“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” 

That is the title of the executive order President Donald Trump signed on Feb. 5 in the East Room of the White House. In keeping with promises Trump made on the campaign trail, this sweeping mandate essentially prohibits transgender women and girls from competing in women’s sports. A failure to comply, per the order, will result in a loss of federal funding. “From now on,” says Trump, “women’s sports will only be for women.”

The WTA Tour has been largely on the sidelines of this cultural hot-button issue. Surprising, given that perhaps the most prominent transgender athlete in history made her mark in women’s tennis nearly a half-century ago. 

Renée Richards began playing professional tennis in 1976. Prior to the 1976 U.S. Open, Richards, then 42, refused to take a chromosomal test and sued the USTA alleging discrimination by gender. In the summer of ’77, New York State Supreme Court Judge Alfred Ascione ruled in Richards’s favor, reasoning, “This person is now a female.” Richards lost in the first round of singles to Virginia Wade, the Wimbledon winner earlier that summer; but reached the final in doubles, before losing to Martina Navratilova and her partner, Betty Stove. 

Richards would go on to crack the top 20 before retiring at age 47. She would remain part of the tennis firmament, including a stint coaching Navratilova. (She was featured in Sports Illustrated in 2019.) As recently as last year, at age 90, she attended the U.S. Open. 

Despite her personal experience and expertise in medical science, she has been a muted voice in the current debate. “Sports’ accidental transgender pioneer,” The London Telegraph called her.

However, last April, the WTA asked her to weigh in, as the tour revisited its eligibility policy. With a mix of personal anecdotes, legal history and journal-citing scholarship, Richards offered her views. 

The WTA did not, ultimately, follow Richards’s recommendations—which are strikingly consistent with the Trump policy as well as the LPGA’s rules, which state that players must be biologically female at birth or have transitioned before puberty. The WTA policy, which distinguishes between biological sex and gender identity and can be read here, relies heavily on the concentration of a player’s testosterone. 

Richards gave Sports Illustrated consent to reprint the full recommendation she offered the WTA last April. It reads as follows:

Remarks to Gender Policy Review Working Group—WTA

April 9, 2024:

Greetings and thank you for the invitation to participate in your meeting. The timing of your invitation is significant for two reasons. 1. The subject of transgender women participation in sports has recently aroused considerable public interest yet very little has been discussed about tennis, and 2. Although it has taken many more years than I had expected, I am finally, now, being asked to contribute to the discussion, and I am reasonably certain that I am still in sound mind enough, in my 90th year, to attempt to do so.

My remarks cover three subjects: 1. my own personal history, 2. my interpretation of the current literature on the subject [mostly from Canada and the USA], and 3. some policy recommendations. 

To begin—I have spent a lifetime in sports—almost half as a man, half as a woman. In perspective, I won my first tennis tournament in 1944 at the age of 10: ‘Sunrise Tennis Club Boys’ champion,’ my first Women’s tournament in Hawaii in 1976 at the age of 44, and my first WTA event in Pensacola the following year. As a boy I excelled at sports—mostly baseball and tennis, I was considered by major league scouts in baseball, and I had success in tennis in many different categories—high school, college, U.S. Navy, and Eastern and National amateur events. ‘Open’ tennis only came to exist in 1968, my entire tennis career in boys, juniors, and men was as an amateur. My lifetime in sports is still ongoing. I have been a member of the ladies’ golf league at the public/private club near my home for the past 20 years.

My ‘sex reassignment surgery’ was in 1973. I moved to Newport Beach California in 1975, played amateur tennis happily at The John Wayne Club there, and when I won an amateur women’s tournament in La Jolla I was outed on national television. I had had no thought of playing professional women’s tennis until I was informed that I would not be allowed to do so and then, for all kinds of conscious and subconscious reasons, I sued to be allowed to play at the U.S. Open.

I had been enjoying great success in the profession I was ordained for since birth, I had no wish to become a professional women’s tennis player. But when I was told I would not be allowed to do that, and when letters started pouring in to me from people from all walks of life who had felt discriminated against, I took my case to court. Had I not been told I couldn’t do something other women could do, I would not have sued to play. I felt I had the same rights as other women.

At that time the term ‘transsexual’ was used to describe someone like me, and like Christine Jorgensen before me. The term transgender had not been invented yet. When I played in South America, headlines in the newspapers blared ‘cambio seso’- sex change! I was considered virtually a unique case. Data in 2024 suggest now maybe one percent of the population is ‘transgender.’ 

