Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[JTContinental]

Did you all see that Serena is re-entering the drug-test pool with the ITIA? They published her name in October and no one noticed until now.

It was on Reddit yestesrday, Served at 8 am this morning, then The Athletic and Ben followed up.

This is good time to mention that I'm the newsletter writer/editor at Served now. Today was my first newsletter. I noticed the Reddit thread last nig ht and called the ITIA first thing this morning to confirm it. I should have written a bigger piece on it instead of sticking it in a bullet point at the end.

So, if you haven't subscribed to Served, please do so on Substack (it's free), and join the chat there occasionally. It's anemic right now and I'll be building it up in the near future. I'd love to see you guys there (but also here as always).

https://www.newsletter.servedpodcast.com/

I just saw this and I'm curious to see where it goes.

Where WHAT goes? Serena's return to drug testing, Megan's newsletter, or the SERVED newsletter? Be more specific, JT!!!
I guess Serena might be thinking that if Venus is still playing, and she has now lost some weight, she can compete in the tour with no issues. The wildcards will follow ASAP.
Megan: congrats!!! Sounds pretty cool, and I wish you the best

All of it! I'm a fan of everyone's work.

[meganfernandez]

Did you all see that Serena is re-entering the drug-test pool with the ITIA? They published her name in October and no one noticed until now.

It was on Reddit yestesrday, Served at 8 am this morning, then The Athletic and Ben followed up.

This is good time to mention that I'm the newsletter writer/editor at Served now. Today was my first newsletter. I noticed the Reddit thread last nig ht and called the ITIA first thing this morning to confirm it. I should have written a bigger piece on it instead of sticking it in a bullet point at the end.

So, if you haven't subscribed to Served, please do so on Substack (it's free), and join the chat there occasionally. It's anemic right now and I'll be building it up in the near future. I'd love to see you guys there (but also here as always).

https://www.newsletter.servedpodcast.com/

I just saw this and I'm curious to see where it goes.

Where WHAT goes? Serena's return to drug testing, Megan's newsletter, or the SERVED newsletter? Be more specific, JT!!!
I guess Serena might be thinking that if Venus is still playing, and she has now lost some weight, she can compete in the tour with no issues. The wildcards will follow ASAP.
Megan: congrats!!! Sounds pretty cool, and I wish you the best

Thanks!

Serena tweeted a denial, said she's not coming back. But then why re-enter the testing pool? I don't think she will make a full comeback, but playing with Venus seems plausible.

[ashkor87]

Awesome @meganfernandez....Served is a really good show

[ashkor87]

Serena could be trying to promote that drug, whatever it is

[meganfernandez]

Awesome @meganfernandez....Served is a really good show

Thanks!

[Fastbackss]

Yay! Congrats Megan

Ironically I listened to an episode today but hadn't yet logged in here and seen the news

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

And he is one of "the smart ones".
Yes, it is a sad commentary, but many of them really never got an education. They were out there, perfecting the craft.
His honesty always appealed to me.

[Suliso]

There are a lot of people who're neither particularly intelligent nor well educated. In fact most humans fit in that category...

[ti-amie]

USTA bans trans athletes from competing as women to comply with Trump executive order
The national tennis governing body's policy change was made with no announcement.
Author

Marisa Kabas
December 03, 2025

On the day Donald Trump was inaugurated into his second term as president, he signed a slew of executive orders: That included No. 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports.” More than 11 months later, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) has changed its policies for trans women players in compliance with Trump’s order, The Handbasket is first to report

Public and internal documents reviewed by The Handbasket show that an official policy effective December 1, 2025, states that trans women are prohibited from competing in sex-specific USTA “leagues, tournaments and competitions.” The USTA quietly revised its Player Eligibility Policy page on October 25th, according to a note at the bottom of the page. There was no prior warning about the change and there has been no press release published by the main governing body for American tennis. An unpublished FAQ document that I reviewed shows the organization is preparing for questions and pushback for when this becomes widely known. That time, it appears, is now.

