Concerned Women for America says its latest database review identified more than 2,293 first-place finishes by transgender male athletes in female sports, along with more than $501,000 in professional prize money, as Congress and state governments continue debating sex-based eligibility rules.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Concerned Women for America is reporting a substantial increase in the number of competitions in which transgender male athletes have defeated female competitors, releasing new figures as the Senate Judiciary Committee examines eligibility rules for women’s and girls’ sports.
The conservative advocacy organization said transgender male athletes have won more than 2,293 gold medals or first-place finishes in female categories in the United States since the mid-1980s. The group also counted more than 14,301 appearances in female amateur and professional sporting events and more than $501,498 in professional prize money.
The figures come from data compiled by HeCheated, a database tracking instances of athletes born male competing in female categories. They represent Concerned Women for America’s tally and have not been independently verified by a government agency or comprehensive sports governing body.
CWA describes the victories as medals “stolen” from female athletes. That wording represents the organization’s position in the continuing debate over transgender participation rather than an official classification of the results.
The organization’s new count is higher than the nearly 2,000 gold medals identified in a similar report last year. CWA’s July 2025 release put its previous total at more than 1,941 gold medals.
The latest figures were released as the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a Sept. 23 hearing titled “Standing Up for Women in Sports: Ensuring Opportunity, Fairness and Safety for Female Athletes.” The committee listed Independent Council on Women’s Sport co-founder Kim Jones, former professional soccer player Carly Smolak and attorney William Bock III as witnesses.
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee President and CEO Penny Nance called the findings “an outrage” in the organization’s news release.
“It is shockingly unfair for biological women to have to compete against trans-identifying men,” Nance stated.
“Biological men have distinct advantages over biological women,” Nance said, arguing that policies allowing transgender women to enter female competitions affect fairness, safety and economic opportunities.
“This reality not only puts women in harm’s way, but it eliminates opportunities for biological women to earn a living and win competitions,” Nance said. “Congress must act to protect biological women.”
The organization reported that its data also identified more than 611 occasions in California in which a woman or girl finished second behind a transgender competitor. All of its major measurements increased from its July 2025 report, according to CWA.
The debate has increasingly shifted from individual sporting organizations to state legislatures, Congress and federal courts.
As of 2026, 29 states had laws, regulations or interscholastic athletic rules restricting female school sports participation on the basis of sex, according to data compiled by Ballotpedia. Twenty-seven enacted restrictions through state statutes, while Alaska and Virginia adopted statewide policies through other mechanisms.
The current national picture is also reflected in this state-by-state policy map.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue directly in June.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court held that states and schools may establish female athletic categories based on biological sex, rejecting an Equal Protection Clause challenge to West Virginia’s eligibility policy.
“Schools may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” the court said. The ruling concluded that competitive fairness and safety are important governmental interests and that sex-based eligibility rules can be substantially related to those interests.
The decision allows such restrictions but does not require every state to adopt them.
That means policies remain different across the country, including in California, where eligibility rules have been among the subjects cited by CWA and other organizations seeking nationwide federal legislation.
The issue has also divided members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, opened Wednesday’s hearing by saying its purpose was to examine “how we can empower women and protect girls in sports, and about the impact of men competing in women’s sports.”
Ranking Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to the hearing and declined to call Democratic witnesses.
“If Republicans actually wanted to stand up for women in sports, and I do, then they should listen to more than 400 athletes who sent an open letter to the NCAA Board of Governors,” Durbin said.
He quoted the athletes as arguing: “Although trans exclusionary efforts claim to ‘protect women’s sports,’ in reality, they fail to address any of the real, documented threats to women in sports, namely unequal pay, failure to uphold Title IX, rampant sexual abuse and harassment of women and girl athletes, and a lack of equal resources for men’s and women’s teams.”
Durbin added: “If we are going to have a constructive conversation about women’s sports, then we must demand honesty and compassion. Anything less is a disservice—including categorically treating every trans athlete, no matter their age or level of competition, as a threat to women’s sports.”
Nance, meanwhile, called for congressional action establishing sex-based eligibility requirements across several levels of American athletics.
“Congress should pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 (H.R.28/S.9) to prohibit federally funded school athletic programs from allowing males to compete in women’s and girls’ sports; the Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (H.R.1028/S. 405) to clarify that sports National Governing Bodies must designate women’s sports for women only under their Congressional authorization; and The Title IX Clarification Act (H.R. 8781/S.5179) to clarify that, for purposes of Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities, the term ‘sex’ refers solely to an individual’s biological status as male or female.”
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act passed the House in January 2025 by a 218-206 vote, with one member voting present, and was subsequently received by the Senate.
The Protection of Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act would address eligibility policies within organizations governed by federal Olympic and amateur sports law. A House committee reported H.R. 1028 in February 2026, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the legislation.
The Title IX Clarification Act of 2026, H.R. 8781, would specify a sex-based definition for federal nondiscrimination requirements under Title IX. The House Education and Workforce Committee approved the measure in July, and it was reported to the House in September. Its Senate counterpart, S. 5179, was referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
“How many more women and girls will be subjected to an uneven playing field?” Nance asked. “It’s time to put an end to this inherent unfairness and protect women’s sports.”
The underlying disagreement extends beyond the numerical findings in CWA’s database.
Organizations supporting sex-based female athletic categories argue that physiological differences associated with male puberty can affect competitive fairness and, in some sports, safety. Advocates for transgender athletes counter that categorical exclusions can prevent transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity and argue that policies should account for factors such as age, sport and medical transition.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling resolved one major constitutional question by permitting states to use biological sex when determining eligibility for female school sports. It did not create a nationwide requirement, leaving Congress, states and individual athletic organizations to continue setting policy within the legal framework established by the court.
Against that backdrop, CWA’s latest figures have added a new numerical argument to the debate: the group now says its database contains more than 2,293 instances in which a transgender athlete took first place in a female sporting event, an increase of more than 350 from the tally it released in 2025.
Original article
Comments