As a licensed mental health professional, I understand the importance of grounding practice and policy in scientific evidence—something we should also expect from our public health institutions. There is no single, simple way to determine who is "biologically female." Sex determination is a complex process involving chromosomes, hormone levels, gene expression, and anatomy, as well as an individual’s deeply felt sense of gender identity. Reducing it to external genitalia is both scientifically inaccurate and ethically problematic.

Requiring full biological assessments to determine eligibility for school sports is not only impractical—it would be invasive and deeply humiliating for the athletes involved. We've already seen real-world consequences: cisgender women have been wrongly targeted and scrutinized because they don’t fit rigid or stereotypical ideas of femininity. In the rush to police the presence of trans women in sports, we risk harming all women, especially those who are tall, muscular, or otherwise perceived as "too masculine."

While biological differences between men and women do exist, research consistently shows there is significant variability and overlap. Many cisgender women outperform cisgender men in athletics—should these exceptional athletes be banned simply because they defy expectations? Or is it time to expand our understanding of sports performance to reflect the full diversity of human biology and identity?