The fallout and key questions from the IOC's biological female decision
A few months later, the organisation issued a new set of guidelines, reiterating that it was "not in a position to issue regulations that define eligibility criteria for every sport". And that "athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations. " Yet just five years on, Bach's successor Kirsty Coventry has announced a blanket ban on transgender women, as well as athletes with differences in sex development (DSD) who have gone through male puberty from female events, "to protect fairness, safety and integrity".
From the 2028 LA Games, eligibility for women's competition at all IOC events will be limited to biological females, and determined on the basis of a one time SRY gene screening, which detects the presence of a Y chromosome and male sex development. So what explains the IOC's dramatic change in approach? How divided has the reaction been?
And what challenges and questions remain? BBC Sport takes a closer look. Olympic women's sport limited to biological females The IOC says its new approach is a reflection of "relevant ethical, human rights, legal, scientific and medical developments, including stakeholder feedback", and that a review on the issue took into account "the state of the science, including developments since 2021, and reached consensus that male sex confers performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power, and/or endurance" It added this was irrespective of testosterone suppression, which until now has been relied upon by a number of sports when regulating the inclusion of transgender and DSD athletes in female competition.
The IOC has not published the scientific research it based its decision on, but has stated that at the elite level, there is a 10-12% male performance advantage in most running and swimming events, and that rises to 20% in most throwing and jumping disciplines, and 100% in sports such as boxing, that involve explosive power. Those who have long called for this change in policy argue that the science has shown such advantages for years, and some believe the IOC has been forced into this by a series of controversies, and the fact that a growing list of sports had already shown it was possible legally to introduce tougher eligibility criteria. After New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first openly transgender women to compete at an Olympics in Tokyo in 2021, the governing bodies of swimming and cycling brought in transgender bans for women's events amid concerns among female athletes that they could also face biological males in elite competition.
By then, World Athletics had tightened its rules after the 2016 Rio Olympics, when all three medallists in the women's 800 metre final were DSD athletes, introducing mandatory sex testing in 2025. World Boxing did the same after a major crisis at the women's boxing competition engulfed the 2024 Paris Olympics, where fighters Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting both won golds, despite being disqualified from the previous year's World Championships for allegedly failing sex eligibility tests conducted by then-governing body the IBA. Lin has since been cleared to compete in female competition by World Boxing.
Continue to the original source for the full article.