Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Ever since the second modern Olympic Games held in Paris in 1900, Olympians have been broken into two distinct categories: male and female. I know—that sounds absurd in the modern world. But it’s true; people back in 1900 thought that men and women were different when it came to sports. They were sexist, they were transphobic, they were probably even—dare I say it—racist.
But fast forward 120 years or so, and biological reality is now questionable. Now, in the name of inclusivity, we’ve seen a push to allow athletes to enter female-only competitions based on how they identify.
For example, my male stallion—who identifies as a female human—recently entered the Queensland 100m final. Not only did she win the age championships, but she also broke the world record. See? Women can do anything!
But enough joking around. Let’s get back to the real world, where the new strategy for breaking female records apparently involves being a biological man.
But in the year of our Lord, 2026, something strange has happened—something that went completely against the approved script. As the ABC simply put it: “Trans athletes banned from competing in Olympic Games.” Apparently, the IOC has decided that only biological females will be allowed to compete in female events from now on. What? That’s crazy! Only females can compete in female events?! Who could have possibly seen that coming? Unsurprisingly, this “return to reality” has caused absolute chaos and controversy—at least in some circles.
The new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry—the first female and the first African to hold the office—made her decision very clear. She said:
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.”
In classic, “impartial” ABC style, they’ve questioned the move with headlines such as: “Warnings of abuse as trans women banned from Olympic female events,” and “Australian Olympic Committee backs Olympic transgender rules despite human rights concerns.” Human rights concerns? What about the rights of women to actually have a fair competition in their own category?
The Conversation, of course, got in on the sanctimonious moralising, claiming: “The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield.” And we can’t forget The Guardian: “Human rights experts raise concerns over Olympics transgender women athlete ban: Critics say new IOC guidelines violate fundamental human rights.”
That’s right—I was born a man, went through puberty as a male, and have increased bone density and other physical advantages, but now, as a trans woman, it’s my “fundamental human right” to dominate biological women in the Olympics!
Just to be clear, nobody is saying trans women can’t compete. They just can’t compete in the female category.
Unsurprisingly, The Guardian brought race into this. They actually claimed: “Athletes who are intersex or have differences of sex development, including cisgender women, will be overly affected by the new guidelines, with women of colour likely to be disproportionately targeted due to their appearance.”
What are they even saying here? That “women of colour”—whatever that means this week—are more likely to “look like men” and therefore face more scrutiny?
So, is this Korean sprinter more likely to be tested? What about this Indian tennis player? Who exactly are they talking about? It seems the only ones “targeting” women based on their appearance are the very journalists claiming to protect them.
The Guardian also interviewed human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden, who is firmly against the move. She warned:
“If these rules are adopted… your daughter… may be subjected to sex testing just to participate. Worse, it creates a culture where [someone] feels entitled to question whether your daughter ‘looks female enough’ to belong. That is not protecting women’s sport. That is policing girls’ bodies… The IOC’s new guidelines will be unlawful in Australia… Moving towards exclusionary, invasive rules is not only unnecessary, it is a step back over 25 years.”
But exactly how “invasive” are we talking here? The Conversation spells out the process:
“The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample. Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene [the gene associated with men’s sexual development] will be banned from the women’s category.”
So, a cheek swab. One time. To ensure the category for biological females actually contains… biological females.
So, what do you think? Has the IOC finally made the right move here? Or is the very fabric of human rights and the future of civilisation at risk because we’ve gone back to defining a woman as… a woman? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—I’m sure they’ll be civil.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
Ever since the second modern Olympic Games held in Paris in 1900, Olympians have been broken into two distinct categories: male and female. I know—that sounds absurd in the modern world. But it’s true; people back in 1900 thought that men and women were different when it came to sports. They were sexist, they were transphobic, they were probably even—dare I say it—racist.
But fast forward 120 years or so, and biological reality is now questionable. Now, in the name of inclusivity, we’ve seen a push to allow athletes to enter female-only competitions based on how they identify.
For example, my male stallion—who identifies as a female human—recently entered the Queensland 100m final. Not only did she win the age championships, but she also broke the world record. See? Women can do anything!
But enough joking around. Let’s get back to the real world, where the new strategy for breaking female records apparently involves being a biological man.
But in the year of our Lord, 2026, something strange has happened—something that went completely against the approved script. As the ABC simply put it: “Trans athletes banned from competing in Olympic Games.” Apparently, the IOC has decided that only biological females will be allowed to compete in female events from now on. What? That’s crazy! Only females can compete in female events?! Who could have possibly seen that coming? Unsurprisingly, this “return to reality” has caused absolute chaos and controversy—at least in some circles.
The new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry—the first female and the first African to hold the office—made her decision very clear. She said:
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.”
In classic, “impartial” ABC style, they’ve questioned the move with headlines such as: “Warnings of abuse as trans women banned from Olympic female events,” and “Australian Olympic Committee backs Olympic transgender rules despite human rights concerns.” Human rights concerns? What about the rights of women to actually have a fair competition in their own category?
The Conversation, of course, got in on the sanctimonious moralising, claiming: “The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield.” And we can’t forget The Guardian: “Human rights experts raise concerns over Olympics transgender women athlete ban: Critics say new IOC guidelines violate fundamental human rights.”
That’s right—I was born a man, went through puberty as a male, and have increased bone density and other physical advantages, but now, as a trans woman, it’s my “fundamental human right” to dominate biological women in the Olympics!
Just to be clear, nobody is saying trans women can’t compete. They just can’t compete in the female category.
Unsurprisingly, The Guardian brought race into this. They actually claimed: “Athletes who are intersex or have differences of sex development, including cisgender women, will be overly affected by the new guidelines, with women of colour likely to be disproportionately targeted due to their appearance.”
What are they even saying here? That “women of colour”—whatever that means this week—are more likely to “look like men” and therefore face more scrutiny?
So, is this Korean sprinter more likely to be tested? What about this Indian tennis player? Who exactly are they talking about? It seems the only ones “targeting” women based on their appearance are the very journalists claiming to protect them.
The Guardian also interviewed human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden, who is firmly against the move. She warned:
“If these rules are adopted… your daughter… may be subjected to sex testing just to participate. Worse, it creates a culture where [someone] feels entitled to question whether your daughter ‘looks female enough’ to belong. That is not protecting women’s sport. That is policing girls’ bodies… The IOC’s new guidelines will be unlawful in Australia… Moving towards exclusionary, invasive rules is not only unnecessary, it is a step back over 25 years.”
But exactly how “invasive” are we talking here? The Conversation spells out the process:
“The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample. Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene [the gene associated with men’s sexual development] will be banned from the women’s category.”
So, a cheek swab. One time. To ensure the category for biological females actually contains… biological females.
So, what do you think? Has the IOC finally made the right move here? Or is the very fabric of human rights and the future of civilisation at risk because we’ve gone back to defining a woman as… a woman? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—I’m sure they’ll be civil.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