Valerie knew the doubles tournament she was playing in this past Sunday would be her last in the USTA women’s league—at least for now. Valerie, 61, is a trans woman who registered as a St. Louis-area USTA member in 2019 shortly after she publicly transitioned, and described an overall positive experience. But on November 17th, the same regional leaders who had at first made her feel so welcome asked to meet with her privately to warn her about what was coming. Despite the fact that the new policy was so under the radar that even her team co-captains didn’t know, Valerie informed them in mid-November that she would be stepping away as a result. In a phone call Wednesday, she called that conversation “quite emotional.”

“Everything would have just gone on as normal until someone maybe might have found that policy and filed a complaint because they didn't like it, and that's how I would become aware of it,” Valerie told me about the lack of announcement.

When you think of the USTA, you probably picture the US Open and other major American tournaments. But USTA actually has multiple levels of members: collegiate, olympic, professional and recreational. Even beginners can join as members in order to play with people at the same level. Valerie is a recreational player who has excelled at the sport for many years, playing at a 4.0 level (out of 5.) She’s a gifted player who has now been sidelined thanks to cruel anti-trans policy coming from the highest levels of government.

The directive to change USTA policy came from the US Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), both of which changed their guidelines in response to Trump. “Failure to comply with this directive risks the USTA’s status as the National Governing Body (‘NGB’) for the sport of tennis in the United States,” the new USTA policy states. The definitions used by the USOPC and the IOC were taken directly from a different Trump executive order—14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”—using it to define terms like sex, women/woman, girls/girl and female.

Prior to publishing the policy, USTA internally sent around answers to frequently asked questions that USTA Customer Care and Section/State District Personnel could expect to receive, per an internal document reviewed by The Handbasket. One anticipated question is why this policy only applies to trans women and not trans men. Suggested response: “The purpose of Executive Order 14201 is to protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in sports. Transgender males are perceived as having no impact on the fairness or safety of the women's category, which is the sole focus of the order.”

Another FAQ reads, “Will USTA require copies of birth certificates during the membership purchase or event registration process?” The answer: “No, USTA will not require birth certificates; however, USTA reserves the right to request documentation to support attestations submitted during the event registration or membership purchase process, or in the event an eligibility challenge.”

Also according to the FAQ document, if a trans woman USTA player who competes in competitive tournaments re-registers as male to be in compliance, all the ranking points they’ve accrued up until that point will be “zeroed out.” In other words, they have to start from scratch.

The policy changes came on the heels of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, an ultra-conservative Republican, announcing an investigation into USTA’s Texas league. On November 18th, his office published a press release saying the investigation was meant “to determine if the organization has violated Texas law by allowing biological males to participate in women’s matches.” It’s unclear is USTA National’s policy change is related to Paxton’s investigation, but the timing is certainly curious.

In early September, Trump and his entourage attended the US Open finals in Flushing Meadows, Queens, causing massive entry delays and pissing off fans. I was in the crowd (thanks to reader donations that helped me purchase the absurdly expensive ticket) and witnessed the whole thing—from Trump coming out to wave from the Rolex suite, to the USTA bringing the trophy to the suite just for him. He was not a president; he was a king.

It’s not incredibly surprising to see USTA capitulate like this after they hid the news he’d be attending the US Open (news which was broken by me) and seemingly did everything in their power to make him feel welcome. The USTA caused a firestorm before the match by sending an email to all broadcast media asking them “to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance in any capacity.”

The change is surprising, however, given the sport’s long history with trans women athletes, starting with Dr. Renée Richards. In 1976, Richards, a trans woman, began playing professional tennis but could not compete in the US Open because she previously refused to take a mandated chromosome test. She sued and took her case to the New York State Supreme Court, where in 1977 Judge Alfred Ascione ruled in her favor. “This person is now a female,” he said. Richards never won a major tournament but would go on to coach Martina Navratilova to two Wimbledon titles. (It should be noted that unfortunately Richards now believes that trans women who transition after puberty should not be allowed to compete as women.)

I’ve reached out to USTA’s Head of Communications & Content about why no announcement was made and whether they plan to formally notify members. I did not receive a reply by the time of publishing.


https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/usta-ban ... tive-order

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

USTA bans trans athletes from competing as women to comply with Trump executive order
The national tennis governing body's policy change was made with no announcement.
Author

Marisa Kabas
December 03, 2025

On the day Donald Trump was inaugurated into his second term as president, he signed a slew of executive orders: That included No. 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports.” More than 11 months later, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) has changed its policies for trans women players in compliance with Trump’s order, The Handbasket is first to report

Public and internal documents reviewed by The Handbasket show that an official policy effective December 1, 2025, states that trans women are prohibited from competing in sex-specific USTA “leagues, tournaments and competitions.” The USTA quietly revised its Player Eligibility Policy page on October 25th, according to a note at the bottom of the page. There was no prior warning about the change and there has been no press release published by the main governing body for American tennis. An unpublished FAQ document that I reviewed shows the organization is preparing for questions and pushback for when this becomes widely known. That time, it appears, is now.

