Three principles should guide consultations with athletes about how to include transgender athletes

Opinions on playthegame.org reflect the views of the author(s).

The 2021 IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations makes it clear that affected athletes should be consulted when sports federations design, implement and evaluate policies for the participation of transgender athletes and athletes with natural variations of sex characteristics.

In the past two years several international federations, including World Rugby, World Aquatics, Union Cycliste Internationale, and World Athletics, have cited consultation exercises before tightening their eligibility criteria to effectively prevent trans women from competing in the female category of their sport. 

To those federations can now be added World Netball who have recently banned trans women players from international women’s competitions despite the fact that there are no trans women international elite netball players. They did, however, say they had undertaken a lengthy consultation process, but it is unclear who they consulted and how.

In this opinion piece we report on peer reviewed research that we have co-authored which surveyed 175 elite cis women athletes, and review the known consultation methods of some of the international federations that have recently introduced new transgender policies.

We conclude with suggestions on who and how sports federations should consult based on the results of  the “Strengthening Athlete Power in Sport” (SAPIS) project in which Swansea University was one of the academic partners.

Athletes are divided on the question of inclusion

Our research on the views of elite women athletes was primarily undertaken by Alex Shaw, as part of the Swansea University DATES project.

Alex and her co-researchers designed a survey that aimed to elicit the views of elite athletes about the participation of transgender athletes and athletes with natural variations of sex characteristics. The published paper only focuses on transgender athletes as the data on natural variations is still being written up. 

One of the lessons here is that rigorous research on athlete opinion is a time-consuming process. The survey was reviewed by a group of experts and ethically approved before being distributed. That did not stop it from being critiqued. About half the criticisms claimed the survey had a pro-trans agenda by using terms such as cisgender while the other half complained that the references to biological sex betrayed an anti-trans agenda. A bit like BBC political journalism, with complaints from both sides, we felt that we had probably got it just about right.

In this piece we report on the findings of the survey that relate to trans women athletes only.

The results of the research are complex. A majority (58%) believed that their sport should be categorised by sex and should exclude trans women, but a significant minority (42%) did not. This minority consisted of mostly non-Olympic sports athletes, whilst biological sex categorisation was strongly accepted by those at the highest competitive level, where greater stakes are involved.

The results also differed according to the type of sport. In contact sports, or sports that require a significant physical effort, there is greater support for exclusionary policies, whereas precision sports players tend to lean towards more inclusive views. 

Similarly, the highest level of elite athletes, those who compete in Olympic sports, preferred exclusion of trans women athletes on the grounds of fairness, whereas those who competed at lower levels and non-Olympic sports were more supportive of inclusion.

Retired athletes were also more exclusionary than current athletes. Nevertheless, a large majority of over 80% respondents believed that sports in general needed to be more inclusive towards transgender athletes.

Exploring the findings

How should such results be interpreted? Unfortunately, survey research does not allow us to delve far into the reasons behind these opinions, but it is possible to suggest some avenues for further exploration.

Although our research did not specifically address the issue of age, it is possible that some retired athletes, especially those who stopped playing many years ago,  may hold cultural viewpoints on gender and sexuality from an earlier era.

It is important for sporting bodies to be aware of who they survey, as retired athletes may contribute to athlete consultations and potentially might now be policymakers who are charged with developing their sports approach to transgender participation. It is necessary to make sure views of athletes reflect the opinions of current athletes rather than those who are no longer at the forefront of sport.

A further issue to consider is how well-informed the respondents are about transgender athletes, especially trans women in sports. Media and political discourse have often been divisive and ill-informed about the alleged superiority of trans women due to male advantages which may have influenced their opinions. 

New research is being published at an increasing rate and there is no single scientific consensus on the extent to which trans women may enjoy sporting advantages and in which types of sport. What is urgently needed are sport-specific studies that measure actual sports performances that will give a truer understanding of trans women’s sporting abilities compared to their cis-gendered peers.

