Recent debates and evolving eligibility rules in international sports have reignited a difficult but necessary question: how do we balance fairness, inclusion, and non-discrimination in women’s competitions?
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently announced a new policy targeting transgender athletes and their ability to participate in the Olympic Games, starting from the 2028 Los Angeles edition. This new policy specifies that to be eligible in women’s Olympic sports, the athlete must be a biological female, intensifying the brutal scrutiny faced by both transgender and cisgender women whose bodies do not conform to stereotypical biological expectations.
New and proposed regulations place an increasing emphasis on biological markers, such as chromosomes, testosterone levels, or specific genes, in determining eligibility to compete in women’s categories. While these policies are framed as efforts to support fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination in women’s competitions, they also fuel public debate about the persistent regulation and surveillance of women’s bodies against narrowly defined biological norms and expectations.
These developments raise an important question: are such policies protecting women’s sport, or are they introducing new forms of exclusion?
The new eligibility frameworks
The policy states that the determination of eligibility for female athletes will be based on the SRY gene, Sex-determining region Y protein, usually involved in the male-typical sex development.
Under the IOC’s new framework, athletes competing in the female category are required to undergo a one-time genetic screening—using saliva, blood, or cheek swab samples—to detect the presence of the SRY gene. According to the IOC, if the test comes back as positive for the this gene, it means that the athlete went through male-typical development, and is therefor excluded by female sports in the Olympic Games.
The athletes who test positive are generally deemed ineligible, but there are “rare exceptions.” These limitations may include athletes with specific Differences of Sexual Development (DSDs), such as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), where testosterone does not produce performance-enhancing effects.
This policy was drafted with the prospective of the findings of the Working Group on the Protection of the Female Category, founded by the IOC’s President Kirsty Conventry. This group argues that exposure to male puberty can result in lasting physiological advantages, and that such measures are necessary to ensure fairness in women’s sport. However, critics point out that biological sex is not strictly binary. Variations in sex development—including differences in chromosomes, hormones, and receptor sensitivity—challenge simplified classifications and raise concerns about how “fairness” is being defined, and for whom.
Discrimination in and beyond sport: Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya
Importantly, these policies do not only affect transgender athletes. They also impact cisgender women whose bodies do not conform to narrow biological expectations.
The case of Imane Khelif, an Algerian boxer, illustrates how quickly public scrutiny can turn into policing of women’s bodies. Despite being a cisgender woman, she has faced widespread questioning of her eligibility based solely on her physical appearance. She won an Olympic gold medal back in 2024 and people have been discriminating her victory and calling her a “male athlete,” including the President of the United States Donald Trump.
Similarly, Caster Semenya, a two-time Olympic champion, has challenged regulations requiring athletes with certain Differences of Sexual Development (DSDs) to medically alter their natural hormone levels in order to compete. These conditions involve variations in chromosomes, hormones, or reproductive anatomy and are naturally occurring.
Semenya said that her genetic conditions don’t alter her performance in an unfair way towards other female athletes, and that being a great athlete is nothing but hard work. She stated that this decisions undermines women and their dignity, and even violates their rights because these tests have failed before. Semenya will keep fighting against these tests, hoping to help every female athlete that feels discriminated against because of them.
These examples highlight a broader issue: when eligibility is tied to rigid biological criteria, the line between inclusion and exclusion becomes blurred—not only for transgender athletes, but also for cisgender women.
Discrimination or protection?
The IOC is mandating these tests to “protect women” but while doing so, they are also hurting other women in the process. Policies designed to “protect women’s sports” can, in practice, lead to increased surveillance and regulation of all women’s bodies.
Rather than expanding inclusion, such frameworks risk redefining who is considered “woman enough” to compete. This creates a system where athletes are evaluated not only on performance, but on biological traits over which they have no control. Equality and inclusion are still difficult topics when it comes to trans athletes and the Olympic Games. However, the introduction of such regulations and their often ill-informed media coverage can give way to a misogynistic public debate centred on attacking both trans and cisgender women over “who is woman enough”. Be vocal about these misogynist practices: if we fight together, we can make a change. And if you want to be a real changemaker that fights for women’s equality, join Eduxo!