FOR the first time in Olympic history, some of the athletes competing in Rio could be transgender women. Team GB is male athletes competing as females.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) lowered barriers to participation in January, after a consensus meeting, which I attended. Trans athletes are no longer required to have had gender reassignment surgery followed by two years of hormone therapy. This has been applauded by those who say it reflects social and legal progress on trans issues, and is also supported by science. But some have questioned its scientific basis.
Advertisement
Their main concern is whether trans women have an unfair advantage. The new guidance requires testosterone levels in trans women鈥檚 blood to be below a threshold for a year before competition. This would usually require hormone treatment or even surgery. What impact does this treatment have?
鈥淭rans athletes are no longer required to have gender reassignment surgery before competing鈥�
There is some research that helps. 鈥� related to the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood 鈥� in trans women within a year of surgery and reported levels of both in the female range, along with a reduction in muscle mass.
The only study to directly assess performance was published last year. who had competed in both men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 distance races. It found they had no advantage over other women.
Beyond such studies, there is still a need to disentangle hormonal influences from other performance-affecting factors. For instance, the number of nuclei within individual muscle cells influences the training response of muscle tissue. People who are biologically male tend to have more of these nuclei. If the number of nuclei remains high in trans women then some of the biological advantage of male biology would remain. More research is needed to answer this.
For now, though, we can safely say that the IOC guidance is both inclusive and rooted in the best available scientific evidence.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淟evel playing field鈥�
