Lia Thomas, Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya
Last Wednesday, I had an argument with my friend and her son, Lateef, about the issue of having men who declare themselves to be women or have gender reassignment surgery, aka ‘trans women’, being allowed to participate in the female category in sports. Lateef and I appeared to be on the same side – that it is unfair. We cited the example of male swimmer, Lia Thomas, who was ranked No. 462 in male swimming, and upon declaring himself as a woman, is said to have subsequently become tops in female swimming, because he obviously has an unfair advantage over the average woman he’s competing with. Mummy Lateef countered our argument with Imane Khelif, the female Algerian Boxer, who was born female and has always lived her life as a woman, as an example of a physically strong female. However, there has been some controversy about Ms Khelif, as she was disqualified from a World Boxing Championship by the IBA in 2023, for not meeting the eligibility criteria in an unspecified test. Recall that during the 2024 Paris Olympics, Italian, Angela Carini withdrew from the boxing match just 46 seconds into it, after receiving some heavy punches from Ms Khelif.
In the case of South African athlete, Caster Semenya, a biological woman who has a sex development disorder that gives her testosterone levels that qualify as that of a man, the new World Athletics Rules of 2019 made it mandatory that such people must take testosterone suppression medication, in order to be able to participate in the female category. Ms Semenya had taken the medication from 2010 – 2015 and then refused to continue taking them, citing the negative physical side effects the medication had on her as the reason for her refusal. She went to court, on the ground that the World Athletics Rules were discriminatory. World Athletics predicated its rules on fairness and “protecting the integrity of female competition”. On appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2023, the ECHR held inter alia that Ms Semenya had the right to challenge the World Athletics rule to reduce testosterone levels, but did not invalidate the rule nor restore her right to compete.
Gender-Affected Activities
Lateef and I, were somehow correct. Section 19(2)(a) & (b) of UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides for prohibition or restriction on the participation of those who have acquired genders in gender-affected sports or activities, to secure fair competition and the safety of other competitors. Section 195(3) of the UK Equality Act 2010 (EA) defines a gender-affected activity thus: “… a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity” (also see Section 19(4) of the GRA). Certainly, Swimming is a gender-affected sport, and so are Boxing and Running.
Competitive Sports is about fair-play, and that is why athletes who take performance enhancing drugs which gives them dominance over others, are barred from participation and punished. The playing field is no longer level in sports, if a competitor has an upper hand, not borne out of training and preparation, but out of some unfair advantage such as, stamina or strength as a result of the previous biological male gender, or even biological disorders. It is more than trite, also a biological fact that, men are predominantly born stronger than women – men are generally bigger in size, have more muscle mass, testosterone, larger and stronger lungs, more upper body strength (women have more lower body strength), cortical bones (stronger skeletons), durability, all culminating in more power, strength, and resulting in at least 30% more superior performance than women in sports.
If we look at the aforementioned male attributes, we observe that coupled with the fact that Lia Thomas is 6ft 1 in height, he appears to have a biological advantage over the women swimmers. How then, can any serious, ethical sports body that claims to uphold the tenets of fair competition which is the essence of sporting, say that such a person is equally yoked with the average woman in a swimming competition, when today, even natural, biological women themselves undergo scrutiny to ensure that they do not have an unfair advantage against their own fellow womenfolk in competitions, even if that advantage isn’t of their own making, but has been endowed on them by God?
Where do we draw the line between nature, truth, fact and logic on the one hand, and trying to be open minded, politically or societally correct, affirm or stretch the right to freedom of thought and freedom from discrimination, even if it’s beyond comfortable limits of reasonableness? (see Sections 38(1) & 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution)). Lia Thomas, is a biological man who was 20, past the age of puberty, before he started taking testosterone suppression hormones. The World Aquatics Gender Inclusion Policy, only allowed males whose puberty is stopped by age 12, to compete in the female category. From the foregoing, logic tells us that World Aquatics appears to recognise the fact that a male who decides to change to the female gender in adulthood, has a physical advantage over a true or biological female, and allowing Lia Thomas who didn’t stop male puberty by age 12, would be unfair to women competitors.
This immediately brings to mind Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution, that is, discriminating against women by allowing someone who has a definite physical advantage over them to participate in their sporting category, or Section 42(1)(b), giving someone who has an unfair physical advantage the opportunity to compete against those that he is superior to in terms of the physical attributes required, on the basis of the acquired gender status he identifies as.
It appears that, in order not to offend the sensibilities of transgenders, the female gender which has been discriminated upon from time immemorial, continues to be treated unfairly. Discrimination against one group to accommodate another, is also clearly bias and prejudice against the former group.
For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
This is why I welcomed the unanimous judgement in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 delivered on 16/4/2025. The manner in which the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) set out the 87 paged judgement, giving a brief summary of the reasoning behind the judgement at the end of the decision, is desirable, as non-Lawyers can easily read the summary to grasp an understanding of it.