I sued the USTA and the WTA and, in a landmark decision, the NY State Supreme Court Judge [Alfred] Ascione agreed with me and with my two affidavits one from my gynecologist, and the other from Billie Jean King—that I was a woman and entitled to play in the U.S. Open 1977. Critical to his decision is the fact that he made it in reference to me alone. He said nothing about ‘transgenders’ or ‘transsexuals.’ The decision was in favor of ‘Renee Richards’—period. At that time, there were no studies of performance abilities of people like me. I became a registered member in good faith of the WTA.

I was allowed to play in the United States and in South America. Philippe Chatrier, who was the president of the International Tennis Federation, decreed that I could not play Roland Garros, Wimbledon, or the Australian Open.

In the beginning of my five years on the tour, there were significant objections to my inclusion from several players. Some refused to play in events along with me, some had vocal objections, refused to shake hands, made disparaging comments, and one walked off the court mid-match with me. It was very hurtful to me personally.

I had been what was described as the ‘ultimate amateur sportsman.’ I had captained every team I was ever on as a man—high school, college, Eastern men’s team, US Navy team, and the US [Maccabiah] team in Israel.

Gradually objection subsided, and I played on the tour for five years, at great personal sacrifice, in income and with attendant other personal struggles. I had started coaching Martina Navratilova in 1981, and she paid for the office and the records of the ophthalmology practice which I assumed on my return to the practice of medicine in 1982.

My results on the tour are difficult to appraise as far as what physical advantage I may have had over my sister players. I won some low-level tournaments, I reached the final of one Virginia Slims elite event, I reached the final of the U.S. Open doubles in 1977, I won the U.S. Open 35-and-over single in 1979. I had wins over several top-10 players, some who had won ‘major’ titles. I never beat a player from the first five in the rankings. I had losses to several players who were not ranked in the first 30 on the WTA ranking. I reached the semifinal of the U.S. Open Mixed with Ilie [Năstase] in 1979. I did not feel like I had a physical edge on most of my opponents, but there were a few times I did.

As I got older on tour, I felt like my age was putting me at a disadvantage and that that negated any strength advantage I may have had earlier. I had played one close three-set match against Chris Evert and another against Tracy Austin in 1977. When I played Tracy in 1981, she beat me 6–0, 6–1. I thought it was time to retire—which I soon did. I was 47.

I think it is pertinent to comment that I reached a career-high ranking of 19 in 1979, when I was 45. There is one other player currently competing who is that age—her ranking is not high enough to get into tournaments without invitation, which she probably deserves because she is an all-time super champion.

My five-year experience on the tour has influenced my opinion on the subject of transgender participation for sure. When I started, I felt that I did not have any physical advantage over XX biological women. I had lost my first match as a pro in straight sets to Virginia Wade—who had won Wimbledon the year she beat me at Forest Hills. In addition, another reason I felt that I was entitled to play was that I had had a record in men’s tennis [although it was amateur in the years I was competing—before Open tennis] that was high enough to qualify for the men’s nationals at Forest Hills five times.  

Here are a few remarks from men in the world of tennis at that time. The great Don Budge said ‘They have to let her play; she can’t play with the men anymore.’

My mixed doubles partner Ilie [Năstase] said, ‘She is old enough to be their mother.’ I played many mixed doubles events after I joined the WTA tour. I was well aware of the advantage the men had over me and my fellow WTA players. I thought I belonged in the WTA group.

Renowned coach Dennis van der Meer, who coached Billie Jean King and Margaret Court had this to say after watching me lose the final to Karen Hantze Susman in Kona, Hawaii in 1976—‘She would beat everybody but Chrissie because nobody would break her serve, she serves better than all the good girls but, once the ball is in play, they are better. Billie Jean hits harder, Karen volleys much better, Chrissie has better groundies, and God knows, Renée is no gazelle.’

My experience in tennis, in my opinion, while I was playing, afforded me a unique opportunity to judge myself on the subject of qualification. I had played as a man against men—and had some wins over world-class players. I had played a practice match, once, against the at-that-time women’s Wimbledon champion when I was a collegiate men’s player. I then played as a woman against professional women players on the WTA. I had the experience of playing against a man—a close friend—after I had become a woman—after my transition—who had been an even competitor of mine when I was a man. I was no match for him. And in women’s tennis, I had the experience frequently of playing against world-class men in the U.S. Open Mixed and in World Team Tennis. Tennis is the only major sport I know of where men and women compete with each other—mixed  doubles. On the basis of this unique experience, it was my opinion that when I was on the women’s tour—I had no unfair advantage over my opponents. UNTIL  ……!!!   UNTIL… !!! In 1979 I beat Nancy Richey [a grand slam champion] in the final of the U.S. Open women’s 35-and-over. It was the first time that I had played in a 35-and-over event, and the last. Before I entered the event, I thought it was fair. [I had, after all, been the finalist in the U.S. national men’s 35 event when I was 39, and while practicing ophthalmology as my main job]. Nancy was 37, I was 45, but after that match I realized that that age difference was not enough. I was competitive with players who were 25, in my mind, but I suddenly realized that fairness afforded by the age gap may well have been the reason I could compete without an advantage in the Open category.  

