NEW YORK — In a recent episode of the NYCLU’s Rights This Way podcast, journalist and author Michael Waters traced the roots of today’s anti-trans sports policies back nearly a century, drawing direct lines from contemporary right-wing rhetoric to Nazi ideology.
Waters, whose book The Other Olympians: Fascism, Queerness, and the Making of Modern Sports has been widely acclaimed, shared historical context that complicates the idea that debates over gender and athletics are new.
The episode aired just days after former President Donald Trump declared a policy that would punish states for allowing transgender athletes to compete on teams that align with their gender identity.
Speaking at a campaign event, Trump vowed to bar “men from beating up, injuring, and cheating our women and our girls,” and promised that “women’s sports will be only for women.” The policy threat is part of a broader platform that civil rights advocates have described as an unprecedented assault on the rights of trans people nationwide.
Waters’ interview with NYCLU Senior Staff Writer Simon McCormick was recorded prior to Trump’s recent escalation but remains timely. His book focuses on the story of Zdeněk Koubek, a Czech track and field athlete who transitioned gender in the mid-1930s and became a target of global scrutiny.
Koubek’s transition, Waters explained, triggered both public fascination and reactionary policy shifts within international athletics—notably the first sex-testing regulations introduced during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, driven in part by Nazi officials.
“Right after Koubek transitioned gender,” Waters said, “you see these first policies to regulate who gets to play in women’s sports at the Olympics. They’re passed in part because of the efforts of different Nazi sports officials.”
One such official was Wilhelm Knoll, a Nazi-aligned sports doctor who pushed for medical examinations to verify female athletes’ eligibility. The rule allowed any competitor to protest another’s sex, resulting in potentially invasive examinations. While Knoll framed his campaign as an effort to preserve fairness, Waters emphasized that it was steeped in eugenics and exclusion.
“There’s this paranoia and illogic to it,” Waters said. “He made no effort to actually explain or articulate who was a woman in his eyes and who was not.”
The inconsistencies, Waters noted, were the point. By refusing to define womanhood in clear terms, sports officials could selectively disqualify athletes based on subjective perceptions of masculinity, race, or class. “It gave them a lot of leeway,” he said.
The podcast explored how sex-testing, born in the context of Nazi Germany, evolved into a broader system of surveillance that disproportionately targeted women who were Black, muscular, or otherwise defied gendered expectations. Waters drew a sharp contrast between early 20th-century media coverage—which, while clumsy, often expressed curiosity and empathy—and the current political weaponization of trans athletes in the U.S.
“In 1935 and 1936, journalists didn’t always use the right language, but there was this real sense of curiosity,” he said. “There was openness to the possibility that these categories of male and female maybe weren’t so perfect.”
That openness, Waters argued, was short-lived. By 1936, the Olympic establishment—influenced by fascist ideology and racist pseudoscience—had implemented the first institutional efforts to police gender. Over time, these policies hardened into systems that have defined elite women’s sports for decades.
The conversation turned to parallels between Koubek’s experience and recent controversies, including the online backlash against Imane Khelif, an Algerian boxer who won gold at the 2024 Olympics. Khelif was targeted by transphobic conspiracy theories despite being a cisgender woman.
Waters compared Khelif’s ordeal to that of Helen Stephens, a cisgender American sprinter who won gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics and was immediately accused of being a man in disguise. “Both ultimately won gold,” Waters noted, “and there’s something there about a woman who doesn’t meet expectations of white femininity—and still wins—being subjected to extreme scrutiny.”
He emphasized that the backlash against trans athletes is part of a broader right-wing effort to restrict civil rights, using sports as a convenient entry point. “We’re seeing this system being weaponized against kids,” Waters said. “And to me, that is quite horrifying.”
Waters acknowledged that the arguments often used against trans inclusion—such as fairness and safety—collapse under scrutiny. He pointed to a range of built-in advantages already accepted in sports, from body type to class privilege.
