I’m afraid I don’t know enough about fencing to comment as intelligently as I need to regarding this episode, but I’m going to charge on anyway…
USA fencer Stephanie Turner was scheduled to face Redmond Sullivan at the Cherry Blossom Fencing Tournament held at the University of Maryland. As the match was about to begin, however, Turner “took a knee” and removed her mask, signifying that she would not compete against Redmond the Division 1A Women’s Foil event. Redmond, you see, is a formerly male fencer who has recently “identified” as female. Turner had decided that as a matter of principle she would not compete in women’s fencing against a “man.” “I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee’,” she explained
After her protest, Turner was slapped with a “black card” signifying that she was suspended and out of the tournament.
“I knew what I had to do because USA Fencing had not been listening to women’s objections,” Turner said. “I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said: ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'”
U.S. Fencing responded with a wokey, weaselly statement undoubtedly drafted by the DEI Dept.:
“USA Fencing enacted our current transgender and non-binary athlete policy in 2023. The policy was designed to expand access to the sport of fencing and create inclusive, safe spaces. The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day. We understand that the conversation on equity and inclusion pertaining to transgender participation in sport is evolving. USA Fencing will always err on the side of inclusion, and we’re committed to amending the policy as more relevant evidence-based research emerges, or as policy changes take effect in the wider Olympic and Paralympic movement. We respect the viewpoints on all sides and encourage our members to continue sharing them with us as the matter evolves. It’s important for the fencing community to engage in this dialogue, but we expect this conversation to be conducted respectfully, whether at our tournaments or in online spaces. The way to progress is by respectful discussion based in evidence.
In the case of Stephanie Turner, her disqualification was not related to any personal statement but was merely the direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent, which the FIE [International Fencing Federation] rules clearly prohibit.
‘USA Fencing is obligated to follow the letter of those rules and ensure that participants respect the standards set at the international level. We remain committed to inclusivity within our sport while also upholding every requirement dictated by our governing body.’
Ramalama-ding-dong.
Observations and musings…
1. Is fencing a sport in which men have an advantage over women? Mrs. Peel always seemed to win when fencing on “The Avengers.” It doesn’t strike me as a strength sport, and being smaller and lighter would seem to be an advantage. But I don’t know what I’m talking about.
2. Turner deserved credit for defaulting based on principle rather than practicality. Her gesture presumably is a statement about biological men competing in women’s sports generally, not only in her sport. The fencer’s example has to be followed by a large percentage of female athletes, even those who are confident that they can best their trans opponent if the movement to end this foolishness is to succeed.
3. Sullivan apparently isn’t very good. She eventually placed 24th out of 39 in the competition. As a he the fencer wasn’t successful, leading him to switch from the men’s team to the women’s team at his college only last December. I rule that as cheating—cheating that the sport stupidly allows in order to be “inclusive.”
4. The statement by the organization is a virtual parody of current knee-jerk progressive cant. It is full of nonsense. Not everyone “has the ability” to compete in every sport. A student who wants to keep flipping from male to female and back again can still compete in sports, just not those divided by gender, and not official competitions. Deal with it.
5. Using buzzwords like “safe spaces” and “inclusivity” doesn’t constitute an argument. How can an athletic organization defend its decision to let biological men compete in women’s sports while blathering about “safe spaces”? Safe for whom? Safety is one of the primary reasons women are objecting to being confronted with ex-men (as opposed to X-Men…) in their sporting events.
5. Appealing to “the research available of the day” is a transparent dodge. Where is the “research” that says a man can magically become a woman by “identifying” as one?
6. The final evasion of responsibility represented by the stated resolve to uphold “every requirement dictated by our governing body” sounds a lot like the Nuremberg defense.
7. The Mad Left is doomed to lose this battle, and it is a spectacularly stupid hill to die on. Eventually feminists will reluctantly calm their rising gorges to join forces with the people they don’t like but who are on the rational, ethical side of the controversy.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m certainly no expert. I DID take a semester’s class in fencing to fulfill a PhysEd requirement my freshman year (the activities I really wanted to do were already full).
I found myself enjoying it (though not enough to continue subsequently). Fencing is definitely physical, but as with any martial art it’s as much about strategy and tactics as it is physical strength.
That said, however, individuals who are physically faster and taller – providing a longer reach – definitely have an advantage with the physical aspects. I regularly got my butt whipped in that class, in that my body type more closely resembles fire hydrant than light pole. So I can definitely see why a female competitor might take issue with a taller guy who managed to get qualified for the event.
Redmond, you see, is a formerly male fencer who has recently “identified” as female. Turner had decided that as a matter of principle she would not compete in women’s fencing against a “man.”
I would have written that paragraph as this:
Redmond, you see, is a male fencer who has recently “identified” as female. Turner had decided that as a matter of principle she would not compete in women’s fencing against a man.
Exactly right. Humans can’t change sex, so there’s no such thing as being “formerly” male.
As I sat in a seafood restaurant on lovely Hingham harbor in MA last night with two high school girlfriends, my one friend (who has a transgender son in addition to her Ed.D.) began to bemoan the state of affairs in Maine. Her argument was that exactly two students in the entire state of Maine are transgender and why oh why is the full force of the US government going after these two kids.
Knowing that she’s incapable of taking an unbiased stance, I kept my mouth shut (because honestly – to what end am I going to argue with her? My love for her is greater than my need to be right.) Her singular focus was the two students; not, potentially, the hundreds upon hundreds of female athletes – having the rightful expectation that they will be competing against other females – who will come up against these two kids at some point in their high school athletic career. (Maine is not a populous state. It probably has one division. If that.) She pointed out that transgender people make up 0.2% of the population. I so desperately wanted to ask her why, then, are the 0.2% calling the shots (democracy, duh! being the rallying cry of the left and all ) but, she was at least two IPAs in and it wouldn’t have been worth the trouble.
The “inclusion” of the male fencer is the same as the two kids in Maine; he’s just taking on his opponents one at a time.
What an obvious rationalization! “Sure, it’s wrong, but not that many people are involved so why worry about it?” A good argument to justify legalizing bestiality. “Come on. How many people want to have sex with goats? Why worry about it?” Do such people listen to themselves?
They don’t. Obvi.
(that came out snarkier than intended and not directed at you!)
Warrants a “What’s wrong with these people?”
Of course, seemingly everyone from or living in the northeast thinks this, the same, way. So glad Mrs. OB and I fled Mass fifty years ago. Ugh.
Facts. But then just getting on the plane from MSP to BOS I knew I was headed to the bluest of blue unhinged states. Half the plane was wearing masks.
Massachusetts culture is unique. Lots of the old independent, defiant, iconoclast impulses there, especially once you get out of Boston. In the unhinged Blue states top ten, I’d rank my old home state no higher than 9th, after California, Oregon, Maryland, Washington, Connecticut, Minnesota, Hawaii and Vermont.
Wait, what? Ok, MA still retains its New England frugality and a fierce, proud connection to its Pilgrim roots. But CT and MD ranked higher? Vermont has always been earthy-crunchy (and for decades was the only New England state to vote consistently Republican.) California is unhinged in different, hippy dippy loopy ways. Minnesota is a passive, beta male Mid-west state desperate to be relevant. But Mass? It is the textbook definition of uselessly educated, elitist, coastal, moneyed hubris all delivered to you in a non-rhotic, drippingly condescending accent.
Thank you, Alicia! I’d say you took the words right out of my mouth, but they weren’t there. Can’t wait to read this to Mrs. OB: “But Mass? It is the textbook definition of uselessly educated, elitist, coastal, moneyed hubris all delivered to you in a non-rhotic, drippingly condescending accent.” And I don’t agree with this: “Lots of the old independent, defiant, iconoclast impulses there, especially once you get out of Boston.” Those impulses died when we Baby Boomers were in college. The entire state is soaked to the gills with leftyism.
Not yet Mrs. OB and I were having dinner in an Indian restaurant in 1974. She’d become pregnant despite wearing an IUD and divorced her abusive husband when he insisted she abort the baby. We met two weeks before what became my adoptive daughter was born. So, I was 23 and she was 22 that spring and the baby was probably three or four months, swaddled, asleep and lying on the chair between us. An older couple, he a professor at Harvard I’m sure (he had the look down), sneered to his wife fully loud enough for all of us to hear, “They make you get a license to drive a car, but anyone can have children.” That’s the Bay State.
Oops. The Indian Restaurant was in Cambridge, MA.
Sounds accurate.
Jack: “Is fencing a sport in which men have an advantage over women? Mrs. Peel always seemed to win when fencing on “The Avengers.” It doesn’t strike me as a strength sport, and being smaller and lighter would seem to be an advantage. But I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
What immediately came to mind was a story about Lincoln. When challenged to a duel, Lincoln chose to duel with swords, as his significant height advantage also gave him a significant advantage with respect to his reach. His opponent ultimately backed down, if I remember correctly.
-Jut
Why not have height and weight categories instead of dividing by gender?
makes sense to me, but, like you, I have no idea what I am talking about.
-Jut
The height advantage makes perfect sense. But I don’t think we even need to go there.
Speaking generally across all sports, a male athlete has physical advantages over a female athlete that are significant enough to render competition between them unfair. It’s strong enough that the default presumption, in any particular sport, should be that men have an advantage over women. Anyone challenging that status quo bears the burden to disprove it. It defies logic that sports are starting from an “inclusion-first” position, which assumes no male advantage.
In the unlikely scenario that it can be proven that men don’t have a physical advantage over women in a particular sport, the correct response is to do away with sex-based categories in that sport. What sense would it make to keep sex-based categories but let trans-identifying men compete with women?
Where sex-based categories exist, they need to be enforced.
Had three children in fencing for a few years. My eldest was tall, quick, and smart, also a girl. Fencing can be done mixed, but competition isn’t.
Reach, wrist speed, strategy, footwork. Upper body strength doesn’t hurt since that affects endurance.
Womens sports are for women. I still haven’t seen a single case going the other way, that alone should end this silly debate.
Now I am a bit confused.
I thought the fuss has been about Men in Women’s sports – not males in female sports. Is it about gender or sex?
Redmond, you see, is a formerly male fencer who has recently “identified” as female. Turner had decided that as a matter of principle she would not compete in women’s fencing against a “man.”
I know nothing about fencing but given a woman and a guy of identical age, height, reach and weight, I’d bet on the guy every time. Strength and quickness are inseparable. I think the notion of mixed fencing competition by weight classes is preposterous. That would be like having mixed classes by weight in boxing. We saw how that turned out in the Olympics “women’s” boxing. Best to keep a bright line.
OB – I often tell people that my own sons, by the ages 14-15, would have been able to physically best me. Further: my daughter at 17 was 5’3″ and 100 lbs soaking wet. My son at 17 was 5’8″ and 180 lbs. I mean…. honestly.
Occasionally a female will beat a male in a sport but it is usually only at the lower level competitions. These results are enough to convince the DEI obsessed that males don’t have any advantage over females so therefore anyone born male but now identifying as a female is not cheating, they are just taking their rightful place in sports and society.
Last month in my club’s junior track and field champs, a girl added 9 cm to the club’s girl’s age group record and in the process jumped higher than all the boys. How was she able to do that? She is the best in her age group in New Zealand and the boys were just average jumpers. When she competes in a city wide competition her best is nowhere near the best of the boys.
Sullivan in finishing only 24th out of 39 females would likely have finished last or near last in an all male competition where he should be.
“Sullivan in finishing only 24th out of 39 females would likely have finished last or near last in an all male competition where he should be.”
Great point and I might add, one doe not need to win one need only beat another who should have placed higher to be considered cheating.
That’s an excellent point that is largely overlooked. It’s easiest to identify and criticize a cheat when he has snatched victory from a woman. But even if he loses, it was unfair for him to enter a women’s competition because he has a categorical advantage over her. A category advantage is the kind we screen out for (here, sex) and a competitive advantage is the kind we allow and even praise (talent and skill).
A lost victory is only one of the ways that a victorious male harms the women he competes against. With the addition of a single male, the women’s category ceases to exist and it becomes a mixed-sex sport. It isn’t fair and it isn’t what any of those actual women signed up for.
Adrien Dessens wrote this.
Friends, this is a long post, but I’m sitting here writing it at 1am because it is so incredibly important. Please read, especially my non-fencing friends to better understand and navigate all the cruel misinformation floating around.
Last weekend a fencer was excluded (disqualified) from a regional fencing competition held at the University of Maryland. This person took a knee in protest and refused to compete against her opponent – a trans athlete. She was then, by rule, excluded from competing in the event. A video of this was shared to X and the story was picked up by multiple news organizations both national and international. Most of the articles about this incident are sensationalist and intentionally misleading so I want to clarify some points, especially for my non-fencing friends.
The trans athlete in question is not a “man” fencing in a women’s event. USA fencing policy states: “Athletes being treated with testosterone suppression medication, for the purposes of USA Fencing-sanctioned competitions may continue to compete in men’s events, but may only compete in women’s events after completing one calendar year (12 months) of testosterone suppression treatment. Proof of compliant hormone therapy must be provided prior to competition.” It is also worth noting that neither USA Fencing, nor the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee receives federal funding and these organizations are not bound by the executive order signed by Donald Trump to bar trans female athletes from participation in sport. The USA fencing policy keeps us in compliance with international policy on trans and non-binary competitors in sport.