A last point to be made is that athletes’ opinions may well be influenced by self-interest. At the highest elite level where the rewards are greatest, this might lead respondents to wish to exclude potential competition to gain access to the prizes of stature, fame and money. 

Our research shows that athletes’ opinions are unlikely to be grounded in negative views towards transgender people in general as a significant majority of respondents believed that sports should do more to include trans athletes.  However, prioritisation in elite sports on financial gains, and the level of commitment required by elite athletes, makes the desire for fair competition and winning the most important concern at this level of sport. 

Even if the empirical evidence shows that there are vanishingly few transgender athletes trying to compete at the highest level, a desire to restrict competition in their sport on the grounds of fairness for their own advantage may nevertheless have motivated some respondents.

How some federations have consulted athletes

While the DATES study obtained the views of elite athletes and retired athletes from an array of different sports, some governing bodies have also surveyed athletes in their own sport. Our ongoing research is reviewing how some international federations say they have consulted their athletes.

In 2023 World Athletics set up a working group that includes members of their council, athletes commission, a transgender athlete, and members of member federations. However, it only did so after introducing its ban on trans women athletes, and despite acknowledging that there were no such athletes currently competing at the international level.

World Rugby surveyed 193 rugby players ranging from Women's Sevens World Series (45.60%), Women's Six Nations (33.68%), other elite women's competitions (17.62%) and women's community rugby (3.11%) players.

World Aquatics were also one of the few organisations to consult and openly disclose the results of their athletes. They surveyed an unknown number of stakeholders in their sport about issues of eligibility and open categories.

It is welcome that sports’ governing bodies attempt to include the athlete's voice, however, in the case of World Aquatics it is unknown how many athletes were consulted, or which groups of athletes and other stakeholders (i.e., retired athletes, transgender individuals) were surveyed.

Neither World Rugby nor World Aquatics have disclosed how athletes were sampled and selected for consultation which raises the question of how representative the samples are. 

Additionally, in both surveys only a small number of questions were asked, and they predominantly related to eligibility, which leads to questions about how informative the surveys are and, therefore, the reliability of the results.  It is also unclear how well-informed survey participants were about the issues involved in transgender inclusion before completing the survey.

When sporting bodies consult athletes, it is important for confidence in the validity and reliability of the survey results to disclose the process of recruitment and which groups of athletes are being consulted to ensure the sample is representative. It is also crucial for sporting federations to ensure that any working group or committee membership reflects the key stakeholders and understand that views differ amongst athlete groups.

Three guiding principles for consultation processes

Given the limitations of both our research and the consultation exercises carried out by governing bodies, what principles should sports rule-makers follow when engaging with affected athletes and other stakeholders? Fortunately, Play the Game can help with this question as it has just completed a four-year European Union-funded project on athlete rights in sport governance, Strengthening Athlete Power in Sport (SAPIS).

The SAPIS project ran from January 2020 to December 2023 and was designed to produce some practical recommendations, based on thorough research, on how federations and governing bodies might involve their athletes in decision and policy-making.

Although the project did not specifically address the issue of transgender participation, some of the lessons from the SAPIS project may be able to help ensure effective consultation before deciding on policy in this field.  

An underpinning principle of the SAPIS project was that sports governance should abide by three principles of democracy when making decisions that affect athletes As set out in the project's good practice guide, processes should be representative, participatory and deliberative.

Below we apply the principles to the question of the inclusion of transgender athletes:

1) Representative – those who govern should be accountable to the governed, usually achieved through free, fair, and open elections

When consulting with athletes, whether they be transgender, with natural variations of sex characteristics, or cisgender, federations need to make sure they are representative of the wider community they claim to represent.

Ideally, the selection of representatives should take place through some form of election but, where that is not possible, proof should be furnished that a representative has the support of a significant body of athletes. 

