglass prescription.
“Nevertheless, trans people who want to compete in athletics deserve some venue to compete.”
They have had one all along: males can compete against other males. If they are at a disadvantage because of medical procedures that they voluntarily chose to undergo, well, maybe they’ll lose. But this is absolutely not a problem that needs to be solved at the expense of women athletes!
What these trans-identified males are demanding is not the right to compete — they already have that — it’s the right to win.
Maybe if they are denied the right to win against women, they’ll try “identifying” themselves into other age categories, other weight categories, even other sports (trans-runner cyclists competing in footraces?). Because winning isn’t the main thing, it’s the only thing, right? Obviously fairness isn’t the thing at this point.
I tripped over that statement, too. No one “deserves” a venue to compete. If there is actual interest in watching trans people compete, and enough competitive trans athletes can be found, their sport will grow organically. I don’t know if anyone would want to watch people with achondroplasia play basketball, but if the affected people trained hard enough and it caught on in their community, they could make a case for installing baskets and backboards six feet off the ground at public recreation centres and letting them reserve court time on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. But they wouldn’t let 5’6” me play.
Similarly, trans people can form their own club and get great exercise and skill development and healthy socializing just playing one-on-one or three-on-two on a community pickup basis. Beats riding the bench in an organized league. No reason why the organized leagues should have to make accommodation for a sport no one else wants to watch and only a few people even want to play.
“What these trans-identified males are demanding is not the right to compete — they already have that — it’s the right to win.”
This is basically semantics but “it is the right to win AS a women”. If you’re the genuine article and not some Scottish 2 x rapist self identifying as a women I would say this, winning and competing as a women must be the ultimate for these individuals. The problem is it is blatantly unfair and the disappointment? these trans athletes don’t recognize how harmful it is to women sports, the very thing as a women albeit trans, they should be protecting.
You touch on a good point. Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I don’t mean to suggest that all trans-identified male athletes are simply cheating when they compete with women. I think many honestly just want to keep competing as they did when they competed against other men, but that another thing they crave is to be validated in their newly-acquired gender presentation. Unstated, of course, is that they wouldn’t need “validation” if they were females. The emperor’s new clothes comes to mind.
Again, no matter how important or urgent, this is not a problem for women to bear.
Damn straight!
Perfectly put, Peter.
Maybe of interest:
Fiona McAnena: The trans colonisation of women’s sports. Dec 14, 2023
How an obsessive, decades-long campaign ushered in a whole new era of sporting sexism.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/14/the-trans-colonisation-of-womens-sports/
Fiona McAnena is director of the sport campaign at Fair Play for Women
I am really puzzled by the stance of the IOC. Six decades ago there was the problem of the Press sisters, who “retired” after chromosomal sex testing was introduced. One would hope that the issue would have been sorted out by now.
I just wrote a message but it didn’t show up, so here I am trying again (I”ve had that problem before). I looked up Chicago Marathon 2023 winners, and noticed the overall male winner won around 2:00:27, which means men have almost broken the 2 hour time (this is 9 minutes quicker than Bill Rodgers whose record is 9 minutes slower, but from the 1970s). Now the first place female came in at 2:13:44 (as you can see, still almost 5 minutes behind Bill Rodgers from 50 years ago) but ONLY 21st OVERALL (and the 2nd place was 23rd overall). Since trans people are extremely rare, doesn’t this make it a bit unlikely that at that level a trans person would make a trans claim merely to cheat, especially when a male winning 1-20 in a field over 20,000 can still be extremely proud of themselves). I do see how this could be more of a problem at a local level where the competition is less intense, but I can’t see how it would be a significant problem at a major marathon or Olympic level given just to qualify in any sport in the Olympics you must be either the winner of the Trials if you beat the qualifying time, or the top 3 if the winner fails to make the qualifying time (this was from my memory as someone who once competed in the 50K, where Americans back in the early ’90s would not have been able to break the 4 hour qualifying time)
I just looked up the winners of the Chicago Marathon 2023. I was amazed that the first male came in 2:00:35, just 35 seconds from being (I assume?) the first human to ever break 2 hours. Bill Rogers in the 1970s had a best time of 2:09:27, so clearly men have improved by 9 minutes in the past 50 years. BUT I noticed that in the Chicago Marathon this year, the first woman came in 2:13:44 in OVERALL position 21, while the #2 woman was OVERALL #23. This means that any male between 1-20 could have won the female position if they had claimed being female. BUT surely they would be proud enough of being any position from 1-20 to actually cheat by claiming trans status? That doesn’t seem too likely to me. If trans people are an incredibly small minority, then surely the likelihood of a real trans female beating a woman at the level at which they compete at large marathon events is extremely small? Surely this is also the case in the Olympics where hundreds are trying to get in for each country while only a few are eligible? I can certainly see this disadvantage would be greater in sports that are less competitive (say, local races). Is my logic flawed?