Valerie knew the doubles tournament she was playing in this past Sunday would be her last in the USTA women’s league—at least for now. Valerie, 61, is a trans woman who registered as a St. Louis-area USTA member in 2019 shortly after she publicly transitioned, and described an overall positive experience. But on November 17th, the same regional leaders who had at first made her feel so welcome asked to meet with her privately to warn her about what was coming. Despite the fact that the new policy was so under the radar that even her team co-captains didn’t know, Valerie informed them in mid-November that she would be stepping away as a result. In a phone call Wednesday, she called that conversation “quite emotional.”

“Everything would have just gone on as normal until someone maybe might have found that policy and filed a complaint because they didn't like it, and that's how I would become aware of it,” Valerie told me about the lack of announcement.

When you think of the USTA, you probably picture the US Open and other major American tournaments. But USTA actually has multiple levels of members: collegiate, olympic, professional and recreational. Even beginners can join as members in order to play with people at the same level. Valerie is a recreational player who has excelled at the sport for many years, playing at a 4.0 level (out of 5.) She’s a gifted player who has now been sidelined thanks to cruel anti-trans policy coming from the highest levels of government.

The directive to change USTA policy came from the US Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), both of which changed their guidelines in response to Trump. “Failure to comply with this directive risks the USTA’s status as the National Governing Body (‘NGB’) for the sport of tennis in the United States,” the new USTA policy states. The definitions used by the USOPC and the IOC were taken directly from a different Trump executive order—14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”—using it to define terms like sex, women/woman, girls/girl and female.

Prior to publishing the policy, USTA internally sent around answers to frequently asked questions that USTA Customer Care and Section/State District Personnel could expect to receive, per an internal document reviewed by The Handbasket. One anticipated question is why this policy only applies to trans women and not trans men. Suggested response: “The purpose of Executive Order 14201 is to protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in sports. Transgender males are perceived as having no impact on the fairness or safety of the women's category, which is the sole focus of the order.”

Another FAQ reads, “Will USTA require copies of birth certificates during the membership purchase or event registration process?” The answer: “No, USTA will not require birth certificates; however, USTA reserves the right to request documentation to support attestations submitted during the event registration or membership purchase process, or in the event an eligibility challenge.”

Also according to the FAQ document, if a trans woman USTA player who competes in competitive tournaments re-registers as male to be in compliance, all the ranking points they’ve accrued up until that point will be “zeroed out.” In other words, they have to start from scratch.

The policy changes came on the heels of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, an ultra-conservative Republican, announcing an investigation into USTA’s Texas league. On November 18th, his office published a press release saying the investigation was meant “to determine if the organization has violated Texas law by allowing biological males to participate in women’s matches.” It’s unclear is USTA National’s policy change is related to Paxton’s investigation, but the timing is certainly curious.

In early September, Trump and his entourage attended the US Open finals in Flushing Meadows, Queens, causing massive entry delays and pissing off fans. I was in the crowd (thanks to reader donations that helped me purchase the absurdly expensive ticket) and witnessed the whole thing—from Trump coming out to wave from the Rolex suite, to the USTA bringing the trophy to the suite just for him. He was not a president; he was a king.

It’s not incredibly surprising to see USTA capitulate like this after they hid the news he’d be attending the US Open (news which was broken by me) and seemingly did everything in their power to make him feel welcome. The USTA caused a firestorm before the match by sending an email to all broadcast media asking them “to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance in any capacity.”

The change is surprising, however, given the sport’s long history with trans women athletes, starting with Dr. Renée Richards. In 1976, Richards, a trans woman, began playing professional tennis but could not compete in the US Open because she previously refused to take a mandated chromosome test. She sued and took her case to the New York State Supreme Court, where in 1977 Judge Alfred Ascione ruled in her favor. “This person is now a female,” he said. Richards never won a major tournament but would go on to coach Martina Navratilova to two Wimbledon titles. (It should be noted that unfortunately Richards now believes that trans women who transition after puberty should not be allowed to compete as women.)

