Technically I am a cis male. As in "male" is on my birth certificate. But I have a DSD; I'm intersex. So I grew up being perceived socially as female ever since I was in kindergarten, which caused me heavy bouts of dysphoria. Nobody told me I was intersex and I went most of my childhood thinking I was just like any other cis woman. And since I'll have to essentially transition from "female" (my developed female characteristics, being seen socially as female, etc) to male, I consider myself a trans man.
Trans people do not like this. They often say that it doesn't count for me because its "easier" (since people with DSDs and intersex people are binary trans' people's scapegoat, ie "cis people get gender affirming care" "lie about being intersex to avoid transphobia" etc etc my fellow intersex people know what I'm talking about, they don't want to admit that it really isn't easier for us).
They want their trans labels to be in neat little boxes with no variation; its easier to sympathize with someone that's more alike to yourself, and they want to be able to sympathize with all trans people because it makes them feel better about themselves, to be a self ally with no internalized transphobia whatsoever.
I've been called multiple things, transtrender, baedel, herm, chaser, wannabe, appropriator, futa, only ever by trans people. In fact I think I've met more cis people that are understanding and willing to learn about intersexuality and DSDs than trans people. For trans people a lot of the time it means they have to deconstruct gender binaries in their mind again, and they'd rather just stick to the current beliefs they feel safe in.
All of this to say that trans people are not immune to putting themselves in binary boxes, and that for a large amount of trans people, they treat transness as a better version of the pre-existing gender binary, one that makes them more palatable to leftist spaces, instead of a beautifully diverse area of human existence and culture.
The IOC is poised to announce new eligibility rules that finally ground women’s sport in biology.
By: Colin Wright
Published: Nov 18, 2025
Somehow, the question of who should be eligible to compete in the women’s category has become one of the most hotly contested issues of our time. With growing frequency, men who identify as women—and also men with differences of sex development (DSD) who were incorrectly recorded female at birth—are entering female sporting events and winning medals. After repeated controversies, it appears that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is finally ready to take a stand: women’s sports are for women, defined biologically.
A brief look at recent Olympic history shows why this conclusion was inevitable. Laurel Hubbard, a New Zealand weightlifter who transitioned from male to female, competed in the women’s +87 kg category at Tokyo 2020. Although he did not medal, his participation marked a watershed moment in elite sport. Caster Semenya, a male athlete with a difference of sex development known as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5-ARD), won double Olympic gold in the women’s 800 meters (London 2012, Rio 2016). Semenya has XY chromosomes, functional testes, and male-range testosterone levels. At the Rio Games, the entire women’s 800 m podium—bronze, silver, and gold—was occupied by athletes with 5-ARD, all biologically male but competing under rules that, at the time, allowed them to do so.
The same pattern repeated at the Paris 2024 Games, this time in women’s boxing. Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting of Chinese Taipei—both male athletes with 5-ARD—won gold in their respective weight classes after having been disqualified from previous competitions for failing sex-eligibility tests. Neither identifies as transgender, but both were recorded female at birth due to their DSD and permitted to compete in the women’s category under rules that blindly went by what was printed on their birth certificates.
Last week, the IOC signaled a change in policy. Under the leadership of President Kirsty Coventry, the IOC’s “Protection of the Female Category” working group—chaired by medical-scientific director Jane Thornton—presented a scientific review stating the obvious: athletes who experience male puberty retain permanent physical advantages in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and cardiovascular fitness. The new policy under consideration would impose a blanket ban on athletes who have undergone male puberty, regardless of identity or what’s indicated on one’s birth certificate.
Predictably, this has been grossly misrepresented in the press. An article in Them titled “Olympics Move to Ban Trans Women and Cis Female Athletes With ‘Male Levels of Testosterone’” frames the issue as if the IOC were targeting “cisgender women” merely for having higher testosterone. The piece suggests that athletes like Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya fall into this category—“cis women with male levels of testosterone”—while ignoring the fact that both are biologically male and were simply misclassified as female at birth due to their DSD. They are not “cisgender” women, a term that most people understand as referring to individuals who are biologically and identifiably female. They are male athletes with retained male physiology competing (legally or not) in the female category. To see this clearly, one must look past the ideological framing: identity-based language obscures the biological reality, which is the part that actually matters.
Another article, published in Sportskeeda by Janhavi Shinde, bizarrely describes athlete and IOC advisor Nikki Hiltz as “a transgender athlete… who identifies as cisgender,” adding that Hiltz “came out as transgender non-binary in March 2021.” I’ll let readers untangle that identity puzzle for themselves. Hiltz denounced the proposed ban on male athletes in female sports as “misogyny and controlling women and femininity,” yet fails to recognize the misogyny in redefining womanhood according to identity and stereotypes, and the controlling impulse behind people demanding unrestricted access to women’s spaces, including their sports and places on the Olympic podium.
If the women’s category is to mean anything at all—if women are to compete on a level biological playing field—then eligibility rules must reflect biology, not identity. Female sport exists precisely because of the physical advantages conferred by male development. To deny that is to erase the very rationale for women’s categories in the first place.
The IOC’s decision to ground its policy in biological reality is necessary and long overdue. This is not an act of bigotry toward people who identify as transgender or men with DSDs, but an act of fairness toward women. If implemented, this policy—expected within the next year—will mark a turning point, restoring common sense to women’s sport after years of confusion.
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal condition occurring in AFAB people where there is either too-high levels of insulin or androgens, or both.
[For all links & resources about PCOS, tw for casual cissexism & cisnormativity]
[wikipedia page]
[More info here - though it (and tbh 99.9% of resources) uses binary gendered language; this post uses gender neutral language but is more for those with PCOS; here’s a thread about it - though this kinda focusses more on the politics of birth control availability but still has relevant info]
It is contested as to whether PCOS should be considered an intersex condition or not. The general consensus within the intersex community is that it is up to the individual with PCOS if they wish to define themselves as intersex or not.
