Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who made national headlines after winning the 2022 NCAA Division I individual title, has lost her battle against regulations preventing her from competing at a higher level.
The 25-year-old’s request for arbitration with the governing body World Aquatics was rejected by a three-member panel of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Thomas filed the required lawsuit against World Aquatics in January over its existing policy of excluding transgender athletes who previously went through male puberty from competing in elite women’s competitions.
The ban was imposed months after Thomas won her title.
World Aquatics created an “open” category where transgender athletes could compete but banned them from competing against women.
A panel of judges ruled Wednesday that Thomas lacked legal standing to challenge the federation’s order.
According to them, the policy does not apply because he is “not yet” qualified to compete in events hosted by USA Swimming or World Aquatics.
“She is currently only eligible to compete in USA Swimming events that do not qualify as ‘Elite Events.’
The decision came days before the start of the US Olympic Swimming Trials.
Thomas expressed her displeasure in a statement released by her legal team.
“Trans athletes are being denied important sporting opportunities that are essential to our identity due to blanket bans that prohibit us from competing. All trans athletes should take the CAS decision as a call to action to continue fighting for our human rights and dignity.”
The recent ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport represents a significant setback for Liu Thomas and other transgender athletes trying to compete in elite women’s sports. The ruling underscores the growing tension between athletic organizations and the inclusion of transgender individuals in the competitive environment. While Thomas’ legal challenge against World Aquatics was dismissed, it serves to highlight broader debates about the fairness, inclusion, and rights of transgender athletes in competitive sports.
For Thomas, the ruling is a stark reminder of the challenges transgender athletes face in organized sports, particularly when it comes to regulations that often place biological s*x at the center of eligibility. Despite this setback, Thomas remains open about her stance and calls for continued activism and legal action to ensure that transgender women are not denied opportunities based on their identity. Emphasizing the importance of athletic participation for personal identity, her statement signals her continued commitment to fighting for greater equality and inclusion in sports.
As the debate about transgender athletes in women’s sports continues to evolve, Thomas’ case will likely remain a focal point. The decision also sets a precedent for how sports governing bodies might address the issue in the future. However, the fight for equal rights and opportunities in sport is far from over and it remains to be seen whether future challenges will lead to changes in the regulations governing the participation of transgender athletes in elite competitions.