This athlete has undergone the appropriate hormonal therapy and is in compliance with USA fencing’s policy. Research indicates that hormone therapy is incredibly effective at leveling the playing field between athletes who have gone through male and female puberty, respectively. This was, from a moral perspective, a scientific perspective, and a sport perspective, A FAIR FIGHT BETWEEN TWO FEMALE ATHLETES.
The trans athlete in question is not someone who switched to the women’s event in order to “dominate” or “get easy wins”. In fact, in THIS COMPETITION she placed 24th out of a field of 38. She fenced in 6 bouts (not including the one that went viral for never happening) – 5 seeding or “pool” bouts and one Direct Elimination Bout. Of the pool bouts she won 2 with scores of 5-0 and 5-3 and she lost 3 with scores of 5-4, 5-4, and 5-0. In the elimination round, seeded 24th she drew the number 9 seeded fencer and lost with a score of 15-11. I share this not to disparage this athlete or suggest she is lacking in talent, but to illustrate the fact that this is NOT what sensationalist media is calling it. THIS IS AN ATHLETE DOING HER BEST THROUGH FAIR PLAY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPORT THAT SO MANY OF US ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT AND SOME HAVE MADE CAREERS OF. Her participation, which requires more courage than most of us have ever been asked to demonstrate, is an embodiment of the idea (which I hold very dear) that EVERYONE has a place in sport and that the inclusion of EVERYONE who shares the love of the game makes us all stronger.
The decision to exclude the protesting fencer was the correct one. First: by the letter of the rule. USA fencing rule t. 113 states: “No fencer (individual or team) may take part in an official competition if he refuses to fence against any other fencer whatsoever (individual or team) correctly entered in the event. Should this rule be broken, the penalties specified for offenses of the 4th group will be applied”. The 4th group penalty mentioned here is exclusion from the competition. This rule is not an invention of USA Fencing, rather it comes from the international governing body of fencing: the FIE. In order for USA Fencing competitions (which include the one at issue) to be in compliance with both domestic and international rules is for this rule to be enforced AS WRITTEN. Second: by the spirit of the rule. It would be incredibly inappropriate for officials to allow fencers to refuse to compete against opponents for some reasons, but not others. We should not allow a fencer to refuse based on race or religion or any other prejudice. It is not the place for tournament officials to impose their own personal morals on the athletes, our rules are designed to treat everyone equally and that is what they did here.
The protesting fencer was not reacting to a sudden development. The bouts, bout order, and competitors are all posted online and available to the competitors before the preliminary round begins. While I am uncertain when in the pool the bout in question happened in the order of bouts for the pool (the bout itself is not shown in the record because of the exclusion) this likely was not the first bout for either fencer. If this athlete was uncomfortable with her opponent, she could have voiced concerns much earlier. She certainly could have, unwilling to face this opponent, withdrawn herself from the competition knowing the mandatory penalty she would face in refusing to fence. Instead: she appeared on strip, physically connected herself to the scoring apparatus, tested the equipment to ensure it was working, took her place on the starting line and ONLY THEN did she take a knee and make her protest known. The only reason to do it this way (on video) is to create a SPECTACLE. Whatever her intentions, the result of her deliberate choices was that her opponent was unfairly and wrongly singled out and made the subject of dozens of garbage media hit-pieces. This was inappropriate. It was unacceptable. It was shameful.
I am so beyond outraged at the way this athlete has been treated both by her competitor and by the public at large. Trans athletes, like all athletes, BELONG IN SPORT and for those of us tasked with passing on our knowledge and passion to future generations it is paramount that we do everything we can to protect those athletes who are being unfairly targeted simply for trying to compete as their authentic selves.
Thanks, for this, Zoe. As always, it is important to have the perspective of another point of view. Note that the fact that the competitor didn’t dominate the competition despite the advantage of going through puberty as a male—the central issue here–is irrelevant, moral luck. If this is cheating, and I believe that it is, whether the cheating “works” or not doesn’t matter. In many of my posts about Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds, among other unethical athletes, this same argument is made in their defense, except that it’s “they would have succeeded anyway, so it doesn’t matter that they cheated.”
You write, “Trans athletes, like all athletes, BELONG IN SPORT.” Okay, sure. But since nobody’s claiming otherwise, it’s irrelevant and/or an uncharitable, dishonest framing of your ideological opponents’ argument.
The issue actually being debated relates to whether TW athletes belong in the W sport category. And the answer is no, they don’t. They belong in the M sport category, in sports with sex-based categories.