It’s Time To “Swoosh” Nike Off Your List

Recently, the New York Times inadvertently left the cat out of the bag about Nike allegedly funding a study on the use of puberty-blockers in children and how it affects their athletic performance.

The Times’ story centered on former San Jose State volleyball player Blaire Fleming. Fleming is a biological male who identifies as a woman. He competed on the women's team and helped make the Spartans one of the top teams in their conference.

In the story, the author discusses Joanna Harper, a biological male who identifies as a woman and reportedly studies transgender athletes. Harper played an advisory role in the 2015 Olympics decision to allow males to compete in women's events while undergoing testosterone suppression. However, that detail is not the most intriguing aspect of the story, which goes on to say:

"Harper is currently helping to lead an ambitious study of trans adolescents that measures their results on a 10-step fitness test before they start hormone therapy and then, after they have begun to medically transition, every six months for five years.”

"But she told me when we talked in February, ‘the current climate makes the study somewhat uncertain.’ I assumed she was referring to the Trump administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health research grants, but she said money was not a problem: The study is being funded by Nike. The problem was Trump’s separate order targeting medical care for transgender youth. ‘If we can’t perform gender-affirming care, then we can’t bring people into the study.’"

The study's purpose is straightforward: to determine how much medication, hormone treatment, and surgery should be administered to young boys to allow them to compete fairly in girls' and women's sports. As of now, Nike has neither confirmed nor denied its financial investment in the study.

"Did the Bud Light–Dylan Mulvaney fiasco teach Nike nothing?"

This raises an obvious question: Why would Nike choose to get involved in such a controversial study? It seems clear to any reasonable person that no amount of pharmaceutical or medical intervention should permit boys to compete in girls' and women's sports. Furthermore, administering these life-altering "gender-affirming treatments" to children should be viewed as a form of child abuse.

Nike is a sports apparel company that primarily produces sneakers. What are they hoping to achieve with this research? Do they want more children to receive these treatments? Unfortunately, the company has, so far, refused to answer these questions.

Riley Gaines, host of the OutKick podcast "Gaines for Girls" and one of the country's most influential pro-woman voices, criticized the company.

"It’s utterly insidious that Nike would bankroll a long-term study on pre-pubescent athletes—effectively turning children into political guinea pigs—to advance an irreversible, harmful ideology that preys on the most vulnerable.”

"Did the Bud Light–Dylan Mulvaney fiasco teach Nike nothing? Corporations should stick to making products, not picking culture-war sides—but with Nike, a company that has proudly shown their disdain for America, women, and now apparently children, I won't hold my breath."

Gaines’ reference to Bud Light was to that company partnering with transgender Dylan Mulvaney in 2023. That partnership and the criticism of their previously dedicated customers caused a well-deserved major boycott of the brand.

Despite loud and vocal criticism of Bud Light, Nike partnered with Mulvaney to promote sports bras. Unfortunately, that poor choice by Nike largely went unnoticed, even though Martina Navratilova took to X at the time to say, "I guess Nike couldn't find a female athlete to sell sports bras."

Why on earth would a sneaker brand be in the business of doing medical experiments on adolescent boys?

Putting the image of a man pretending to be a woman on beer cans that are popular among men is undeniably foolish. Similarly, it is unwise to have the same thin, mentally unstable man promote a women’s sports bra.

However, as poor a marketing choice as those ideas were, funding a study that simultaneously facilitates child abuse and helps destroy women’s sports is another level of transgression.

Jen Sey, the founder of XX-XY Athletics and a prominent advocate for protecting women's sports and spaces, criticized Nike for allegedly funding "medical experiments" on children.

Sey told OutKick:

"Why on earth would a sneaker brand be in the business of doing medical experiments on adolescent boys? On anyone? Furthermore, girls aren’t impaired boys. The idea that if we just hamper boys enough they can compete with girls without standing out too much — to be passable as girls — is demeaning and degrading to girls. Nike needs to get back to business. Focus on the product and leave little boys alone."

If Nike is indeed funding this type of research, and they are not denying it, then they are clearly making a statement against women's sports and challenging the reality of gender. This could have serious consequences for young men and boys, and it would undermine fair competition for women. Additionally, it threatens the privacy of women's spaces in locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms.

Everything about this situation is unacceptable, and Nike needs to be aware of the backlash from the consumers it is neglecting. This is even worse than what happened with Bud Light. We must let Nike know that we do not tolerate their denial of women’s rights and their support of child abuse.