“Michael Phelps has a wingspan far out of proportion with his body—that’s perfect for swimming. No one’s saying he shouldn’t compete,” Waters said. “But if you’re already inclined toward transphobia, it’s easy to fixate on trans athletes. That’s the real danger.”
Waters also called attention to how sports bans often serve as a precursor to broader rollbacks of civil rights, including healthcare access. “What we need to be doing is defending this issue and not giving it up,” he said. “Because this is really the first step to taking away rights en masse.”
Despite the grim history and present-day threats, Waters expressed cautious hope. He highlighted states like New York, where trans-inclusive policies remain in place, and praised recent organizing efforts aimed at defending transgender youth.
“I’ve been really heartened seeing people take to the streets and show up for trans kids,” he said. “There’s a real collective organizing around these issues, and I think it’s very possible to get back to a more inclusive place.”
Waters urged advocates to reject defeatism and to stay focused on rhetorical framing. “The conversation is always: Is it fair for a trans woman to compete?” he said. “But it’s never: Is it fair to tell her she can’t compete? That’s where we need to shift the conversation.”
As anti-trans legislation continues to escalate across the country, the NYCLU’s decision to spotlight Waters’ work serves as both a warning and a reminder: the political persecution of trans people has deep historical roots—and must be met with deep resistance.
For Waters, the lesson of history is clear. “There are glimmers of queer potential in the archives,” he said. “We can’t afford to forget that—or to let this moment pass unchallenged.”
Now if you are against men competing in women’s sports you are a Nazi?
So that makes 80% of our country fascists?
(Edited)
Keith – your comment is once again a rhetorical overreach – and a good example of what’s often called a false equivalence or straw man argument.
Opposing trans athletes in women’s sports ≠ being a Nazi – and if you read the article that’s not what is being alleged. Rather, it points out that some arguments and policies, especially those pushed at the federal level under Trump, are not just about sports — they’re part of a broader authoritarian and exclusionary agenda that targets trans people’s existence, dignity, and rights.
Moreover, when you say “men competing in women’s sports,” you are making a misstatement. Transgender women are not men — they are women, legally, socially, and often medically. Calling them “men” is not a neutral opinion; it’s a deliberate denial of their identity, and in many contexts, it becomes a form of dehumanization. And don’t try biological men either, it’s just as offensive.
I don’t believe that any of that is settled, as you claim. Nor does society at large buy-into what you claim.
Interestingly-enough, strangers often call me “sir” when addressing me. Doesn’t that seem rather presumptuous, for someone with your point of view?
Ron, the issue isn’t whether society has fully settled on how to treat transgender people — it’s whether we are willing to recognize their identity and humanity, especially in public debates where they are often scapegoated. Everyone deserves to be treated with humanity.
No one has ever questioned their “humanity”. No one even questions that in regard to those convicted of heinous crimes. Charles Manson was human.
No one questions their “existence”.
Regarding their “identity”, that’s where there’s a problem – especially if it’s intermingled with sex and terms like “men” or “women” . And despite what you claim, this issue is not settled legally, socially, or medically. If anything, it’s moving further-away from those who make claims such as yours.
The problem occurs when demands are made of others to accept claims regarding someone’s “identity”, such as in women’s sports, locker rooms, etc. That’s where legal conflicts can arise, which have nothing to do with “humanity” (as you’re probably defining it).
You already know this.
Saying “Charles Manson was human” to assert that acknowledging trans people’s humanity is meaningless is a disingenuous deflection. The issue isn’t whether trans people are biologically human—it’s whether their lived identities deserve respect, recognition, and legal protection.
You’re comingling three separate subjective concepts: “respect”, “recognition”, and “legal protection”.
There are people opposed to “recognition” and “legal protection” in regard to someone’s gender identity, for reasons that you’re already familiar with.
In fact, some argue that legal protection extends to “women’s sports” (Title IX?), which could preclude using gender identity as the determining factor. Some would argue that using gender identity as the determining factor is an example of lack of respect for those born as female, for example.
