Former U.S. gymnastics champion Jennifer Sey has raised concerns about the NCAA’s recent policy response to President Trump’s February 5th Executive Order protecting women’s sports, suggesting the organization may be merely putting on a show of compliance while leaving
significant loopholes intact.
According to Sey’s analysis, the NCAA’s new policy contains two major gaps that could still allow male athletes who identify as women to compete in women’s collegiate sports. The first weakness lies in the NCAA’s delegation of eligibility certification to member institutions, effectively washing their hands of direct responsibility. This approach enables schools to make their own determinations about athlete participation while adhering to various local, state, and federal regulations that might override NCAA guidelines.
The second and more problematic loophole centers on the NCAA’s decision to use birth certificates as the determining factor for sex classification. Sey points out that this method is fundamentally flawed because birth certificates can be modified in 44 states. The process, euphemistically termed a “gender marker correction,” often requires nothing more than a signed identity statement and photo identification from a parent listed on the original document.
Sey strongly criticizes this practice, arguing that altering birth certificates isn’t truly a correction but rather a misrepresentation of biological facts. She highlights how some state officials, including Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, are actively promoting and prioritizing birth certificate modifications for individuals seeking to change their recorded sex.
The implications of these policy gaps are significant. The NCAA’s approach appears designed to create an illusion of compliance with Trump’s Executive Order while still providing pathways for biological males to participate in women’s athletics. This strategy allows the organization to nominally satisfy federal requirements while simultaneously accommodating pressure from gender identity advocates and male athletes seeking to compete in women’s divisions.
The policy’s effectiveness is further compromised by its reliance on easily alterable documentation and its deference to individual institutions for implementation. This structure creates a patchwork of enforcement that could vary significantly across different states and institutions.
Sey’s critique suggests that the NCAA’s response to the Executive Order represents a strategic attempt to maintain flexibility in their approach to transgender athlete participation rather than a genuine commitment to protecting women’s sports. The multiple exceptions and delegated responsibilities embedded in the policy effectively neutralize its practical impact while maintaining an appearance of regulatory compliance.
The situation highlights ongoing tensions between federal efforts to preserve sex-based athletic categories and institutional policies that prioritize gender identity considerations. As states continue to adopt varying approaches to birth certificate modifications and athletic eligibility requirements, the practical implementation of the Executive Order faces significant challenges.
The controversy demonstrates the complex intersection of federal policy, institutional governance, and evolving social debates surrounding gender identity in collegiate athletics. Rather than resolving these tensions, the NCAA’s current policy appears to perpetuate uncertainty while potentially undermining the intended protections for women’s sports outlined in the Executive Order.