No more self-ID? The IOC's shift on women's sports
Because identifying as female isn’t the same as being one in sport
Kristy Coventry, the newly elected president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), announced an initiative to safeguard the women’s competition category. This initiative was a response to recommendations from an IOC members forum and was part of Coventry’s campaign for the IOC’s top position.
Coventry stated, “We are establishing a working group comprising experts and international federations. The members have agreed that the IOC should take the lead in this endeavor. We will bring together the experts and international federations to ensure consensus.”
She acknowledged that there may be differences in sports, but emphasized the importance of the IOC and its members prioritizing the protection of the female category. Coventry emphasized the need for consensus among all stakeholders.
Protection of the female category
The IOC officially ended its invasive sex-testing of female athletes in 1999. This decision shifted responsibility for determining eligibility to compete in the women's category to the international sport governing bodies (IGBs). As a result, sex determination policies have varied, leading to the current confusion surrounding the issue. Some IGBs now rely on self-identification or gender-identity claims as the sole determining criteria to compete in some women's sports.
Adding to the confusion was Principle 5 of the IOC's 2021 statement on Fairness, Inclusion, and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations, which states:
5. No presumption of advantage
5.1 No athlete should be precluded from competing or excluded from competition on the exclusive ground of an unverified, alleged or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status.
5.2 Until evidence (as per principle 6) determines otherwise, athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status.
Shortly after the IOC released this statement, Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, made headlines by winning the 500-yard freestyle at the 2022 NCAA women’s swimming championship. The IOC and the NCAA are separate entities, but this detail was not important to an increasingly skeptical sport community and the public at large. The Thomas incident drew an unprecedented amount of attention to a highly publicized event. It smacked of unfairness, and the way natal female athletes were treated by their schools and the NCAA regarding transgender inclusion only made matters worse.
Another controversy arose when two men competed in women’s boxing events during the 2024 Paris Games. This was not only seen as unfair but also dangerous. There was disagreement about how the boxers in question were determined to be male, but instead of investigating the matter, the IOC seemed to reinforce what the rest of the world perceived as an unreasonable position. The IOC refused to accept evidence of the athlete’s sex, claiming that it was obtained unethically by an IGB that had recently been banned.
Similar occurrences have happened in various sports and at different levels of competition. Initially, there may have been some misguided support for transgender inclusion based on compassion or pleas for authenticity, but this has now faded. The overwhelming public understanding is that males have a performance advantage over females. It is considered unfair and potentially unsafe for men to compete in women’s events. The public is experiencing compassion fatigue and seeks an end to this unfair situation.
Sport has never been an appropriate environment for transgender experimentation. Authors of a statement published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports criticized the IOC's "no presumption of advantage policy":
Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Lundberg, Tucker, et al. (2024)
Sport categories mean something
Sport categories are essential for ensuring fairness and safety in competition. For instance, a 13-year-old is not permitted to participate in a 12 and under age category, and a 65 kg athlete is not allowed to wrestle in the 57 kg weight class. Therefore, why are males allowed to “identify” themselves into the female category?
Due to growing public discontent, the IOC may soon reverse its position by instituting SRY screening for all female athletes, similar to the approach adopted by World Athletics earlier this year. This screening would replace the current smorgasbord of regulations and tests and serve as a universal gatekeeper for the female category.
Recent legal decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States have clarified the definition of woman, emphasizing that it is solely based on one’s sex, regardless of gender identity. The U.K. decision recognized sport as a sex-affected activity:
Sport is a gender-affected activity1. It depends on the determination of whether the strength, stamina, or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage as competitors in a particular sport when compared to average persons of the other sex. U.K. Supreme Court judgement
If Coventry’s initiative succeeds, it would signify a reversal of the IOC’s “hands-off” approach to sex testing female athletes. Implementing a single test as a criterion for the female category in the Olympic Games would establish a gold standard for all sport governing bodies. Furthermore, it would officially acknowledge the U.K. Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which I believe will soon be echoed in other countries, that sport is a sex-affected activity, and that the female category requires an exclusionary test to maintain its significance.
It’s unfortunate that the U.K. Supreme Court used the term ‘gender’ here. Gender and sex are not the same thing. It’s clear, however, what the court means.