It is not an issue that I’m particularly concerned about, but there are female athletes who are. (Not to mention privacy concerns in locker rooms, etc. – which again could be construed as a lack of “respect” for those born as female, if they’re forced to accept “identity” as a determining factor.)
Personally, I believe the larger concern is medical interventions, especially if subsidized. (Mostly for the individuals undergoing them, but this also has societal impacts and complications.)
I have no problem “respecting” all of these positions, including someone’s belief regarding their “identity”. (Even if I don’t fully believe in such a thing as “identity” – whether it’s gender, race, etc.).
I believe in things I can see. That’s why I have a problem believing in the “invisible man in the sky”, as George Carlin might put it.
I don’t think I am. What’s interesting to me is how much attention. The transgender athletes issue gets relative to the number of actual transgender athletes, competing, and say the NCAA level. To put it into perspective there are more transgender incarcerated people at CDCR then there are transgender athletes in the NCAA at any level. So why the outsized focus here
When I went to the prison a couple of months ago, I got a chance to meet with about 20 to 25 transgender women at a male prison. Couple of the people I’ve met with have already been beaten up multiple times since I’ve been there. But more interestingly I learned a lot. For example, you bring up the restroom. Imagine you’re a transgender woman attending a male prison and you have to on a daily basis deal with gawking guards and fellow incarcerated people. As several put it in the program, I attended our bodies don’t look like other people’s bodies. The other really interesting thing I learned was the importance of a safe space. As one person put it I just wanna a place where I can be me without people looking at me, staring at me and judging me. Is that really too much to ask for? So yeah, I tend to look at this a little bit differently than you do specially after I had to deal with 10 suicide attempts in a four month period by my own kid.
By Waters’ logic and yours apparently since you’re so clearly taken by it, I could argue that the movement for “reproductive rights” is rooted in eugenics, racism, and ableist ideology because Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated all those views. It’s not really a honest argument, it’s tendentious.
I think you’re right that it would be questionable to reduce the entire reproductive rights movement to Margaret Sanger’s deeply problematic views—but that doesn’t mean those origins are irrelevant. In fact, they get raised quite often even now.
What Waters is doing isn’t issuing a blanket indictment so much as raising important questions about how categories like gender and athleticism have been historically constructed, often through exclusionary or oppressive frameworks.
Similarly, Sanger’s eugenicist beliefs didn’t define the entirety of the reproductive rights movement, but they did tarnish its public perception and created enduring mistrust—especially in communities of color.
Engaging with these legacies critically doesn’t mean rejecting the movements they shaped but it does mean understanding or attempting to recognize how power and progress often evolve in tension with each other.
Gender doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of imagination. Has no meaning.
Nor does “athleticism”.
If you want to see the best athletes, professional sports does a pretty good job at presenting them. (And I guarantee you that women would not excel, on average, in the NFL, boxing, basketball, etc. – compared to men.) Of course, most/average men wouldn’t, either.
As far as creating mistrust in “communities of color”, I suspect that few people even know who Margaret Sanger is. I barely have heard of her, and knew nothing about her.
In any case, it’s not up to one group of people (with a particular skin color) to create trust in science in some other group of people with a different skin color. That would be a rather paternalistic and racist point of view in the first place.
Though it is true that black people, for example, were less-supportive of gay marriage (on average) than some other groups. I recall that this lack of support might have been significant-enough to change the result of California’s election regarding that issue, a few years back. (When California rejected gay marriage.)
Since David edited out my link for whatever reason the point it was making is when you call everyone a racist it has no meaning anymore.
So now when everyone is being called a Nazi or a fascist actual Nazi’s feel left out.
You didn’t need to post the video to make that point. Moreover, you are misstating the point raised in the article.
I’ve emailed you an explanation of our moderation decision.
So who are the ones actually pushing fascist like agendas?
Those who are trying to protect women competing in women’s sports only with other women?
Or those demanding that women must compete against men in women’s sports?
My third comment, you get the last word David because you can comment at will. How sweet the comment rules are for you.
If you write your own article, you could comment more than three times.