A stark admission has emerged from within the International Olympic Committee’s advisory circles, revealing the deep tensions at the heart of women’s sports policy. Joanna Harper, a transgender advisor to the IOC, recently stated that transgender women would prefer to abandon their athletic pursuits entirely rather than compete in male or open categories alongside cisgender men.
“Most trans women, myself included, would rather quit their sport than to compete in such a category,” Harper declared when discussing proposals for restructuring competitive divisions. The comment came in response to suggestions that sports adopt a women’s category alongside an open category, one that Harper acknowledged would be “99% cisgender male.”
Harper’s position carries particular weight given her influential role in shaping Olympic policy. Her 2015 study examining just eight sub-elite runners became a pivotal factor in the IOC’s decision to ease restrictions on male-born athletes entering women’s competitions. That policy shift eliminated requirements for surgical intervention and reduced the mandatory period of testosterone suppression from two years to twelve months.
Yet the scientific foundation supporting that decision appears increasingly fragile under scrutiny. Developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton has examined the research record and found troubling gaps between policy and evidence. Her review reveals that prior to the 2015 IOC policy change, only a handful of studies addressed performance-relevant physiological changes in transitioning athletes.
The research that did exist painted a consistent picture: even years after transition, male-born athletes retained significant physical advantages. Studies showed that transgender women maintained greater bone density, larger muscle mass, and substantially more strength than female reference groups—particularly in upper body measurements.
Harper’s own 2015 study, which proved influential despite its limitations, relied on self-reported race times from eight runners, some recalling performances from decades earlier. The research lacked control groups and failed to account for variables like training changes, injuries, or natural fitness fluctuations over time. The publication appeared in a journal operating on a pay-to-submit model where authors review each other’s work—a practice raising questions about scientific rigor.
More recent research has only reinforced earlier findings. Studies of young people who began medical transition before or during puberty showed that even with early intervention using puberty blockers and hormones, their height remained male-typical and their lean body mass and grip strength far exceeded that of female peers.
Perhaps most revealing are admissions from IOC officials themselves. One committee member acknowledged that the issue “has become much more of a social issue than in the past. It is an adaptation to a human rights issue.”
Harper herself has stated there is “an urgent need to determine not only what physical advantages transgender women carry after HRT but also what effect these advantages may have.”
Louis Gooren, whose 2004 research first documented that transgender women retain significantly higher muscle mass than females, advised the IOC that allowing male-born athletes into women’s competitions would require accepting certain “levels of arbitrariness.”
The resulting policy creates a challenging dilemma. Female athletes find themselves competing against individuals who retain measurable physical advantages. These advantages persist long after medical transition. Meanwhile, transgender athletes resist competing in male or open categories, viewing such placement as incompatible with their identity.
