You’ve probably seen the grainy 1970s footage. A tall, powerful woman with a lethal left-handed serve, standing at the baseline of the U.S. Open, staring down the best players in the world. That was Renee Richards. She wasn't just another player on the tour; she was a 43-year-old ophthalmologist who had just won a Supreme Court battle to be there.
People love to talk about her as the "first" transgender athlete to break into the pros, and while that’s true, the narrative often skips the messy, human parts of the story. Honestly, Renee Richards didn't even want to be a professional tennis player at first. She was a surgeon. She had a kid. She just wanted to be left alone in California. But then the USTA tried to tell her "no," and if you know anything about Renee, that was the quickest way to start a fight.
💡 You might also like: Score of the Kentucky Louisville Basketball Game: What Most People Get Wrong
The Court Case That Actually Changed Everything
In 1976, the world of tennis was pretty much a closed shop. When Renee Richards tried to enter the U.S. Open, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) panicked. They didn't just say she couldn't play; they instituted a brand-new requirement: the Barr body test.
This was a genetic screening meant to verify chromosomes. Basically, if you didn't have XX chromosomes, you weren't a woman in their eyes. Renee refused. She sued the USTA for gender discrimination under the New York Human Rights Law.
It was a total circus. Her lawyer was Roy Cohn—yeah, that Roy Cohn—and the testimony was brutal. The USTA’s side argued she had an unfair physical advantage. They brought in doctors to talk about bone structure and muscle mass. But Renee had an ally that people often forget: Billie Jean King. King actually submitted an affidavit supporting Renee’s right to play.
On August 16, 1977, Judge Alfred M. Ascione handed down a ruling that still echoes today. He called the Barr body test "grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable." He famously stated, "This person is now a female." Just like that, Renee Richards was in the draw for the 1977 U.S. Open.
What It Was Really Like on the Tour
Imagine being 43 and playing against 20-year-olds like Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. It’s wild when you think about it. Renee wasn't a young prodigy; she was a veteran athlete who had already lived a full life as Richard Raskind—a Navy officer and a top-ranked amateur male player.
She didn't dominate the way people feared she would. In her first U.S. Open as a woman, she lost in the first round of singles to Virginia Wade. However, she made it all the way to the doubles final with her partner Betty Ann Grubb Stuart. They lost to Martina Navratilova and Betty Stöve, but the point was made. She could compete.
- Career High Ranking: No. 20 in the world (February 1979).
- Major Achievement: 1979 U.S. Open 35-and-over women's singles champion.
- Professional Record: She played from 1977 to 1981, retiring at age 47.
The locker room was... complicated. Some players were supportive. Others were terrified or flat-out hostile. They felt she was taking a spot from a "real" woman. But Renee just kept showing up. She stayed in the top 20 for years, proving that while she had a massive serve, she wasn't some unbeatable machine. She was a middle-aged woman with great technique and a lot of grit.
The Martina Navratilova Connection
This is the part of the story that feels like a movie script. After Renee retired from playing in 1981, she didn't just go back to her medical practice immediately. She became a coach. And not just any coach—she coached Martina Navratilova.
Under Renee's guidance, Martina won two Wimbledon titles. Renee helped Martina refine her strategy, moving her away from just raw power toward a more tactical, cerebral game. It’s sort of poetic. The woman who was once Martina’s opponent in a Grand Slam final became the person who helped her become the greatest of all time.
💡 You might also like: The Fastest Running Speed of Human Athletes: Why We Might Be Hitting a Wall
They’re still friends, though their relationship is a bit of a lightning rod these days. Both women have taken stances on transgender athletes in sports that surprise people who only know the 1977 version of the story.
Why Renee’s Current Stance Matters
If you talk to Renee Richards today—and she’s still around, still sharp as a tack in her 90s—she might surprise you. In a 2024 position paper she shared with the WTA, and later published in Sports Illustrated, she was very clear: she doesn't think trans women who go through male puberty should compete in women's sports.
That sounds like a contradiction, right? The pioneer for trans athletes saying "maybe not"?
But Renee’s perspective is rooted in her dual identity as an athlete and a doctor. She’s an ophthalmologist who has spent decades studying human physiology. She acknowledges that when she sued in 1977, the science wasn't where it is now. She’s even said that if she had been 20 years old and in her physical prime, she might have been too dominant, which she believes would have been unfair.
She often says she was a "one-off." A unique case at a unique time.
The Doctor Behind the Racket
We can't talk about Renee Richards the tennis player without talking about Dr. Renee Richards the surgeon. She didn't just play tennis for fun; she was a world-class strabismus surgeon. She specialized in correcting eye muscle issues, especially in kids.
💡 You might also like: Chargers Football Score Today: Why That New England Loss Still stings
For 55 years, that was her real life. She’d see patients in the morning and hit the courts in the afternoon. She even wrote a medical textbook, A Text and Atlas of Strabismus, which is still a reference for residents.
She often says her legacy as a doctor is more important to her than the tennis stuff. "I was an eye surgeon for 55 years," she told Yale Alumni Magazine. To her, the tennis controversy was a five-year detour in a sixty-year medical career.
Actionable Insights for Today
The story of Renee Richards is a masterclass in nuance. If you're looking to understand the debate over transgender athletes today, you have to look at her case as the foundation.
- Separate the person from the policy. Renee's case was about her individual right to exist and work in her profession. Modern sports policy is often about broader categories and physiological data.
- Read the original court documents. Richards v. USTA (1977) is a fascinating look at how law, medicine, and social norms collided fifty years ago.
- Look at the coaching legacy. Beyond the "trans pioneer" label, study how her tactical mind influenced the serve-and-volley era of the 80s.
- Acknowledge the evolution of science. Like Renee herself, be willing to look at new data regarding puberty, bone density, and muscle memory rather than relying on 1970s assumptions.
Renee Richards didn't set out to change the world. She just wanted to play a game she loved as the person she actually was. Whether you agree with her current stance or her 1977 lawsuit, you can't deny that she had the guts to stand on a court when the whole world was rooting for her to fail.
To dig deeper into her personal journey, look for her 1983 memoir Second Serve. It’s a raw, honest look at a life that was never as simple as a win-loss record.