THE DANGEROUS FANTASY DRIVING THE GENDER DEBATE IN SPORT

I was sent this article by a supporter of my work. I assume it was published today. She asked me to comment on the claims being made in the article above, because they seemed to be outrageous and devoid of reality. Upon reading the article, I felt compelled to drop everything and respond factually, and forcefully — but respectfully — of course!

Below is the full article by Alice Soper, reproduced so readers can see exactly what is being argued, followed by my response.

---

Who is Alice Soper?

Sports commentator, women's rugby advocate, activist, columnist.

Alice Soper is a Wellington-based former rugby player who has moved into media and advocacy. I understand she is the daughter of Barry Soper, a well-known New Zealand political journalist, who I have met several times over the years, and have huge respect for him.

Alice writes opinion pieces for the New Zealand Herald, appears on panels and podcasts, and speaks regularly on women’s rugby, gender politics, and inclusion in sport. Her background and strength lie in advocacy, campaigning, and commentary, not in biology, sports physiology, or performance science.

Key points about her work and perspective:

• Positions herself as a strong voice for women’s rugby and gender equity in sport

• Frames sport as historically patriarchal and exclusionary toward women

• Argues that performance gaps are largely social and historical, not biological

• Strongly supports trans inclusion in women’s sport and criticises sex-based protections

• Regularly attacks governing bodies like the IOC as sexist, racist, or transphobic

• Tends to treat disagreements as political or “right-wing”, rather than scientific

• Frequently uses terms like “cis women”, which I find demeaning, reductive, and offensive — women are women, and need no qualifying label

Alice writes from an advocacy-first viewpoint. She is not a physiologist or performance scientist, and her claims about biology, fairness, and history need careful fact-checking.

This is important context for reading the article below and for understanding why her conclusions diverge so sharply from real-world sporting reality.

---

IOC’s gender rules reignite debate on fairness in sport

By Alice Soper

Once upon a time there was no gender categorisation in sport. No women’s sports or men’s sports – there was just sport.

This is because, for most of our history, sport worked hard to keep women out. The original Olympic Games excluded women, as they were a celebration of masculinity. It’s no wonder then that women’s sports were only created when their participation posed a threat to that manhood.

The first gendered categories appeared once women could finally enter sports and started winning. Madge Syers’ dominance against men created the category she skated in to win Olympic gold back in 1908.

Nearly 100 years later, Zhang Shan broke the Olympic record, winning gold in skeet shooting. As a result, her mixed category disappeared, and women could only return in a segregated division two Olympic cycles later. It was the fear of women, not the fear for women, that created sport’s gendered divide.

This is an inconvenient truth behind the current gender debate in sport. But then, it is perhaps revealing too of why this discussion so quickly devolves into stereotypes. Sport, for so long, has been an important tool to uphold them after all.

If women are empowered and enabled to reach their true athletic potential, and that closes the gap between them and their male counterpart, the myth of the weaker sex will soon crumble.

The wider political order is still very determined to uphold this particular foundational myth. Which is why women’s sport – once so invisible – is now every right-wing politician’s favourite talking point.

Equality of the sexes is not just the fantasy of feminism; it’s borne out in results. As Sheree Bekker and Stephen Mumford argue in their book Open Play: “The most significant variable in comparing men’s and women’s sporting performance seems to be time.”

Multiple records once set by men have since been broken by women. The key difference appears to be the head-start sport has afforded to men.

Rather than address any of the discrepancies in programming, rules, coaching, research, or attitudes, the International Olympic Committee is leaning into these stereotypes.

Ready to enact the findings of their Protection of the Female Category committee, the IOC is introducing a blanket ban on trans participation. If enacted, this continues the IOC’s long tradition of excluding one group of athletes to reportedly protect another.

First it was men’s sensibilities that needed protecting from women’s participation. Now it’s cis women from everyone else.

Since the beginning, the Olympic sex-testing policies have claimed to be targeting deceitful men. When in reality they have caught everyone else in their invasive testing practices.

Over the past century, the IOC has cycled through physical exams, chromosomal testing, and hormone measures. For the most part relying on accusations which unsurprisingly end up aligning with racist, homophobic, and transphobic views.

In all these years of testing, they’ve not found a single man misrepresenting himself but instead found that our sex doesn’t always align with our gender. This practice has trampled on the rights of intersex athletes and created more hoops for cis women to jump through. Trans women have opened up their medical records and exposed themselves to abuse for the chance to compete.

Meanwhile, men continue to be lauded for their genetic differences – more confirmation of the myth of their innate superiority. They created gendered categories to keep women out of men’s sport and now are paranoid of the opposite.

Athletes have cycled through shifting definitions of sex and complied with all testing requirements. Imagine if instead of chasing confirmation of our society’s bias, we unpacked them back at the beginning.

Only then would we know what a woman could be.

---

My Response

This is ideology vs reality in women's sport

Let me get straight to the point: what is being argued above is not only wrong — it is dangerous.

