The olympics gender question

By Herman M. Lagon

There are issues you cannot simply scroll past. You try. You read a headline, react quickly, and move on. But some stay with you—while having coffee, in quiet conversations, even in the middle of watching a game. The recent Olympics decision on who gets to compete in women’s sports is one of those. It lingers because it touches something deeper. Not just sport. People.

At first glance, the reasoning behind the decision feels easy to understand. Studies have long suggested that going through male puberty may come with physical advantages—stronger bodies, greater stamina, faster recovery. For athletes who have trained within women’s categories for years, this is not just science—it is something they feel. Imagine the sacrifices, the early mornings, the quiet discipline, and then the worry that the field may no longer be equal. That feeling is real. It deserves respect.

In that light, the IOC’s decision can be seen as a way of protecting fairness—the very core of sport. Without clear lines, competition can lose its sense of balance. Categories are there not to exclude, but to make sure that effort and talent are matched fairly. Seen this way, the decision carries logic.

But even then, it is not without cost.

Because when you listen to the other side, the impact becomes clearer. For transgender athletes, sport is not just about winning or losing. It is about recognition. It is about having a place where identity and effort come together. Being told, “You cannot compete here,” is not just a technical call—it carries something heavier. And that is not something we can easily set aside.

And that is where things stop being simple.

Because fairness, in real life, is rarely clean. Even outside sport, we adjust it. We give someone more time. We make room for those who struggle. We bend—not to break rules, but to make them more humane. But the Olympics operates differently. It requires rules that are clear, measurable, and consistent across nations. That is the burden of global sport. And that is where tension inevitably begins.

Turning to science—like genetic testing—offers a sense of clarity. One test. One answer. A firm line. From a policy standpoint, it provides something that organizations need: consistency. But life does not always follow clean lines. Biology itself is complex. There are bodies that do not fit neatly into categories. And when decisions rely too much on tests, there is always the danger that something human gets left behind.

Still, these athletes deserve to be heard. Many are not hostile—just concerned. Concerned that their years of sacrifice might be affected, that the system they trusted may change. These concerns are real, and they deserve respect.

At the same time, transgender and DSD athletes often carry a heavier silence. They are talked about more than they are truly heard. Their identities become issues, their lives reduced to headlines. And in all of this, it becomes easy to forget that behind every rule is a person simply trying to belong. That should never be forgotten.

For many of us, this may feel distant. But the question is something we already know. We encounter it in our own spaces—classrooms, workplaces, families. How do we treat those who are different? Do we protect systems, or do we open space? Do we stand firm, or do we learn to adjust the line with care?

What makes this even harder is that both sides are, in their own way, asking for something reasonable. One asks for fairness. The other asks for recognition. One fears losing a level field. The other fears losing a place entirely. When both sides carry something real, the issue stops being about choosing right or wrong. It becomes about weighing what matters most.

There is a real risk when we lean too much in one direction. If everything is allowed, fairness can slowly slip away. But if everything becomes too strict, compassion can disappear. Life rarely lives in extremes. Most of the time, the better answers sit somewhere in the middle—imperfect, still taking shape, but trying to be both fair and kind.

When you pause and really look at it, sport was never just about winning. Yes, medals matter. Records matter. But what stays longer are the lessons it quietly teaches—discipline, respect, humility. Sport shows us how to compete without losing ourselves. And when that part fades, even victory feels a little empty.

This is a tough issue, and maybe we should stop expecting quick solutions. The IOC’s decision may not be perfect, but it’s a genuine attempt to protect fairness as things continue to shift. That deserves acknowledgment, even as we keep thinking it through. Some things need time. They ask us to listen, to be patient, and to accept that we are still learning.

For teachers, parents, and mentors, this is where it becomes real. The young people we guide will face questions like this—uncertain, complicated, and without clear answers. What we can give them is not certainty, but wisdom. The ability to listen, to think, and to remain human.

Ultimately, this is more than the Olympics. It is about who we are becoming. Can we defend fairness without losing empathy? Can we practice inclusion without losing balance? Can we set rules without forgetting the people behind them?

Because drawing the line is not the hardest part.

The harder part is knowing that someone will always be left on the other side—and still deserves dignity.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.