sz. “CHROMOSOME TESTING IS INVASIVE AND UNNECESSARY” — Masters swimmer Hannah Caldas CRITICIZED her/his ban from the World Championships, during an interview a reporter asked a question that left her speechless and refusing to answer.

In a decision that has reignited global debates on gender eligibility in sports, World Aquatics imposed a five-year ban on American Masters swimmer Hannah Caldas, effective from October 18, 2025, to October 18, 2030.

The suspension stems from Caldas’ refusal to undergo mandatory genetic or chromosomal testing required to verify compliance with the organization’s “chromosomal sex” policy for the women’s category.

All of Caldas’ results from June 19, 2022, to October 17, 2024, have been disqualified, including her victories at the 2024 World Aquatics Masters Championships in Doha, Qatar.

Caldas, a 48-year-old athlete who has competed under names including Ana and Hannah, dominated the women’s 45-49 age group earlier in 2025, sweeping five events at the U.S. Masters Swimming Spring Nationals in San Antonio.

Her performances drew scrutiny, leading to an investigation by World Aquatics after complaints about potential violations of eligibility rules.

The governing body cited breaches of its Integrity Code, including false sex certification and non-compliance with gender policy operational requirements.

In response, Caldas issued a statement through New York Aquatics, declaring: “Chromosomal testing is invasive and expensive.

My insurance refuses to cover this test because it is not medically necessary.

No state in the United States requires genetic testing for recreational sporting events like this.

Even US Masters Swimming, the national governing body for adult recreational swimming in the United States, does not require this for any of its events.”

She accepted the consequences, adding that the ban was “a price I am happy to pay” to protect her privacy and that of other women unwilling to submit to such testing.

Caldas announced her retirement from competitive swimming, stating she had been participating in sanctioned events for over 30 years and was prepared to “let it all go” for her health and safety.

The case highlights stark differences between domestic and international policies.

U.S. Masters Swimming (USMS) cleared Caldas in August 2025 after reviewing documents, including a birth certificate, affirming her eligibility in the women’s category based on sex assigned at birth.

However, World Aquatics enforces stricter rules, extending its 2022 policy—originally for elite competitions—to Masters events.

This policy bars transgender women who experienced male puberty and requires chromosomal verification for challenged athletes, reserving the right to include sex screening in anti-doping protocols.

World Aquatics’ framework aims to preserve fair competition in the women’s category, acknowledging that separating categories by sex can exclude transgender women and those with 46 XY differences of sexual development (DSD).

Male-to-female transgender athletes or 46 XY DSD individuals with female gender identity must prove no male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or age 12 to compete in women’s events.

Otherwise, they are directed to men’s or open categories.

Caldas’ refusal centered on privacy, cost, and the recreational nature of Masters swimming, where no prize money is involved.

She argued that requiring invasive tests for older-adult competitions invades personal medical information unnecessarily.

Supporters echoed this, viewing the demand as disproportionate for non-elite athletes.

Critics, including groups like the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) and figures such as Riley Gaines, celebrated the ban, calling Caldas’ prior successes a “mockery” of female competition.

They pointed to Caldas’ history, including competing in men’s categories early on and later dominating women’s events in swimming, rowing, and CrossFit.

Investigations revealed inconsistencies, such as name changes and allegations of fraudulent documentation.

A Quillette exposé detailed Caldas’ 16-year participation in women’s categories across sports, amassing records and prizes while evading scrutiny until recently.

The controversy escalated earlier in 2025 when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton probed USMS for allowing Caldas to compete, amid state laws restricting transgender participation in women’s sports.

Paxton accused USMS of depriving female athletes of opportunities.

On X (formerly Twitter), reactions poured in, with users sharing news of the ban and debating fairness.

Posts from accounts like @icons_women and @visegrad24 highlighted the suspension, garnering thousands of engagements.

Some mocked the situation, while others demanded revocation of titles, with one viral post falsely attributing fury to Elon Musk.

J.K. Rowling criticized Caldas, stating some find it acceptable for women to be “injured, humiliated and deprived” in sports, but she does not.

This case underscores broader tensions in aquatic sports.

World Aquatics’ 2022 policy, upheld in cases like Lia Thomas, prioritizes biological sex for fairness, citing performance advantages from male puberty.

It introduced an “open” category for transgender athletes, debuted in 2023 but with limited uptake.

USMS’s interim policy aligns partially but allows more flexibility domestically, recognizing World Aquatics supersedes for international events.

As of November 2025, no major updates have reversed the ban, though Caldas’ statement suggests finality in her career.

The incident has fueled calls for universal sex screening in female athletics, with advocates arguing it prevents fraud, as allegedly seen here.

Opponents view it as discriminatory, especially for recreational levels.

Caldas’ words have indeed sparked renewed fights for what some term “bioequity”—balancing inclusion with biological fairness.

Sports fans worldwide are standing up, debating whether privacy trumps verification in protecting women’s categories.