I’ve reached out to USTA’s Head of Communications & Content about why no announcement was made and whether they plan to formally notify members. I did not receive a reply by the time of publishing.


https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/usta-ban ... tive-order

Renée Richards Shares Her Position on Gender Policy in Tennis
The groundbreaking tennis player offered her thoughts on transgender participation in the sport last April.
Jon Wertheim | Feb 13, 2025

Richards gave Sports Illustrated consent to print her position paper from last April. It reads as follows:

April 9, 2024:

Greetings and thank you for the invitation to participate in your meeting. The timing of your invitation is significant for two reasons. 1. The subject of transgender women participation in sports has recently aroused considerable public interest yet very little has been discussed about tennis, and 2. Although it has taken many more years than I had expected, I am finally, now, being asked to contribute to the discussion, and I am reasonably certain that I am still in sound mind enough, in my 90th year, to attempt to do so.

My remarks cover three subjects: 1. my own personal history, 2. my interpretation of the current literature on the subject [mostly from Canada and the USA], and 3. some policy recommendations.

To begin—I have spent a lifetime in sports—almost half as a man, half as a woman. In perspective, I won my first tennis tournament in 1944 at the age of 10: ‘Sunrise Tennis Club Boys’ champion,’ my first Women’s tournament in Hawaii in 1976 at the age of 44, and my first WTA event in Pensacola the following year. As a boy I excelled at sports—mostly baseball and tennis, I was considered by major league scouts in baseball, and I had success in tennis in many different categories—high school, college, U.S. Navy, and Eastern and National amateur events. ‘Open’ tennis only came to exist in 1968, my entire tennis career in boys, juniors, and men was as an amateur. My lifetime in sports is still ongoing. I have been a member of the ladies' golf league at the public/private club near my home for the past 20 years.

My ‘sex reassignment surgery’ was in 1973. I moved to Newport Beach California in 1975, played amateur tennis happily at The John Wayne Club there, and when I won an amateur women’s tournament in La Jolla I was outed on national television. I had had no thought of playing professional women’s tennis until I was informed that I would not be allowed to do so and then, for all kinds of conscious and subconscious reasons, I sued to be allowed to play at the U.S. Open.

I had been enjoying great success in the profession I was ordained for since birth, I had no wish to become a professional women’s tennis player. But when I was told I would not be allowed to do that, and when letters started pouring in to me from people from all walks of life who had felt discriminated against, I took my case to court. Had I not been told I couldn’t do something other women could do, I would not have sued to play. I felt I had the same rights as other women.

At that time the term ‘transsexual’ was used to describe someone like me, and like Christine Jorgensen before me. The term transgender had not been invented yet. When I played in South America, headlines in the newspapers blared ‘cambio seso’- sex change! I was considered virtually a unique case. Data in 2024 suggest now maybe one percent of the population is ‘transgender.’

I sued the USTA and the WTA and, in a landmark decision, the NY State Supreme Court Judge [Alfred] Ascione agreed with me and with my two affidavits one from my gynecologist, and the other from Billie Jean King—that I was a woman and entitled to play in the U.S. Open 1977. Critical to his decision is the fact that he made it in reference to me alone. He said nothing about ‘transgenders’ or ‘transsexuals.’ The decision was in favor of ‘Renee Richards’—period. At that time, there were no studies of performance abilities of people like me. I became a registered member in good faith of the WTA.

I was allowed to play in the United States and in South America. Philippe Chatrier, who was the president of the International Tennis Federation, decreed that I could not play Roland Garros, Wimbledon, or the Australian Open.

In the beginning of my five years on the tour, there were significant objections to my inclusion from several players. Some refused to play in events along with me, some had vocal objections, refused to shake hands, made disparaging comments, and one walked off the court mid-match with me. It was very hurtful to me personally.

I had been what was described as the ‘ultimate amateur sportsman.’ I had captained every team I was ever on as a man—high school, college, Eastern men’s team, US Navy team, and the US [Maccabiah] team in Israel.

