USA Fencing's Transgender Policy Disadvantages Girls in Cadet Events
FP is generally on board with USA Fencing’s current transgender policy which was finalized in October 2022, but we have serious concerns on the policy as it relates to cadet women’s events.
The resulting disadvantage from the policy affects female fencers in the Y14 and Cadet age groups, that is, teenagers aged 13, 14, 15 and 16, since it is normal for Y14 fencers to fence up to Cadet events as part of their development as fencers.
FP carefully reviewed the policy after receiving a number of concerned emails from parents about how the USA Fencing transgender policy disadvantages their teenage daughters in cadet women’s events. The trigger for these emails was likely the 2nd Zoom session with Board candidates where the transgender policy was discussed bringing the existence of the policy to both FP’s and parents’ attention.
According to USA Fencing, the implementation of the transgender policy was “heavily communicated”, but most parents apparently missed the heavy communication, which was perhaps not directed at them.
Let’s look closely at why we believe the policy as it relates to cadet women’s events is problematic.
Fairness in Sports Competition
A key guiding principle in all sports is fair competition. The transgender policy in place for cadet women’s events undermines this principle.
Cadet-aged fencers are those who fall into the 15 and 16 year old age brackets, ages at which teenagers have clearly attained puberty. The physical differences, including height, strength, endurance and speed between boys and girls is pronounced at age 15, and even more so at 16. These physical differences give boys a significant advantage over girls when it comes to sports competition.
However, USA Fencing’s transgender policy ignores these manifest physical differences between boys and girls by the time they reach ages 15 and 16. The policy allows for unrestricted participation in cadet women’s events for transgender fencers, which creates a strong competitive disadvantage for the girls. This contrasts with Junior and Senior events where restrictions requiring hormone suppressant/booster treatment for a minimum of one year are in place for transgender women competitors regardless of age.
See: USA Fencing’s Transgender Policy
The transgender policy for cadet women’s events means that a 16 year old boy with post-pubescent male physiology who identifies as a transgender woman can compete unrestricted against girls in cadet events. This puts girls who compete in cadet events at a significant disadvantage when their opponent is a post-pubescent transgender woman who has not received hormone suppressant/booster treatment.
The issue is exacerbated at the national level, when so much more is at stake - national medals, national points, qualifying for the cadet traveling team, and not to mention the time and money invested by the fencer and her family in training and travel to national competition.
USA Fencing must address and resolve the obvious disadvantage for girls in cadet women’s events due to its current transgender policy.
Is this problem resolvable?
FP believes that it is solvable with some tweaks to the current transgender policy.
There is precedent at the US Tennis Association which makes a distinction between competitive tennis players and recreational and league players. The USTA policy is a reasonable one that takes into account the differing goals between competitive and recreational players.
Competitive players have much more at stake, and USTA recognizes this with specific requirements that transgender players must meet in order to compete:
“Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimize gender-related advantages in sport competitions.”
Recreational and league tennis players are in the sport for fun and relaxation. USTA recognizes these aspirations with an unrestricted transgender policy for recreational and league players.
According to USTA:
“ Above all, we do not want to be an obstacle to recreational participation. We seek to respect all backgrounds, lifestyles and personal choices, and we take it on faith that players who compete under these rules are doing so not to gain a competitive advantage, but to enjoy participating in a manner in which they are comfortable.”
Based on the USTA precedent for a bifurcated policy, USA Fencing could adjust its transgender policy for cadet women’s events by making a distinction between events at the national level and events at the regional and local level.
Under such a policy, participation in regional and local cadet events would be unrestricted but participation at national cadet women’s events would require transgender women competing in cadet women’s events to comply with the same rules that apply to Junior and Senior events.
USA Fencing Transgender policy for Junior, Senior and Veterans events provides that “Athletes who provide proof of testosterone suppression treatment for a minimum period of one year may compete in women’s events provided the proof is submitted prior to competition.”
Under USA Fencing’s Transgender Policy, youth and cadet transgender fencers who qualify to compete in Junior and Senior women’s events must provide proof of hormone treatment in order to participate in Junior and Senior events.
It seems reasonable to extend this requirement to transgender women competing in cadet women’s events at the national level. This requirement will bring back fairness to cadet women’s events at the national level, without impacting the ability of transgender women to compete freely at regional and local cadet women’s events.