Um…
Transwomen, i.e. men, are definitely taking athletic prizes and scholarships that are set aside for women. We can’t get into their heads, so we don’t know how “pride” enters into it. We don’t have to call it “cheating”, so you can call it something else if you like. But is it rare? Would that even make a difference? Does that make it okay? It’s not rare, it’s happening all the time, at the professional, amateur, and high school sports levels, all over the world. Here is a list of hundreds of instances.
Also, it’s time to remind the readership of MacPherson’s Law (which I believe was first published on this website) which states “Whenever two progressive principles clash, the one that loses is the one that involves women.”
Preface: not wanting to over-comment, I held off to see if anyone else would answer your direct question.
Well, the only medals are gold, silver, and bronze. Everyone else is an also-ran. The top-ranked runners might get appearance fees and expenses to fly from Kenya or wherever. Number 16? Depending on the purse, I’d run as a woman if the rules said I could, making history for my “courage.” The only danger would be the humiliation if I was having an off day and Woman #1 beat me, as she beat hundreds of other less-gifted men. But I might still take home silver.
Tongue out of cheek, the only flaw I see in your logic is that marathon running is one of those special-case sports where the male advantage is smaller. Pure grinding aerobic fitness rather than upper-body strength and fast-twitch muscles determines the winners. Until mass-participation citizen races took off in the 1970s — growing from the belief that long-distance running prevented heart attacks — and started attracting purses that justified long-distance travel to compete, the marathon wasn’t even an Olympic event but more of an obscure cult. It’s as interesting as watching paint dry for 2-3 hours. (Erich Segal, author of Love Story and a marathoner himself, wrote an engaging short story, “Dr. Fastest”, about a postal worker who sells his soul to the Devil to win the Boston Marathon during the early years of the sport’s revival.)
Compare that to track, pool, and weight events which take seconds to a few minutes to run, producing many exciting contests in that same 2-3 hours of television time. These heavily favour men. Even mediocre men will easily beat the best women.* Since these are the Olympic marquee events and also have a global professional circuit, the incentive and scope for male has-beens and never-wozzers to finagle their way into women’s events is stronger than might hold for marathon running.
In Olympic selection from the large field of young hopefuls in each country, that tiny minority of male athletes are going to win and set local records in every women’s event they compete in. The cream rises to the top. In that cream will be every single one of those trans athletes who first laced up his running shoes or tucked and shimmied into a women’s Speedo. Excepting possibly the marathon where less time separates also-ran men and the very fastest women.
——————
* When I am routinely passed on the road by ordinary young women while riding my bicycle, I console myself that if we all had to stop and do 20 pushups at set checkpoints before being allowed to proceed along the course, I’d beat them all.
Equestrian sports are unique because it’s the only Olympic sport featuring animals and humans, and there is no material advantage being either male or female, so they are typically open to both sexes. What’s more important for competition is the innate skills of both rider and horse, and the partnership they form together.
But there is a material advantage in the horse being a horse. What would the Olympic
Equestrian committee say if I identified as a horse, regardless of whether my rider identified as male, female, or something else on the spectrum?
In the UK, late last year Policy Exchange published a report on the need to protect grassroots level female sports (many sports federations only protect the female category at the elite level): https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/levelling-the-playing-field/
Fair Play for Women have just published a similar report: https://fairplayforwomen.com/new-report-how-trans-inclusion-in-sport-is-harming-women-and-girls/