Now look it may not altogether surprise you today to hear that the International Olympic Committee has banned transgender women from competing in female events because this was so obviously going to happen once Kirsty Coventry was elected president of the IOC. She was clearly going to do it, given that she campaigned on doing exactly this.

But, you may be surprised to realise what an enormous U-turn this actually is.

I had to go back and have a look to actually believe it.

Five years ago, the IOC publicly praised Laurel Hubbard for having “courage and tenacity” as the first transgender athlete to compete at the Olympics. They said everyone agrees that trans women are women.

So, to go from that position to now banning Laurel Hubbard from competing in a female category again, in the space of five short years, is actually—when you think about it—quite an extraordinary turnaround.

Now obviously what’s happened is public opinion has shifted.

Five years ago was before the Cass Report was delivered in the UK on the dangers of puberty blockers for children.

Five years ago was before the Bud Light controversy.

Five years ago was before the Algerian boxer won gold despite questions about whether she was actually female.

Five years ago, the prevailing opinion was that inclusion of transgender athletes mattered a lot more and that discussing transgender-related subjects was pretty taboo.

Today, the prevailing opinion appears to be more about fairness to women and we are openly debating transgender-related subjects.

Clearly the IOC, like any global sporting body, is sensitive to politics. 

They may say sport is paramount and we may like to believe that sport is the only thing they care about—and maybe it still is the most important thing for them—but they are not deaf to public opinion. They would have to be stupid to be.

Now how you judge the IOC for this is really up to you. You could see them as fickle, blowing in the wind of public opinion, or you could see them as simply trying to be pragmatic in the times they live in, whatever that is.

And today, possibly, we are somewhere closer—at least, I would argue—to a fairer outcome for women.

LISTEN ABOVE