But USA Fencing has flatly refused to discuss a solution
Hiding behind the veil that the medical evidence continues to be fluid, USA Fencing has flatly refused to discuss the issue.
Phil Andrews, the USA Fencing CEO was definitive that any conversation or position that disagreed with USA Fencing’s current transgender policy was “unreasonable”. We are deeply disappointed by this arrogant, know-it-all attitude.
Good leadership requires listening to the legitimate concerns of all parties. In this case, Phil Andrews dismissed the concerns of parents of teenage daughters without any attempt to understand them, or even allow the conversation to begin.
USA Fencing does not need any medical evidence to ensure that there is fairness for girls in cadet women’s events at the national level, it simply requires common sense and empathy. USA Fencing appears to be missing both.
USA Fencing has also been intellectually dishonest in refusing to admit that its transgender policy regarding cadet women’s events undermines the interests of the girls. In email exchanges with FP, USA Fencing has been at pains to emphasize that inclusion is a priority while refusing to acknowledge that some of this inclusion has come at a cost: structurally disadvantaging girls.
Not only are girls at a physical disadvantage against post-pubescent teenage boys who identify as transgender women, but they will also struggle to understand why it is justified to put them at a disadvantage.
USA Fencing should not be the deity that gets to determine who bears that cost.
For those at USA Fencing who claim to stand for female equality and want to see more women’s participation in fencing, they should understand that the appeal starts with the girls. If USA Fencing makes them feel second class, they are unlikely to stick with the sport, which would be a loss for the whole fencing community.
For such a small sport, USA Fencing is plagued with issues of sexual harassment of women and sexual abuse of female youth fencers, and now it chooses to dictate to teenage girls that they must take a backseat to USA Fencing’s declared priority of inclusion for transgender women in cadet women’s events. Does USA Fencing really value the women in the community?
USA Fencing failed to consult the largest stakeholder in cadet women’s events
The girls most impacted by the USA Fencing transgender policy for cadet women’s events were never consulted in any way during the formulation of this policy. Their parents and legal representatives only learned about the policy long after it had been approved by the USA Fencing Board.
According to the current USA Fencing membership database, there are 1,300 girls who fall within USA Fencing’s definition of cadet eligibility (those born 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009). They were not consulted.
Sadly, this lack of transparency and consistent failure to consult those most likely to bear the consequences of its policies is a bad habit at USA Fencing.
USA Fencing’s justification for its transgender policy for cadet women’s events
In a lengthy email exchange that FP had with USA Fencing this week, USA Fencing explained how it reached its policy decision as follows:
“USA Fencing is committed to ensuring the inclusion and fair treatment of all athletes, which includes women and transgender athletes. Currently, while there have been studies that investigate the intricacies of athlete performance of transgender female athletes vs cisgender female athletes ( e.g., cycling endurance, number of push-ups, lung capacity, etc.), there is no substantial generalizable evidence that suggests hormonal suppressants should be placed on teenagers. It is also important to recognize there is no evidence that informs the long-term effects of regulating transgender youth to hormonal suppressants/boosters. As such, the policy's blueprint replicated the NCAAs policy of 12-months of suppression for young adults. We also chose not to enforce hormonal restrictions on youth because of the existent laws in certain states that disadvantage transgender youth and prevent them from receiving gender affirming treatment, which would inevitably exclude this population from participation in our sport. Presently, the only public evidenced-based research on the matter suggests that adult transgender female athletes on 12 months or more of consistent medical adherence will significantly lower testosterone levels.”
Let’s unpack what this statement from USA Fencing actually says:
USA Fencing is committed to ensuring inclusion and fair treatment of all athletes, which includes women and transgender athletes.
The physical differences between boys and girls aged 15 and 16 give boys an advantage in sports, and create an unfair situation for girls when boys who identify as transgender women are allowed to unconditionally compete against them in women’s events. Does USA Fencing really mean what it says about fairness?
Currently, while there have been studies that investigate the intricacies of athlete performance of transgender female athletes vs cisgender female athletes ( e.g., cycling endurance, number of push-ups, lung capacity, etc.), there is no substantial generalizable evidence that suggests hormonal suppressants should be placed on teenagers. It is also important to recognize there is no evidence that informs the long-term effects of regulating transgender youth to hormonal suppressants/boosters. As such, the policy's blueprint replicated the NCAAs policy of 12-months of suppression for young adults.