In this regard, governing bodies should be wary of people who come from lobby groups unless they can show that the views they express are drawn from the majority of athletes. Evidence should be provided by anyone seeking to influence the decision-making process that they have a legitimate mandate to speak on their behalf.

2) Participatory – people should be able to contribute to collective decision-making 

Building on representation, this principle requires that those who are most affected by a policy or decision, in this case, transgender athletes, athletes with natural sex variations as well as cisgender athletes, should have the opportunity to directly influence that decision. 

Practical suggestions on how this can be achieved include athlete surveys, workshops, and seminars where athletes who may be affected by a policy, and their legitimate representatives, can help to inform it. 

Ensuring that athletes are represented on working parties and in committees where policy is developed and agreed upon is also important.

3) Deliberative – systems and processes should be established to enable the exchange of ideas and perspectives to promote reflection and better-informed decision-making

The third principle requires that those people involved in making decisions should be well-informed and provided with opportunities for discussion and reflection. 

Given that there is a lot of misinformation in the media and elsewhere about the alleged threat trans women and athletes with natural sex variations are meant to pose to women’s sports, there is a pressing need for policymakers and athlete representatives to become well-informed and to appreciate the complexities of the issues at stake. 

This might be achieved by holding special conferences with contributors from an array of specialisms, including gender experts, sports scientists and ethicists. 

'Nothing about us without us'

Given these principles, who and how might federations and governing bodies consult on this important topic? 

A shorthand way of summarising these principles, drawn from the history of involvement of marginalised communities in being able to determine their own future, is the slogan ‘nothing about us without us’. 

If a policy may exclude an entire demographic from competing in the category of sport in which they identify, the primary stakeholder must be that particular demographic – in other words, transgender athletes and athletes with natural sex variations themselves. However, they are not the only affected demographic and a further stakeholder will be cisgender athletes who may also be an interested party in any change in policy. 

The number of transgender athletes is currently very small and expanding inclusion of this under-represented demographic is critical for their physical and mental wellbeing as well as for social interaction and being able to participate in an important cultural activity. 

Sports rule-makers need to engage with the transgender community to understand barriers to participation and how their sport can be made more welcoming to gender minorities. At the same time, the legitimate concerns of some cisgender athletes need to be fully understood and considered. 

As the DATES study shows, athletes are concerned about the fairness of competition and it is necessary, especially at the elite level, for these concerns to be recognised. 

By following some of the suggestions in this piece, it should be possible to develop a policy that balances fairness, inclusion and safety.     

One of the problems that federations face is deciding who is actually representative of these demographics given that this space is often occupied by lobby groups that do not necessarily have a legitimate mandate from the larger cohort of athletes. 

The SAPIS project examined the place of advocacy groups as athlete-representative bodies. It acknowledged that such groups could play a significant role in sports governance especially where there is no athlete trade union or independent athlete commission. 

Nevertheless, the project partners recommended that advocacy groups should be driven by and run by athletes – both in their member base and governing body – to ensure legitimacy as a voice of athletes. Specialist advocacy groups can provide much-needed expertise in this area, but care should be taken to ensure that they do not front organisations of broader political groups with a wider agenda. 

To summarise, sports rule makers might engage with such groups but need to make sure that they have a legitimate mandate from athletes.

A policy may not always be necessary

The toxicity of the media discourse around gender minorities has placed many sports federations in an unenviable position and placed them unwittingly at the forefront of a culture war that is not of their own making. 

Governing bodies can take a certain amount of the sting out of the issue by only making policy when an issue actually arises. If they decide that policy is necessary, consultation with affected parties is essential and they could do worse than follow the advice provided in the SAPIS Good Practice Guide.

As researchers, we would also say that governing bodies might consider commissioning independent academics to undertake the consultation as we are governed by strict ethical rules and also have the expertise to design data-gathering tools that will elicit the genuine views of their athletes. 

Dr Andy Harvey and Alex Shaw are members of the Swansea University DATES project team. The opinions expressed in this piece are their own.