Last week, the annual Tour of the Gila cycling race was held in New Mexico. The winner of the women’s division in the grueling, five-stage competition was 27-year-old Austin Killips. That immediately prompted an uproar because Killips is a man. (He’s variously described as a trans woman or a “male-bodied athlete.”) The governing body for competitive cycling is the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the organization originally defended its policy that allowed Killips to dominate the female competitors. They said that the UCI “continues to follow the evolution of scientific findings and may change its rules in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.”

Well, that scientific knowledge must have evolved pretty quickly. Following the predictable uproar from actual female competitors, only days later, UCI put out a new statement. The group now says that they will revisit the trans athlete policy and issue a new version, likely by August. (Townhall)

On Thursday, the organization came forward and said it would “analyze the current situation” and revisit its trans athlete policy. A new decision is anticipated in August, according to the New York Post.

“The UCI’s objective remains the same: to take into consideration, in the context of the evolution of our society, the desire of transgender athletes to practice cycling,” the organization reportedly said. “The UCI also hears the voices of female athletes and their concerns about an equal playing field for competitors, and will take into account all elements, including the evolution of scientific knowledge.”

“Austin is cycling’s equivalent of Lia Thomas,” Inga Thompson, a three-time US Olympian and five-time national road race champion, told The Telegraph after Killips won this week.

Inga Thompson, the Olympic champion cyclist (and an actual woman) went on to tell reporters that there are more than 50 trans cyclists currently competing and some women are just quietly walking away. “Why bother if it’s not fair?”

I also wanted to touch on the previous statement that UCI put out. What is this “evolution of scientific findings” that they referred to? Has there been some new peer-reviewed medical paper published recently saying, ‘Oh, our bad. It turns out the people with Y chromosomes and penises really are men after all?’ That would be a welcome announcement, but I clearly missed it if it happened.

The current policy requires trans competitors to restrict their plasma testosterone level to 2.5 nanomoles per liter and remain in “transition” for at least 24 months. But as one athlete after another has pointed out, the testosterone levels of competitors when they are 27 years old don’t matter. What matters is their testosterone level when they were 12 to 14 and going through puberty and their initial male growth spurt.

To be clear, the UCI has yet to say what the new policy will be when it’s released this summer. The changes could include anything from additional cosmetic considerations to even lower testosterone levels to a full ban on males competing in the women’s division. While a full ban would be ideal and the only truly fair way to support female athletes, there just may not be enough political spine in the UCI to make that happen.

In closing, there’s one related question we should consider. Why are all of these stories about male-to-female trans athletes? Where are all of the women transitioning to men dominating the actual men in competitive sports? Aside from that one female wrestler in North Carolina, you don’t hear any stories like that. And you don’t hear them because women don’t have a natural, biological advantage over men in physically competitive sports. Is this really so difficult to understand?