The media coverage surrounding high school track events, like the recent California state meet where Jurupa Valley senior AB Hernandez secured a medal, follows a painfully predictable script. On one side, mainstream outlets paint a picture of quiet triumph, treating the event as a milestone of pure inclusion while treating any pushback as a footnote. On the other side, reactionary pundits scream about the destruction of women’s sports.
Both sides are completely missing the point.
The lazy consensus in modern sports journalism is that we can solve complex biological and athletic dilemmas through the lens of pure social validation or blanket bans. It frames the issue as a binary choice between empathy and fairness. That is a false dichotomy. By focusing entirely on individual outcomes and podium finishes, the conversation ignores the structural reality of athletic categorization.
We do not need more culture war rhetoric. We need a fundamental reassessment of how sports are organized.
The Myth of the Level Playing Field
Sports are inherently unfair. We celebrate genetic outliers every single day. We do not disqualify basketball players for being seven feet tall, nor do we strip medals from swimmers with hyper-flexible ankles or lower lactic acid production.
However, the entire architecture of organized sports relies on specific protected categories to ensure meaningful competition. The most significant of these is the female category.
The current debate often treats testosterone suppression as a magical equalizer. The prevailing argument suggests that after a specific duration of hormone therapy, biological differences dissipate to the point of irrelevance.
The data does not support this.
Peer-reviewed longitudinal studies on sports physiology show that male puberty imparts structural advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. These advantages include:
- Bone Density and Architecture: Higher bone mass and a pelvic structure optimized for running efficiency and force generation.
- Lung and Heart Capacity: Larger vital lung capacity and greater cardiac output, which directly translate to superior oxygen delivery during intense cardiovascular exertion.
- Muscle Mass Retention: Even after prolonged testosterone suppression, individuals who underwent male puberty retain a significant percentage of their baseline muscle mass and skeletal leverage.
To pretend these factors vanish the moment an athlete meets an arbitrary hormonal threshold is not inclusive; it is scientifically inaccurate.
The Institutional Cowardice of Governing Bodies
State athletic associations and international federations are trapped in a state of paralysis. They design policies to minimize public relations backlash rather than to preserve the integrity of competition.
When a governing body permits an athlete with distinct biological advantages to compete in a protected category, they are making a choice. They are choosing the inclusion of one individual over the competitive fairness of the entire field.
I have watched athletic organizations burn through millions of dollars in legal fees and consulting costs trying to engineer a compromise that satisfies everyone. It is a fool's errand. You cannot compromise on biological realities.
The result? Muted protests, frustrated athletes who are terrified of speaking out due to social ostracization, and a growing cynicism among the public.
Dismantling the "People Also Ask" Flawed Premises
When people search for information on this topic, the questions they ask reveal how deeply misunderstood the mechanics of sports science truly are.
Does testosterone suppression make competition completely fair?
No. Testosterone is the catalyst for developmental changes during puberty, but once those structural changes—like height, limb length, and lung volume—occur, lowering testosterone levels does not reverse them. It reduces current muscle-building potential, but the underlying framework remains intact.
Why can't we just use testosterone levels to categorize all sports?
Because a biological male with suppressed testosterone still possesses the structural advantages accumulated during development. A biological female with naturally high testosterone does not possess the skeletal leverage or organ size of someone who went through male puberty. Categorization based solely on current serum testosterone levels ignores developmental history.
Will creating an "Open Category" fix the problem?
It is the only logical path forward, but it comes with a harsh reality that nobody wants to admit. An open category, where anyone can compete regardless of biological sex or gender identity, would inevitably be dominated by biological males at the elite level.
The downside of the contrarian approach—moving to an "Open" and "Female-Only" system—is that it forces a brutal realization: without a protected category, biological females cannot consistently reach the podium in elite sports. That is exactly why the female category was created in the first place. It was never about social identity; it was about biological reality.
Stop Fighting the Culture War and Fix the System
The solution is not to demonize young athletes who are simply playing by the rules handed to them. The blame lies squarely on the administrators who lack the courage to define what categories are actually for.
Categories exist to group athletes by immutable characteristics that fundamentally alter performance, such as age, weight, and biological sex. We do not allow a 25-year-old to compete in an under-18 division just because they feel they belong there, nor do we allow a heavyweight fighter to cut corners and step into the ring with a lightweight.
If we value the existence of women's sports, the category must be defined by biological sex, not identity. If an organization wishes to be maximally inclusive, they must transform the male category into an open category.
Anything less is just administrative cowardice disguised as progress.