It is an ideology dressed up as sporting philosophy, pushing the absurd idea that the differences between male and female athletes are merely historical or political. According to this fantasy, biology plays almost no role. Men aren’t stronger — they were simply given a head-start. Women lag behind only because of "society". And if we remove sex categories altogether, the argument goes, women will suddenly perform at the same level as men.

If only life were that simple.

My sister Lorraine, 4X Olympian, a beautiful and strong female athlete. Firmly grounded in reality. A tireless advocate for women's rights, including in sport - of course.

This is the problem with theories written from behind a desk rather than from the sidelines of a rugby field, or a lifetime inside training rooms, medical tents, and performance labs. It is the fantasy of people who have never had to pick an unconscious athlete off the turf.

Let’s apply this thinking to Alice’s own sport: rugby.

If her argument is true, then women should be playing men — right now

If women can “close the gap” merely through time and opportunity, then why do we have women’s rugby at all?

If biology is just a patriarchal myth:

• Why aren’t the Black Ferns entering Super Rugby Pacific?

• Why don’t we see women packing down in the front row against 115kg men?

• Why don’t we send women onto the field for full-force collisions with players who can generate twice their kinetic energy?

If Alice’s argument is correct, the logical conclusion is simple:

Women should be competing directly against men.

Not tomorrow.

Not hypothetically.

Now.

But even she knows that would be a disaster.

Because biology is not a social construct. It is not optional. It is not erased by virtue of signalling. It is written into the bone, the tendon, the muscle fibre, the haemoglobin count, the VO2 max, the mitochondrial density, the pelvis shape, the limb length, the fast-twitch ratio, and the testosterone-sculpted architecture of the male athlete.

You can’t evidence-wish that away. Not in rugby.

Women would be physically destroyed in men's rugby

I’ve spent half a century in natural health, high-performance sport, and sports medicine. I’ve worked with elite men and elite women. I’ve seen the injuries up close. I know what a 100kg collision looks like. I know what a 120kg collision feels like.

Here is the hard truth:

• Elite women would not make the bench in a top men’s club side.

• They would not survive the impacts.

• They would not be safe.

• They would be injured — badly — and regularly.

Not because they are weak.

They’re not. Women are tough as nails.

But because men and women are built differently — and always will be.

This is why women’s sport exists at all.

The absurdity of her position

Alice argues that:

• Women are being “held back”

• The performance gap is mostly social

• Separate categories exist because of sexism

• Equality of performance is achievable

• Sex testing is discriminatory

• Biological fairness standards are political

• Banning transwomen is unjust

But she wants to keep women’s rugby.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either:

a) Sex differences matter — and women need their own safe, fair competition

or

b) Sex differences don’t matter — and women should compete against men, eliminating women’s sport entirely

Her article tries to live in a magical middle space where biology is denied but women’s rugby somehow survives.

It won’t. It can’t. Biology doesn’t bend to ideology.

Most dangerous of all: What she proposes is not safe

I have daughters. I have granddaughters. I have helped countless young women with their fitness, health and injury challenges. I have advocated for women’s sport for decades.

Nothing — and I mean nothing — would destroy women’s sport faster than pretending sex differences don’t exist.

And nothing would endanger women more than placing them in contact sports against biological males.

We already see women concussed at alarming rates in women’s rugby.

Introduce men into that arena and the rates will skyrocket.

This is not equality.

This is negligence.

Women deserve truth, not ideology

The great tragedy is that this kind of argument masquerades as progressive, when in reality it undermines women entirely.

Women’s sport exists because women deserve:

• Fairness

• Safety

• Opportunity

• Respect

• Recognition

• Excellence based on their physiology

Take away sex-based categories and women disappear — not metaphorically, not politically, but physically.

That is the unavoidable truth that no amount of ideological enthusiasm can erase.

So let me be very clear:

The argument Alice Soper is promoting is not just wrong. It is reckless. And it has no place in the conversation about women’s sport.

• Women deserve better than comforting lies.

• They deserve biological truth.

• They deserve a fair playing field.

• And above all, they deserve to be safe.

Stand up for truth, fairness, and real women's sport

If you care about the future of women’s sport — real women’s sport, grounded in biology, safety, fairness, and common sense — now is the time to speak up.

This debate is not about ideology. It is not about scoring political points. It is not about appeasing noisy activists. It is about protecting women and preserving the integrity of sport for future generations.

Here’s what you can do today:

• Speak the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable.

• Challenge ideology when it denies biology.

• Refuse to let women’s sport be sacrificed to fashionable politics.

• Support policies that keep female athletes safe.

• Do not allow biological males to use female changing rooms - full-stop — no exceptions.

• Teach your children — especially your daughters — that fairness matters.

Sport should bring out the best in us, not the most deluded.

If we don’t defend reality, nobody else will.

Let's restore honesty, courage, and common sense to sport in New Zealand and beyond.