Mostly just new medical data that’s available. We started this process, I think it’s been like 20 months that we’ve been getting into this. There was a time when we thought the IOC was going to give clear across-the-board direction and that didn’t happen. The IOC ended up saying every sport kind of figure it out, I don’t mean this in a bad way, but it’s up to every sport to figure it out. Then we thought we’d get a federal law at least in the states that we could kind of lean against and that never happened … we kind of held out for a while thinking more clear national direction would be coming and it wasn’t.

So almost two years ago we put a team together to really dive into what do we know now. What is the new and most relevant medical and legal data on this topic. In a kind of strangely reassuring way, when we finished this process I remember saying to the team, ‘I understand the policy and I agree with the policy. Who else is in this space?’ World Aquatics and Track and Field was reassuring. The team said to me they are the two groups who have probably done the most homework on this like us, really dove in and really looked at it. It was all based on competitive fairness as the North Star. Right or wrong, let’s be able to look ourselves in the face and any competitor in one of our women’s events in the face and say if you’re in this event, nobody has a competitive advantage relative to their gender.

If you set competitive fairness as your North Star and you really do kind of dive into the current medical data and if you say, ‘Hey, I’ll allow anyone to play as long as you tell me no one has a competitive advantage,’ the current medical data suggests that if you transition post-puberty, no matter what you do, no matter what other things you take on, you probably can’t negate the competitive advantage that came with puberty and the spike of testosterone. By the same token, if you started before and then managed post, you would not have a competitive advantage. So if competitive advantage is your North Star, then the reality is it’s either at-birth or you have the opportunity to share that you transitioned pre-Tanner Stage 2. … I think at the end of the day, the non-golf people will write this as an at-birth policy and I think the people who take a closer look will say it’s an at-birth policy with a small available exception, but probably not one that will be utilized very often.

If I was being honest with you Beth, I would say that our team did not, but when we shared this to people who hadn’t spent the same amount of time as we did in the medical research, if you just said to somebody who doesn’t really want to get into the facts, we heard that from people: Hey, are you having concerns and I’ve always said the same thing. One is I don’t want to belittle the question, but I don’t think there’s a lot of 10-year-olds sitting at the kitchen table with mom and dad going ‘if we don’t transition now, your golf career is really in trouble.’ I just think this is a bigger issue and a bigger family issue, and I think we know that.

But in reality, even if you think I’m wrong and those conversations are going on, should somebody transition before puberty, they wouldn’t have a competitive advantage. So you could have that conversation and if really you’re going to transition because of your golf career I find that highly, highly unlikely but even if you are, that transition choice will not result in a competitive advantage. In either of those cases, we’re not talking about anything that matters if competitive fairness is your driving factor.

I want to say it was November of last year when they shared with us and we shared with them that we had a team that was diving into this and would it be uncomfortable if we shared a few thoughts along the way and vice versa. Our lawyers made it pretty clear that you could do that but you’ve gotta come to your own policy individually. My lawyers have told me that generally our policies are the same but there’s nuances. … I don’t think the LPGA and USGA will be the only golf entities that have a policy like this that’s pretty darn similar. I’m sure each will have some slight nuances, but I don’t think it will just be the two of us when it’s all said and done. The reality is if you do your homework on this like aquatics and like track and field and like us and the LPGA, you generally come to the same conclusions. You might have some slight differences about how you implement those policies, but I think generally and conceptually your policy is the same. And to be honest with you, I actually think that’s better for the sport than to have six different approaches.

I would just say the good news for the USGA is we host open championships and we host women’s championships. I’m not eliminating any opportunity for you to play golf and play golf in our USGA championships. I’m just saying in our women’s championships I want to make sure I can look at that field in the face, quite frankly look myself in the mirror, and say I haven’t allowed any competitive inequity based on policy. … This allows me or anybody else to stand at the podium and say like it or not like it that’s OK, just like any other policy we offer, but this does deliver fairness in our women’s championships.

Sure, yeah these are tough and legally bound things. But the fear of a lawsuit can’t stop you from doing the right thing. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said that in meetings and board meetings. Lawsuits are tough, you hate ’em, you spend a lot of time on ’em and money, but you shouldn’t let fear of a lawsuit stop you from doing what you think is right for your business and for competitions, and I believe wholeheartedly this is right for our competitions. If I have to sit in court and defend that, I will definitely do that.