Gradually objection subsided, and I played on the tour for five years, at great personal sacrifice, in income and with attendant other personal struggles. I had started coaching Martina Navratilova in 1981, and she paid for the office and the records of the ophthalmology practice which I assumed on my return to the practice of medicine in 1982.

My results on the tour are difficult to appraise as far as what physical advantage I may have had over my sister players. I won some low-level tournaments, I reached the final of one Virginia Slims elite event, I reached the final of the U.S. Open doubles in 1977, I won the U.S. Open 35-and-over single in 1979. I had wins over several top-10 players, some who had won ‘major’ titles. I never beat a player from the first five in the rankings. I had losses to several players who were not ranked in the first 30 on the WTA ranking. I reached the semifinal of the U.S. Open Mixed with Ilie [Năstase] in 1979. I did not feel like I had a physical edge on most of my opponents, but there were a few times I did.

As I got older on tour, I felt like my age was putting me at a disadvantage and that that negated any strength advantage I may have had earlier. I had played one close three-set match against Chris Evert and another against Tracy Austin in 1977. When I played Tracy in 1981, she beat me 6–0, 6–1. I thought it was time to retire—which I soon did. I was 47.

I think it is pertinent to comment that I reached a career-high ranking of 19 in 1979, when I was 45. There is one other player currently competing who is that age—her ranking is not high enough to get into tournaments without invitation, which she probably deserves because she is an all-time super champion.

My five-year experience on the tour has influenced my opinion on the subject of transgender participation for sure. When I started, I felt that I did not have any physical advantage over XX biological women. I had lost my first match as a pro in straight sets to Virginia Wade—who had won Wimbledon the year she beat me at Forest Hills. In addition, another reason I felt that I was entitled to play was that I had had a record in men’s tennis [although it was amateur in the years I was competing—before Open tennis] that was high enough to qualify for the men’s nationals at Forest Hills five times.

Here are a few remarks from men in the world of tennis at that time. The great Don Budge said ‘They have to let her play; she can’t play with the men anymore.’

My mixed doubles partner Ilie [Năstase] said, ‘She is old enough to be their mother.’ I played many mixed doubles events after I joined the WTA tour. I was well aware of the advantage the men had over me and my fellow WTA players. I thought I belonged in the WTA group.

Renowned coach Dennis van der Meer, who coached Billie Jean King and Margaret Court had this to say after watching me lose the final to Karen Hantze Susman in Kona, Hawaii in 1976—‘She would beat everybody but Chrissie because nobody would break her serve, she serves better than all the good girls but, once the ball is in play, they are better. Billie Jean hits harder, Karen volleys much better, Chrissie has better groundies, and God knows, Renée is no gazelle.’

My experience in tennis, in my opinion, while I was playing, afforded me a unique opportunity to judge myself on the subject of qualification. I had played as a man against men—and had some wins over world-class players. I had played a practice match, once, against the at-that-time women’s Wimbledon champion when I was a collegiate men’s player. I then played as a woman against professional women players on the WTA. I had the experience of playing against a man—a close friend—after I had become a woman—after my transition—who had been an even competitor of mine when I was a man. I was no match for him. And in women’s tennis, I had the experience frequently of playing against world-class men in the U.S. Open Mixed and in World Team Tennis. Tennis is the only major sport I know of where men and women compete with each other—mixed doubles. On the basis of this unique experience, it was my opinion that when I was on the women’s tour—I had no unfair advantage over my opponents. UNTIL ……!!! UNTIL… !!! In 1979 I beat Nancy Richey [a grand slam champion] in the final of the U.S. Open women’s 35-and-over. It was the first time that I had played in a 35-and-over event, and the last. Before I entered the event, I thought it was fair. [I had, after all, been the finalist in the U.S. national men’s 35 event when I was 39, and while practicing ophthalmology as my main job]. Nancy was 37, I was 45, but after that match I realized that that age difference was not enough. I was competitive with players who were 25, in my mind, but I suddenly realized that fairness afforded by the age gap may well have been the reason I could compete without an advantage in the Open category.

I never played another 35-and-over event.!! I began to think to myself, ‘What if I had been 25? Would it have been fair for me to compete as a woman?’ I began to think more and more about age as a factor—from my experience and for the future. I began to consider that age was what had allowed me to compete on the WTA tour with minimal advantage if any, and that my obsessive physical training during my time on tour was also contributory in helping me maintain some of the physicality I had lost during my transition—both important considerations in forming my opinions later on.