I never played another 35-and-over event.!! I began to think to myself, ‘What if I had been 25? Would it have been fair for me to compete as a woman?’ I began to think more and more about age as a factor—from my experience and for the future. I began to consider that age was what had allowed me to compete on the WTA tour with minimal advantage if any, and that my obsessive physical training during my time on tour was also contributory in helping me maintain some of the physicality I had lost during my transition—both important considerations in forming my opinions later on.

Now for the second part of my ‘remarks’—interpretation of the current literature on the subject of transgender women in sports.

The literature on all this is voluminous—most of it produced within the past few years, and derived mainly from [American] and Canadian, and a few Swedish, studies. I can only summarize them here and my interpretation of them, although it may have some value—coming from a doctor, who has personal experience with the matter—is nevertheless for sure, subjective. I caution you as well with the old adage—‘A doctor who treats himself [or herself] has a fool for a patient and a fool for a doctor.’

1. The obvious male advantages—taller, narrow hips, wider shoulders, less lower body fat, higher muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, higher hemoglobin giving greater cardiovascular capacity and oxygen transport. In track-sprinting the performance gap is 12 % between men and women.

2. After 12 months of testosterone suppression in transgender women, muscle strength loss has been found to be reduced by only -5 %. Joanna Harper [an elite athlete runner and transgender woman] states that strength and body muscle of transgender women is still above cisgender women even after 3 years of testosterone suppression.

3. A Swedish study shows that testosterone suppression reduces male advantage by only a 5% reduction of strength. [Similar to a U.S. study by Joanna Harper.] And 83% of male advantage is retained in transgender women.

4. Many anatomical sex differences driven by testosterone in male puberty are not reversible. Estrogen therapy will not reverse most male athletic performance parameters.

5. Lowering testosterone levels to less than 10 nmole/L decreases muscle mass but not to female biologic levels. Average female levels are about 3-5 nmoles/L but the IOC requirement is only to lower it to 10.

6. Estrogen therapy does not affect most of the anatomic structures of biological males.

7. Hemoglobin levels are lowered by estrogen therapy and maximum aerobic effort is lowered, but only if testosterone levels are lowered to biological female range—which is much lower than the 10 nmoles required of transgender women.

8. Male physiologic advantage from former testosterone exposure in puberty in transgender women is permanent, including brain masculinization, heart size, stroke volume, lung capacity, bone structure and mass. However, some modifiable characteristics from estrogen therapy and testosterone deprivation have been reported to mitigate muscle strength and aerobic capacity from physical training.

9. Some male anatomic advantages can not be modified by estrogen therapy or testosterone suppression, for example, longer long bones and resultant leverage give males an advantage in serving in tennis. Probably in swimming as well.

10.  The critical point! Male anatomy and physiology cannot be reformatted by estrogen therapy in transgender women because testosterone has driven permanent effects from early life exposure. This statement reflects the importance of male puberty.

Enough statistics. A few words of caution—‘statistics’ can be used to reinforce an opinion, on almost any subject. Be that as it may be here are my policy recommendations for the WTA.

Based on my personal experience, in particular from 1976 to the present 2024—almost 50 years—and on my review of the current literature on the subject of transgender women in women’s sports competition:

 1.  I believe that having gone through male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports.

2. I believe that a retained physical advantage persists in such individuals and does not allow for an equal playing field despite reducing testosterone levels in the blood. This advantage persists, it can be mitigated by age to a yet unknown degree. The opinion of Judge Ascione, my personal gynecologist in 1976, Billie Jean King, and myself was based on knowledge of this subject almost 50 years ago. We did not have the science back then. Medical science has progressed since that time and reflects my current knowledge and opinion. I am in agreement with the comment made by Mianne Bagger, a transgender golfer from Denmark—she said what I also believe: ‘Gender identity is subjective, it cannot proscribe a stable basis for sports clarification, it is irrelevant to sports classification—which is based on physiologic characteristics.’

3. The problem of what to do with prospective transgender athletes at scholastic, club, and professional levels, in many sports, is currently ongoing. It is possible that with the use of puberty-blocking hormones, there may be a time when prospective transgender women and girls may not go through male puberty, their inclusion in sports as women will have to be reevaluated if, and when, that happens.

I thank you for your invitation to me to discuss this subject of practical, moral, and ethical considerations.