Why USA Cycling’s Transgender Ban Harms All Women & Undermines the Sport
If you care about the growth, fairness, and integrity of cycling, USA Cycling’s new transgender ban raises big questions. As a sport psychologist and former elite racer, my work and stances are informed by both evidence and experience in athlete well-being. The landscape of cycling is changing—and so are the rules that shape who gets a place on the start line. Following USA Cycling’s recent policy change, it’s time to unpack why the new USA Cycling policy is not just unfair to transgender women, but problematic for all girls and women in the sport.
Understanding USA Cycling’s New Policy
Starting September 15, 2025, USA Cycling implemented a new policy that defines the women’s category by sex assigned at conception. Under Policy VII, only those deemed “female” at conception may race in women’s events—even if their legal or medical documentation says otherwise. The men’s/open category is accessible regardless of sex or gender identity.
At first glance, the rule may seem “clear cut.” But as research and the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) 2021 Framework show, human sex development and gender identity are complex and multi-dimensional [1]. Strict lines drawn by chromosomes, gametes, or legal status often break down when faced with lived realities. USA Cycling’s policy, by anchoring eligibility in biology at conception, ignores these complexities—and with them, the real lives and rights of athletes [1].
Let’s walk through how this rule aligns—or fails to align—with the IOC’s 10 guiding principles:
1. Inclusion
The IOC states: “Everyone, regardless of gender identity, expression and/or sex variations, should be able to participate in sport safely and without prejudice.” USA Cycling’s rule categorically excludes many trans women, some women with intersex variations, and even some cisgender women with documentation gaps. Instead of fostering broad inclusion, the policy narrows access at every level [1].
Image Credit: Martowicz, M., et al. (2022). Position statement: IOC framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(1). doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106386
2. Prevention of Harm
IOC Principle 2 prioritizes physical, psychological, and mental well-being. The USA Cycling policy increases stigma and opens the door to “eligibility policing” against those perceived as different. Exclusion leads to loss of opportunity, social isolation, and can trigger long-term mental health impacts—harms the IOC Framework was designed to prevent [1,9].
3. Non-Discrimination
Eligibility criteria, per the IOC, “should be established and implemented fairly and in a manner that does not systematically exclude athletes from competition based on gender identity, physical appearance, and/or sex variations.” By anchoring eligibility in a fixed biological standard and applying it without nuance, the policy tacitly authorizes broad forms of discrimination against anyone who doesn’t fit a narrow definition of womanhood [1,4].
4. Fairness
While sports require fairness, the IOC cautions against denying eligibility on the basis of presumed, unproven advantages. Instead, fairness should account for individual abilities and real, sport-specific evidence. USA Cycling’s rule draws an arbitrary line with little regard for performance data or the well-documented overlap between cisgender and transgender women’s results [1,6].
5. No Presumption of Advantage
“No athlete should be precluded…on the exclusive ground of an unverified, alleged or perceived unfair competitive advantage.” This principle is key. The new policy is built on the presumption that trans women have an intrinsic advantage, despite decades of scientific literature showing performance is shaped by diverse, intersecting factors—and that many trans and intersex women fall within the cisgender women’s performance range [1,6].
6. Evidence-Based Approach
Any restrictions, per the IOC, “should be based on robust and peer-reviewed research…demonstrating a consistent, disproportionate competitive advantage in the specific sport, discipline, and event.” USA Cycling offers no new peer-reviewed and sport-specific evidence to justify blanket exclusion. Instead, the policy relies on outdated or incomplete generalizations, ignoring calls for regular review and athlete consultation as new data emerges [1,6].
7. Primacy of Health and Bodily Autonomy
The IOC Framework rejects any pressure on athletes to undergo medically unnecessary procedures or treatments. By setting a rigid category boundary, USA Cycling’s policy could incentivize invasive questioning or medical scrutiny, putting the burden on athletes—particularly women with intersex variations or incomplete records—to “prove” their eligibility, sometimes through distressing means [1,2].
8. Stakeholder-Centered Approach
The IOC calls for meaningful, ongoing engagement: “When drafting…eligibility criteria, sports organisations should meaningfully consult with a cross-section of athletes who may be negatively affected in order to prevent harm.” To date, there has been limited transparent engagement with those who would be excluded under USA Cycling’s new policy—namely trans women, intersex athletes, and even some cisgender women [1].
9. Right to Privacy
The IOC Framework places great importance on privacy in eligibility reviews, avoiding public disclosures or invasive examinations except where truly necessary. Policies like USA Cycling’s have, in other sports, led to publicized “sex-testing” and intrusion into athletes’ private medical histories, exposing women to humiliation and risk [2,5].