Now for the second part of my ‘remarks’—interpretation of the current literature on the subject of transgender women in sports.

The literature on all this is voluminous—most of it produced within the past few years, and derived mainly from [American] and Canadian, and a few Swedish, studies. I can only summarize them here and my interpretation of them, although it may have some value—coming from a doctor, who has personal experience with the matter—is nevertheless for sure, subjective. I caution you as well with the old adage—‘A doctor who treats himself [or herself] has a fool for a patient and a fool for a doctor.’

1. The obvious male advantages—taller, narrow hips, wider shoulders, less lower body fat, higher muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, higher hemoglobin giving greater cardiovascular capacity and oxygen transport. In track-sprinting the performance gap is 12 % between men and women.

2. After 12 months of testosterone suppression in transgender women, muscle strength loss has been found to be reduced by only -5 %. Joanna Harper [an elite athlete runner and transgender woman] states that strength and body muscle of transgender women is still above cisgender women even after 3 years of testosterone suppression.

3. A Swedish study shows that testosterone suppression reduces male advantage by only a 5% reduction of strength. [Similar to a U.S. study by Joanna Harper.] And 83% of male advantage is retained in transgender women.

4. Many anatomical sex differences driven by testosterone in male puberty are not reversible. Estrogen therapy will not reverse most male athletic performance parameters.

5. Lowering testosterone levels to less than 10 nmole/L decreases muscle mass but not to female biologic levels. Average female levels are about 3-5 nmoles/L but the IOC requirement is only to lower it to 10.

6. Estrogen therapy does not affect most of the anatomic structures of biological males.

7. Hemoglobin levels are lowered by estrogen therapy and maximum aerobic effort is lowered, but only if testosterone levels are lowered to biological female range—which is much lower than the 10 nmoles required of transgender women.

8. Male physiologic advantage from former testosterone exposure in puberty in transgender women is permanent, including brain masculinization, heart size, stroke volume, lung capacity, bone structure and mass. However, some modifiable characteristics from estrogen therapy and testosterone deprivation have been reported to mitigate muscle strength and aerobic capacity from physical training.

9. Some male anatomic advantages can not be modified by estrogen therapy or testosterone suppression, for example, longer long bones and resultant leverage give males an advantage in serving in tennis. Probably in swimming as well.

10. The critical point! Male anatomy and physiology cannot be reformatted by estrogen therapy in transgender women because testosterone has driven permanent effects from early life exposure. This statement reflects the importance of male puberty.

Enough statistics. A few words of caution—‘statistics’ can be used to reinforce an opinion, on almost any subject. Be that as it may be here are my policy recommendations for the WTA.

Based on my personal experience, in particular from 1976 to the present 2024—almost 50 years—and on my review of the current literature on the subject of transgender women in women’s sports competition:

1. I believe that having gone through male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports.

2. I believe that a retained physical advantage persists in such individuals and does not allow for an equal playing field despite reducing testosterone levels in the blood. This advantage persists, it can be mitigated by age to a yet unknown degree. The opinion of Judge Ascione, my personal gynecologist in 1976, Billie Jean King, and myself was based on knowledge of this subject almost 50 years ago. We did not have the science back then. Medical science has progressed since that time and reflects my current knowledge and opinion. I am in agreement with the comment made by Mianne Bagger, a transgender golfer from Denmark—she said what I also believe: ‘Gender identity is subjective, it cannot proscribe a stable basis for sports clarification, it is irrelevant to sports classification—which is based on physiologic characteristics.’

3. The problem of what to do with prospective transgender athletes at scholastic, club, and professional levels, in many sports, is currently ongoing. It is possible that with the use of puberty-blocking hormones, there may be a time when prospective transgender women and girls may not go through male puberty, their inclusion in sports as women will have to be reevaluated if, and when, that happens.

I thank you for your invitation to me to discuss this subject of practical, moral, and ethical considerations.

https://www.si.com/tennis/renee-richard ... to-the-wta

[Owendonovan]

Never ever hear of a trans man with this problem. Rooted in misogyny on some level, I suppose.

[ti-amie]