The winning case was not simply about who takes medals; it was about what the women’s category is for. No voters argued that it secures “fair competition for female athletes” and that even participation can “take space away from women ultimately”.
The most-respected No argument made that point through representation as well as performance: “just making the Olympics is an honour”, it said, before concluding that competing in one’s “biological sex” should be the rule. Other No voters put the case more bluntly, including one who said, “Women’s sport is for women.” The argument had a protective, sometimes angry tone; some comments turned from sporting boundaries to personal attacks, which sharpened the rhetoric without adding much to the case about competition.
Yes voters’ most-respected arguments tried to narrow the question. One drew a line between everyday sport and elite events: “99.9% of people are in sport for the fun and exercise”, it said, adding that elite sport could be restricted. Another argued that after hormone treatment “any advantage is completely gone” and pointed to the risk that restrictions could affect other female athletes. Those cases put the practical limits of a blanket rule in view, but left unresolved how a workable boundary would be set across different sports and levels of competition.
The debate lands amid a national policy shift towards sex-based categories, with governing bodies reviewing rules after the 2025 Supreme Court ruling. But the arguments here also exposed a divide over whether inclusion can be accommodated within women’s sport, or whether the category’s purpose depends on excluding trans women from it.
The sharpest disagreement was over what, exactly, women’s sport is there to protect.
107 Opinions
People miss the point arguing trans athletes aren't winning everything or how they can be limited. The space was made for women to have representation and just making the Olympics is an honour for example. It takes space away from women ultimately. It should be as simple as competing in your biological sex.
You actually mean "should men be allowed to compete in women's sport".
This is a ridiculous notion. The physical advantages are known. They can compete in the male category or start their own events and compete against each other. Women's sport is for women. Biological women.
Transwomen are biological men and Under the supreme court ruling men can’t enter women’s single sex sports and should not be participating in women’s sports. It has been proven that men are physically more stronger than women (even those taking female hormones) and have an unfair advantage over women. The majority of them win in the sports they participate in, denying women the right of winning.
After the turmoil that society had to go through to empower women and respect their rights, it is absolutely staggering that the 'yes' vote us as high as 17%. Absolute lunacy.
Just NO
Self determined identity does not erase a persons biological reality. It is grotesquely unfair to allow Males to compete against Females.
"Should men be allowed to complete in women's sport?" Fixed that for you.
They are not women. Males are on average stronger and quicker than females thanks to Evolution.
Women's sport exists to provide fair competition for female athletes. Their safety, records, medals and opportunities are not bargaining chips. Women should not be forced to compete at a biological disadvantage to accommodate male-born competitors. Nor should autogynephilia, where relevant to an individual, override sex-based sporting rules. Protect the female category. No ideological loopholes, no compulsory inclusion and no sacrificing women's sporting rights.