With Masters events growing in popularity among adults, governing bodies face pressure to harmonize rules without alienating participants.

This ban may set precedents for other federations handling transgender and DSD athletes in non-elite competitions.

Ultimately, Caldas’ suspension amplifies ongoing questions: How far should verification go in recreational sports?

And who bears the cost—financially and emotionally—in pursuing equity?

As debates rage on platforms like X, with threads dissecting every angle, the swimming community awaits potential appeals or policy shifts.

For now, Caldas swims no more in sanctioned waters, her legacy stripped and her stance on privacy resounding.

The ripple effects continue, pushing bioequity to the forefront of sports governance as 2025 draws to a close.

According to information and data collected, more and more Americans say that transgender athletes should only play for teams that match their birth gender.

As of November 2025, public opinion in the United States continues to show strong support for requiring transgender athletes to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Recent polls from Gallup and Pew Research Center indicate that this view has remained stable or slightly strengthened since 2023, with roughly two-thirds to 69% of Americans favoring birth-sex-based teams.

This represents a notable increase from earlier surveys, reflecting growing concerns over fairness in women’s sports.

The trend began accelerating around 2021, when Gallup first tracked the issue in detail. At that time, 62% of Americans believed transgender athletes should only play on teams matching their birth gender, while 34% supported competition based on gender identity.

By 2023, opposition to gender-identity-based participation rose to 69%, and Gallup’s May 2025 Values and Beliefs poll confirmed this figure held steady at 69%. Support for allowing transgender athletes to play on teams aligning with their current gender identity has fallen to just 24-26% in recent measurements.

Pew Research Center’s February 2025 survey of over 5,000 adults painted a similar picture, with 66% favoring laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams matching their sex assigned at birth—an 8-point increase from prior years.

This shift has occurred amid heightened political debate and executive actions under President Donald Trump, who in early 2025 signed orders barring transgender women from women’s sports and restricting related policies.

Partisan divides remain stark but have narrowed slightly among Democrats. In Gallup’s 2025 data, 90% of Republicans insist on birth-sex teams, compared to 72% of independents and only 41% of Democrats.

However, even among Democrats, support for transgender athletes playing on gender-identity-matching teams has dropped to 45%, with 14% unsure. This marks a 10-point decline since 2021 for both Democrats and independents.

Generational differences persist, with younger Americans (18-29) more supportive of inclusive policies at around 41% favoring gender-identity teams, though this is still a minority view.

Overall, familiarity with transgender individuals correlates with slightly more accepting attitudes, but even among those who know a transgender person, support for birth-sex restrictions has grown.

Other 2025 polls reinforce this consensus. A New York Times/Ipsos survey in January found 79% of Americans opposing transgender women (assigned male at birth) competing in women’s sports, including 67% of Democrats.

An NBC News Stay Tuned Poll in April reported 75% opposition, with Gen Z showing the least resistance but still majorities against inclusion in women’s categories.

The primary driver cited in these surveys is competitive fairness, particularly in women’s sports where biological differences in strength, speed, and endurance can provide advantages.

Gallup notes that Americans increasingly view the issue through a lens of equity for female athletes rather than solely civil rights. High-profile cases, such as injuries to cisgender women or displaced scholarships, have fueled this perspective.

State-level actions reflect public sentiment: At least 25 states now ban transgender women from women’s sports, up from 20 in 2023. Federal policies under Trump, including NCAA rule changes limiting women’s sports to those assigned female at birth, align with these views.

Yet, majorities oppose outright bans on transgender participation altogether, favoring separate categories or birth-sex alignment instead.

Broader transgender policies show mixed support. While 66% in Gallup’s poll want birth sex on official IDs, majorities protect transgender people from discrimination in housing and employment.

Pew found increased backing for restrictions on youth gender-affirming care (56%) and bathroom policies (49%), but Americans remain divided on moral acceptability of gender transition.

Compared to the 2023 U.S. News article highlighting a rise to 69%, the latest data shows stability at that high level rather than further escalation.

This plateau suggests the issue has solidified as a majority consensus, influenced by media coverage, athletic governing body decisions, and political framing during the 2024 election cycle.

Critics of restrictive policies argue they marginalize a small transgender population (about 0.9-1% of adults) and that hormone therapy mitigates advantages.

Advocates for inclusion point to mental health benefits of sports participation. However, polls indicate these arguments have not swayed the broader public, with fairness in female categories dominating discourse.

International bodies like World Athletics and FINA maintain strict testosterone limits or birth-sex rules for elite women’s events, mirroring U.S. opinion.

As LGBTQ+ identification rises to 9.3% in 2024 Gallup data, future shifts may depend on generational replacement, though current young adults still lean toward restrictions in sports.

In summary, as of late 2025, approximately 66-79% of Americans—depending on poll wording—support requiring transgender athletes to compete based on birth sex, a view that has grown and stabilized over the past four years.

This reflects deep concerns about equity in athletics, transcending party lines more than other transgender issues, and has driven widespread policy changes at state and federal levels.