Jennifer Sey, founder of XX-XY Athletics, is taking a strong stand against Nike for supposedly backing a study on the impact of puberty blockers on kids and how it might change their sports performance. This research is trying to find out how much medical intervention is needed for a male to “fairly” compete in girls’ and women’s sports. The first hint of Nike’s alleged involvement came from a New York Times article about Blaire Fleming, a transgender female volleyball player at San Jose State, who stirred up some controversy during the 2024-25 NCAA women’s volleyball season.
A recent article from OutKick highlights Joanna Harper, a trans woman researching transgender athletes. Harper is reportedly leading a substantial study on trans adolescents, testing their fitness levels before and after hormone therapy over a five-year span. The article quotes Harper discussing the uncertain future of the study due to the political climate, not because of funding issues, but because of restrictions on medical care for transgender youth. Nike is said to be funding this study, though they have yet to comment on the situation.
Jennifer Sey voiced her discontent on the show “Don’t @ Me with Dan Dakich,” criticizing the very idea of such a study. She founded XX-XY Athletics in 2024, a brand emphasizing that “biology is true.” Sey questions why a shoe company like Nike would involve itself in this kind of research, describing it as degrading and wrong on many levels. She likens the study to a hypothetical scenario where boys would undergo drastic physical changes to compete with girls, highlighting the absurdity she sees in the situation.
Sey strongly believes that this study’s implications are harmful, especially from the perspective of women and girls. She argues that it is demeaning to suggest they are merely “impaired boys.” Further, she questions why Nike would promote research that involves experimental medical treatments with life-altering consequences for young boys. Sey suspects that the decision to fund this study might have been made years ago, possibly without the knowledge of senior executives.
She also speculates that Joanna Harper, who appears to be proud of the study, might have brought unexpected attention to the matter. Now, Sey believes Nike finds itself in a position where it has to defend its actions. She suggests that Nike should apologize and withdraw its support for such research, considering the backlash and ethical concerns it raises.
Images of athletes sporting the iconic Nike logo during competitions are commonplace, yet Sey’s concerns bring a different focus to the brand’s involvement in sports. The ongoing debate around transgender athletes and fairness in sports continues to be a hot-button issue, and Nike’s alleged role in funding related studies adds another layer to the conversation.
While Nike has yet to respond to the controversy, Sey’s comments have sparked discussions about corporate responsibility and the extent to which companies should engage in social and political issues. This situation has highlighted the growing tension between corporate branding and social advocacy, especially in areas as sensitive as gender and sports.
The broader implications of such studies and their funding are likely to remain a topic of heated debate, with opinions sharply divided on the role of medical interventions in sports. As the conversation unfolds, the actions of major corporations like Nike will continue to be scrutinized by both supporters and critics of transgender inclusion in athletics.
