The NAIA Just Banned Trans Woman Athletes. Harvard Can’t Let the NCAA Follow.

Today, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics approved an unprecedented ban on the participation of transgender women, in a move that could pressure other major governing bodies of athletics, including the National Collegiate Athletics Association, to follow suit.

According to the official press release, “Only NAIA student-athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in NAIA-sponsored female sports.” The policy does not specify how it defines biological sex, nor does it clarify its implications for intersex athletes. It also excludes athletes who have begun “any masculinizing hormone therapy.”

This ban comes amid increased scrutiny over trans bodies in sport and an explosion of anti-trans legislation across the country. To date, at least 24 states have enacted policies restricting transgender participation in sports, 18 of which restrict participation in college sports in particular.

Harsher policies have been on the rise in state legislatures since 2020, but today’s ban appears to be the first of its kind from a national college governing body. Though the NAIA, which includes mostly smaller colleges, is not as large a body as the NCAA, its decision sets a dangerous precedent and could augur a striking shift for collegiate athletics.

The standard for trans athlete participation in college has long been set by the NCAA, which established its first policy in 2011, when it released guidance that allowed students to compete on teams aligned with their gender identity, though it did require one year of testosterone suppression for trans woman athletes.

The policy was updated in 2022, when the NCAA adopted a sport-by-sport approach to determining requirements for participation reflective of the framework used by the International Olympic Committee, an evidence-based approach that centers non-discrimination and the well-being of trans and intersex athletes while recognizing the significant differences between sports.

Compared with the IOC guidelines, the NCAA’s sport-by-sport policy has clear issues, including a lack of safeguards against invasive procedures like genitalia examinations. Still, the policy gives trans athletes a seat at the table and retains the potential for ongoing discussion.

The NAIA’s new ban fails to accomplish even this. The change seems to align with dubious claims that transgender athletes — specifically trans women — have an unconditionally unfair advantage. But this is simply incorrect. A wealth of evidence suggests that testosterone is not a clear or consistent indicator of athletic ability.

Moreover, such a view fails to acknowledge the biological diversity that is inherent to, and even necessary for, sport. Michael Phelps, the winningest Olympian of all time, is frequently celebrated for unique physical characteristics — including a wingspan longer than his height and abnormally low levels of lactic-acid production — that contribute to his success.

Additionally, the impact of certain physical characteristics on performance varies greatly from sport to sport. By regulating all sports as though they are identical, the NAIA’s blanket policy arbitrarily harms trans woman athletes.

Trans people are not arguing for zero regulation, but rather that regulators follow evidence-backed guidance about fair trans inclusion. While such guidance also creates barriers to trans athlete participation, they at least leave room for trans athletes to compete in the sports they love.

Beyond just the effect of the ban itself, we are deeply concerned that this new ban has been driven by increasing anti-trans pressure, most recently by a lawsuit filed against the NCAA by 16 college athletes.

Reka Gyorgy, a former Virginia Tech swimmer and a plaintiff in the case, shares in the opening quote of the lawsuit that she believes her rights were violated after placing seventeenth in an event, behind trans athlete Lia Thomas and fifteen cisgender athletes. But losing a race hardly seems a violation of individual Title IX rights, especially when the alternative is removing transgender athletes from the race entirely — arguably, a clearer infringement on the rights accorded by Title IX.

And, for those who want to support women’s athletics — a laudable, important goal — trans participation is the last place to start.

A report from 2022 found that 50 years after the passage of Title IX, 86 percent of NCAA institutions still offered disproportionately more athletic opportunities to male athletes. In the 2019-2020 academic year, this translated to 58,913 missed opportunities for female athletes. There are many other well-documented threats to women in sports, including sexual abuse, harassment, and unequal access to resources like facilities and coaching.

As trans leaders and a trans athlete, we have witnessed firsthand how anti-trans athletics policies affect trans people’s ability to live our day-to-day lives. We agree that there is a need for conversations, both in research and in the trans community, about fair trans inclusion in athletics. But, by enacting a blanket ban on trans athletes, the NAIA has not created space for conversation — they have shut it down completely.

The NAIA is sweepingly denying trans women participation. If that is not the definition of discrimination, what is?

Though Harvard may not be a member of the NAIA, it is essential that we make our voices heard during this crucial moment. The University, the Ivy League, and their affiliates should make clear to the NCAA that they will not stand for a similar policy. This ban is not just an affront to transgender athletes, it is an affront to Harvard’s most central values: veritas, diversity, and civil discourse across difference.

We call on Harvard Athletics to publicly reaffirm its commitment to protecting trans+ student-athletes, and the University to ensure trans+ athletes are safe, happy, and welcome at Harvard. We call on cisgender athletes to support their transgender peers in advocacy for their right to play.

Sports are for everyone. Transgender athletes deserve access to life-saving sport spaces, to build community and engage in competition, at all ages and levels. We must keep fighting to defend it.

The NAIA’s ban on trans women is abhorrent and unacceptable — we cannot let the NCAA bend to pressure and follow suit. The ball is in our court now, Harvard. We can’t drop it.

E. Matteo Diaz ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall. Kris King ’24 is a joint concentrator in History of Science and Women and Gender Studies in Kirkland House and competes for Harvard’s curling team, a club sport not governed by the NCAA.