USA Fencing has no medical evidence in hand that supports or disproves the use of hormone suppressants on teenagers. As such, it decided to only impose requirements for hormonal suppressant treatments on young adults competing in Junior and Senior events.
But then USA Fencing contradicts itself by imposing these same requirements for hormonal suppressant treatments on transgender Cadet athletes who qualify to compete in Junior and Senior events. In USA Fencing parlance, Cadet athletes include athletes aged 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Since these restrictions are already in place for cadet athletes who compete in Junior and Senior events, it seems reasonable to request USA Fencing to extend this restriction to transgender cadet athletes competing in cadet women’s events at the national level. But as we pointed out earlier, USA Fencing has refused to consider this option.
We also chose not to enforce hormonal restrictions on youth because of the existent laws in certain states that disadvantage transgender youth and prevent them from receiving gender affirming treatment, which would inevitably exclude this population from participation in our sport.
USA Fencing shared the map on the left showing the states that have banned or are about to ban hormone treatments for those under age 18. Due to the the large number of states that could end up banning hormone treatments for transgender youth, we agree with USA Fencing that we should not impose a blanket requirement for transgender youth at all ages to undergo hormone treatment before participating in women’s events - the result would be highly exclusionary of transgender youth.
However, in the spirit of fair competition, USA Fencing has already imposed hormone suppressing requirements on transgender Cadet athletes who qualify for Junior and Senior events at the national, regional and local levels. In the same spirit of fairness, it is reasonable to expand the same hormone suppressing requirements to apply to transgender athletes who compete in women’s cadet events at the national level.
4. Presently, the only public evidenced-based research on the matter suggests that adult transgender female athletes on 12 months or more of consistent medical adherence will significantly lower testosterone levels
In other words, there is very little medical evidence available in general to inform decisions on transgender policy.
Given the lack of medical evidence, what did USA Fencing rely on to make its transgender policy?
USA Fencing says that its policy is “…. informed by relevant evidence-based research pertaining transgender female athletic performance, counsel from partners at Athlete Ally and The Inclusion Playbook, and medical advisement from our partners at Mount Sinai.”
While USA Fencing sought advice from groups that promote inclusivity for LGBTQ+ groups, it appears that USA Fencing did not bother to consult the stakeholders (its own members!) who would be most impacted by the transgender policies.
Despite being a sports organization and the national governing body for fencing, USA Fencing seems to have forgotten about the principles of fairness in sports. USA Fencing has designed a policy that makes Y14 and Cadet female fencers cede ground in the name of inclusivity.
USA Fencing - you are, first of all, a sports organization
As a sports organization, we expect USA Fencing to preserve fairness in competition at all times. We are fully supportive of inclusion of transgender athletes in the sport of fencing, but this inclusion cannot come at the expense of Y14 and Cadet female fencers.
We have suggested a solution to USA Fencing to restore some level of fairness in cadet women’s events. But USA Fencing has called the solution “unreasonable” without explanation and has refused further discussion.
We can only read into this arrogance that USA Fencing considers the interests of some members as less important than others.
What Parents, Coaches and Members Can Do Now to Restore Fairness to cadet women’s events
The USA Fencing Board is responsible for the Transgender Policy. You can write to the Board to express your dissatisfaction with the current Transgender Policy. The more people who write to the Board, the greater the likelihood that the Board will get the message to revisit the policy and restore fairness in competitions for cadet women’s events.
The email address to reach members of the Board is: board@usafencing.org
The Board Chair has a separate email address: chair@usafencing.org
Create a petition requesting the Board to review its current Transgender Policy for cadet women’s events and restore fairness to them. FP will gladly help to distribute the petition to its email list.
Note: FP recognizes that the transition through puberty starts at ages 13 and 14 or slightly earlier, ages which encompass fencers in the Y14 age group. Because there are big differences in timing of when a teenager, male or female, begins the transition through puberty, the physical advantages that accrue to post-pubescent boys is not clearcut in the Y14 age group. As such, and in the spirit of inclusivity, FP recommends that participation in Y14 events remains unconditional for boys who identify as transgender women at the national, regional and local levels.
