Concerns Over Locker Room Changes at University of Pennsylvania

No one really consulted us. Not me, not my teammates, and certainly not the new students who recently joined the University of Pennsylvania and found themselves in a locker room with Leah Thomas.

There was no vote, no email, nothing. We were simply told to accept a male swimmer on the women’s team and adjust accordingly. And honestly, we never really did get used to it.

In many ways, it seems like college students are now expected to address the issues created by adults who should have known better.

In the upcoming weeks, lawyers and experts will analyze the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in State of West Virginia vs. BPJ. They’ll debate about legal precedents, but, well, many might overlook a crucial point. They weren’t in that locker room. I was.

Throughout the season, I found myself changing and showering with male athletes. Eighteen times a week, my teammates and I were supposed to act as if this was completely normal.

When we expressed our concerns, it was labeled as hate. The policies that set this situation in motion didn’t stem from hate. We worked hard for our positions on the team, but no one—from the University of Pennsylvania to the NCAA to USA Swimming—ever checked in to see how we were coping with these changes.

The administration seemed indifferent. The unspoken message was clear: your discomfort isn’t our priority.

When we tried to convey our apprehensions, the athletic department was firm. Leah Thomas’s place on the team was not up for discussion. Instead of protecting us, they offered mental health services aimed at helping us become comfortable with changing in front of men. Their approach felt more like fixing us than addressing our concerns.

Now, going back to that recent judgment, it’s important for people to realize this isn’t just an abstract concept for me. It’s not merely a topic to debate. I experienced firsthand the policies that the courts ruled states could prohibit.

From what I’ve seen, the so-called compassionate frameworks that others often advocate often fall short in practice.

Who exactly is the compassion meant for? It certainly doesn’t favor the female athletes who have dedicated years to their training only to find themselves finishing behind someone who, perhaps, shouldn’t have been in their class at all. And it definitely didn’t help the California teenager who lost his state track title to this scenario. We were all expected to keep quiet and accept it, while the decision-makers seemed more concerned about one male athlete’s feelings.

This ruling is significant, but it doesn’t automatically resolve the issues that governing bodies and professional organizations have been causing by systematically undermining protections for women.

The NCAA still permits some athletes to compete based on altered birth certificates. It’s almost laughable—they’d only come up with this as a solution if they weren’t genuinely interested in resolving the issue, particularly if they didn’t have to share locker rooms with adult men.

Adding to the complications, there are currently 23 states with absolutely no laws safeguarding girls in sports.

The Protecting Women and Girls in Sports Act has languished in Congress for years. Those lawmakers who thwarted the bill back then are now facing the Supreme Court’s message that they had the authority to act but chose to remain inactive. It’s time to complete this work.

I’ve anticipated this moment since I was 19 years old.

While the court reached the correct conclusion, it’s frustrating it took this long for those in charge to grasp what I already understood from my experiences in the locker room.