According to their Lordships the appeal “is concerned with establishing the correct interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EA 2010”) which seeks to give statutory protection to people who are at risk of suffering from unlawful discrimination”, and categories of those who were determined to require protection from discrimination are women, and now, the transgender community. The UKSC however, held that: “The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 (Sex Discrimination Act 1975) definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex…..The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate….”.
Certainly, the SDA, was enacted to protect women from discrimination, and as far back as 1975 when gender reassignment surgery wasn’t exactly the order of the day, the SDA could only be referring to biological sex when defining a man and a woman. Their Lordships held that the presumption that a word has the same meaning throughout an enactment, is consistent with creating a “coherent statutory text”. Their Lordships held that “…the general rule is that words or terms used more than once in the same legislation are taken to have the same meaning whenever they appear, and the general purpose of an interpretation provision is to fix the meaning of such a word or term throughout the legislation in question”.
The sum and substance of this is that, in the SDA, man and woman cannot mean a biological man and woman, and also a trans man and trans woman in the same legislation. Their Lordships held inter alia that, giving a term a variable meaning in a statute is rare, and usually occurs when there is an error. See the case of NPF & Ors v Police Service Commission & Anor (2023) LPELR-60782(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC where the Supreme Court held inter alia that: “The primary approach that has been adopted by the Courts in the interpretation of the Constitution is known as originalism or textualism, which emphasises interpreting constitutional provisions according to their original public meaning at the time they were adopted”. In applying this decision to the SDA, in 1975 when it was enacted, the original public meaning of a “man” and a “woman” then were a biological man and woman, and it would only be logical to believe that “man” and “woman” could only have been meant to mean the biological/natural sense of the words.
President Donald Trump’s Executive Order
This judgement, in some ways, appears to be in tandem with Section 2(a)-(e) of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order dated 20/1/2025 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (EO), which defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”, excluding the concept of gender identity, which Section 2(g) refers to as being “disconnected from biological reality”.
Section 1 of the EO mentions the use of coercive methods to permit men who self-identify as women, to gain access into intimate female spaces, such as showers (conveniences), and states that this is wrong. I concur. Perverts have happily used this technique, to gain access to intimate female spaces. I even saw a video of such a man who claimed to be a woman, openly performing lewd sexual acts on himself in a female public bathroom. What if there were little girls present in the bathroom? Do children not enjoy the right to security, welfare, dignity and freedom of movement, like everyone else? Children do, possibly more so than adults, as they need to be protected. See Sections 14(2)(b), 34(1) & 41(1) of the Constitution and the Child’s Rights Act 2003.
How far can we stretch the right to freedom of thought, provided for in Section 38(1) of the Constitution? (See the First Amendment to the US Constitution). Section 45(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for any law that restricts, inter alia, the aforementioned freedom, in the interest of defence, public safety, order, morality and health. This means that the right to freedom of thought, is not at large. Where it obstructs public safety, order and morality, as in the case of the pervert I cited above using the female public bathroom, giving the rights of women to a man because he identifies himself as a woman in order not to discriminate against such a man, must be properly balanced against the rights of women and girls. I say the right of the women and girls, must take precedence here.
Conclusion
One thing I gathered from the UKSC decision, is that their Lordships considered biological/natural sex as different from acquired gender by means of gender reassignment (surgery) complete with a Gender Reassignment Certificate (GRC). And, in reality, they are undeniably different. The essence of the gender reassignment surgery, is to create an outward physical appearance that represents the gender that an individual identifies with. Their Lordships referred to a man who has done gender reassignment to become female and has a GRC, that is, a trans woman, as a “female as a matter of law”, and a woman who becomes a trans man that also has a GRC, as legally male. I submit that being of a sex naturally and of that sex legally, cannot be the same. For example, even if the outward physical appearance of a woman who chooses to become a man (trans man) can be changed by gender reassignment surgery, such an individual cannot produce sperm to father a child like a biological man. In fact, if the trans man’s internal reproductive organs aren’t removed, he may still able to carry a pregnancy and deliver by means of caesarean section. Similarly, man who chooses to become a woman (trans woman) can still father a child, if his sperm was harvested and stored in a sperm bank before the gender reassignment surgery. How then, can anyone honestly say that terms referring to a biological man and woman, can also have the same meaning for those who have undergone gender reassignment surgery? A biological woman cannot father a child, nor can a biological man carry a pregnancy. I submit that being able to look the same in physical appearance, doesn’t translate to being the same!
While the milestones that have been achieved in the medical field are undeniable, the bottom line is that, beyond the UKSC decision, the truth is that someone of a biological sex (natural) and one who has an acquired gender of the same sex (legal), can never be the same. The UKSC decision with regard to the EA and SDA in this regard, is correct. I dare say that, any other law that provides otherwise, that is, that natural and acquired gender are one and the same, would not be telling the truth.
Finally, one cannot ignore the fact that, globally, Governments/Politicians use different issues affecting the people, to play politics to their own advantage. While we may use ethnicity and religion here, in the Western world, they have used gay rights and now transgender rights to further their agendas.
