Neil Malik
The argument over the IOC’s ban on transgender athletes, explained
Fotofield, Shutterstock
The Topline
- The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has barred transgender women athletes from competing in women’s events at the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Games.
- The decision comes just over a year after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports,” which threatened to "rescind all funds" from organizations that allowed transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.
- The IOC says its updated policy "protects fairness, safety and integrity in the female category.”
- Critics of the policy, including the United Nations, have condemned sex testing policies as being discriminatory and harmful.
Switch sides,
back and forth
It’s based on science
IOC president Kirsty Coventry says its new policy is “based on science.”
These new rules come from the IOC’s working group of medical experts, who say the new policy reflects scientific evidence that biological males have a performance advantage in elite sport.
Think of Olympic events like weightlifting, marathon running or track and field. Basically, anything that requires power, strength or endurance.
In a video announcement, IOC president Kirsty Coventry stated the Olympics represent “elite sport” at the highest levels, and they simply can’t compromise anything related to fairness or integrity. Milliseconds can sometimes be the difference between making the podium and not.
And there are safety risks. The IOC’s policy explains that in contact, combat, or collision sports, differences in strength and power between biological males and females can increase the risk of injury for female athletes.
Here’s the new policy in a nutshell: In order to be eligible for the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Games, women competitors must undergo a genetic screening for the SRY gene – a marker typically found in males. If the test comes back negative, they’ll receive lifetime eligibility to compete in a women’s category and never have to take the test again.
On the other hand, any athlete who screens positive for the SRY gene is ineligible for the female category, but may still compete in male, mixed, or "open" categories.
The IOC’s previous framework released in 2021 allowed for any decisions around eligibility to be made by each individual sport’s governing body. In the case of track and field, World Athletics started requiring SRY gene testing for its female category athletes last summer. So in that sense, this kind of testing isn’t entirely new for everyone hoping to compete in Los Angeles.
But with the new policy, the IOC is applying one set of rules across the board, removing the existing patchwork of eligibility requirements between different governing bodies.
The IOC said it consulted with over 1,100 athletes, revealing a strong consensus that using science-based eligibility rules for the female category is a priority for fairness and safety.
They also said by removing any doubt around fairness, they are preserving the female category as being essential for inspiring women and girls around the world by celebrating their achievements.
No doubt, this is a complicated, sensitive issue for everyone.
That said, the IOC says this new policy demonstrates a commitment to fairness, integrity and keeping a level playing field.
Not all scientists agree
Critics are pointing out the IOC’s policy is scientifically flawed and discriminatory.
Legal and human rights experts argue that mandatory genetic sex testing violates fundamental rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and dignity. Better known as "gender policing,” it subjects women to intrusive investigations and extreme public scrutiny.
They also argue the policy is inherently discriminatory because no comparable genetic testing requirements are imposed on male athletes.
Those are important points, but there’s an even bigger question at play here: Why make this change in the first place?
Is it really about fairness and integrity? Or is it to avoid clashing with President Trump’s executive order titled "Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports” in advance of the Los Angeles Summer Games?
Trump’s order mandates that athletic facilities, such as locker rooms, be reserved specifically for biological women. Educational institutions that don’t follow the order could lose federal funding. That’s a large concern for groups like the NCAA, where many future Olympic athletes train and compete.
The IOC promotes its updated policy as being science-based. And while there may be science involved in the discussion, not all scientists necessarily agree on the conclusions.
Some believe genetic testing is a scientifically and ethically unjustifiable method for determining an athletic advantage, and there is no scientific consensus that natural variations in testosterone or specific genetic markers provide a definitive competitive advantage for women.
Instead of releasing a new policy to appease the Trump administration, some argue the IOC should have simply stuck by its previous guidelines.
The IOC’s 2021 Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination has been described by human rights groups as a widely respected policy, informed by extensive research and engagement with over 250 athletes and experts.
It supported eligibility rules that are evidence-based, sport-specific and rights-respecting, rather than universal, one-size-fits-all requirements.
Legal experts and human rights groups are calling for the IOC to fulfill its Olympic Charter commitments, pointing to statements like “the practice of sport is a human right” and that every individual must have access to sport “without discrimination of any kind.”
Because isn’t that what fairness is truly about?