10. Periodic Review
The IOC framework specifies that eligibility policies should be regularly reviewed in light of new scientific, ethical, and stakeholder feedback. Blanket, rigid bans like USA Cycling’s do not provide clear mechanisms for update or challenge, and thus fail to meet this standard [1].
Real-World Consequences
By diverging from the IOC’s evidence-based, athlete-focused principles, USA Cycling’s ban produces a climate of exclusion and fear:
Trans girls who transitioned before puberty—despite social and medical guidance—are barred from ever racing in the women’s field, regardless of developmental history or experience.
Athletes with intersex traits risk exclusion or are subjected to invasive scrutiny, even if they have always identified and lived as women.
Cis women who don’t match bureaucratic definitions or “look” the part face suspicion, challenges to their identity, and possible disqualification.
Grassroots and youth participants are swept up in elite-level policies, contrary to the IOC’s call for clear differentiation between policy goals at different levels of sport.
What True Fairness Demands
The IOC Framework recognizes the need for meaningful and proportionate competition, but insists this should never be achieved by violating human rights, eroding dignity, or stifling diversity [1,8]. The framework is clear that sport-specific evidence, not conjecture or fear, must drive exclusion decisions, and that athletes must have agency in both the drafting and review of any new rule.
USA Cycling’s current approach not only isolates and excludes those who fall outside the narrowest definition of “female.” It also undermines the sense of safety, belonging, and motivation for all girls and women—cis, trans, and intersex—who look to sport as a site of growth, health, and connection.
In other sports, we’ve already seen cisgender women with naturally high testosterone or “non-traditional” characteristics subjected to invasive, humiliating procedures [5]. As the IOC’s framework notes, blending elite and community policies only amplifies the risks of harm and exclusion, particularly at the grassroots level [1].
The Science—and Myths—Behind “Unfair Advantage”
The common rationale behind these bans is a presumed unfair athletic advantage for transgender women. Right now, that evidence is lacking. Comprehensive reviews, including those by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, reveal that testosterone and performance data are deeply nuanced and highly variable [6]. There’s substantial overlap in the performance of cisgender and transgender athletes, and blanket bans miss these realities [6]. Sports medicine experts urge that any eligibility criteria must treat all women fairly—inclusive of those whose biology, identity, or paperwork doesn’t fit narrow expectations [1,6].
Worse, this policy could backfire: It places the burden of proof on girls and women to “prove” their eligibility. The resulting climate of fear and suspicion deters participation, undermining the health and vibrancy of women’s cycling as a whole [7].
Conclusion: Building a Cycling Community That Welcomes All Women
It’s time for a reset. Cycling should reflect the diversity and dignity of all women: cis, trans, and intersex. Fairness is not achieved by exclusion—it is realized when science, context, and compassion guide how we move forward [1,10]. Sport thrives not on uniformity, but on the richness of human experience and achievement.
Rules about who can ride should reflect evidence, uphold athletes’ rights, and honor the complexity of sex and gender—not shrink the sport behind artificial barriers. Only then will women’s cycling move forward as a more inclusive, inspiring, and resilient community [1].
—
If you or someone you know is navigating challenges related to eligibility, sport, or inclusion, we’re here to help. Contact us to learn more about our support for athletes, parents, and teams seeking evidence-informed solutions.
References
Martowicz, M., Budgett, R., Pape, M., Mascagni, K., Engebretsen, L., Dienstbach-Wech, L., Pitsiladis, Y. P., Pigozzi, F., & Erdener, U. (2023). Position statement: IOC framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-106386
Human Rights Watch. (2020). They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport: Human Rights Violations in Sex Testing of Elite Women Athletes. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/12/04/theyre-chasing-us-away-sport/human-rights-violations-sex-testing-elite-women
Patel, S. (2021). Gaps in the protection of athletes' gender rights in sport—a regulatory riddle. International Sports Law Journal, 21, 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-021-00182-2
Karkazis, K., Jordan-Young, R., Davis, G., & Camporesi, S. (2012). Out of bounds? A critique of the new policies on hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes. American Journal of Bioethics, 12(7), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2012.680533
Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2015). Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3759 Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/3759-PA.pdf
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. (2022). Transgender women athletes in elite sport: A scientific review. https://cces.ca/en/trans-inclusion
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015). Discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, A/HRC/29/23. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc2923-discrimination-and-violence-against-individuals-based-their
International Olympic Committee. (2021). IOC framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf
Reardon, C. L., Hainline, B., Aron, C. M., et al. (2019). Mental health in elite athletes: international Olympic Committee consensus statement (2019). British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(11), 667–699. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100715
Bekker, S., Storr, R., & Posbergh, A. (2022). Inclusion, fairness and non-discrimination in sport: a wider lens. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 56, 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105926
