A New Era in Sport Eligibility Rules
The recent ruling by World Athletics about gender and fairness in athletics has been up for discussion for some time now. Since the ruling, all athletes identifying as female who compete in World Athletics events on the global rank have to take a genetic test to ascertain their eligibility for the category.
Do World Athletics’ rules requiring the SRY gene test for girls who wish to complete the Y in athletics aim to “protect the integrity of women’s competition”? They attach the SRY gene to male biological traits. It also “triggers” other characteristics, including testosterone production, during puberty. Certain governing officials state that the new rule is to “protect the integrity of women’s competition” by giving competition to athletes who are biology women.
This argument has been the subject of controversy. It has also been critiqued in multiple ways. Supporters, for example, argue that it is necessary for the balance in women’s sport. Others state that it is a simplification and dangerous to athletes who may have Intersex variations that they do not even know about.
To ascertain the right side of the argument, it is significant to understand the intricate science, history, controversies and ethical dilemmas that have shaped this issue.
What Exactly Does the SRY Test Detect?
The SRY gene is a small but powerful stretch of DNA. In a human embryo with XY chromosomes, the SRY gene, activating, carries on the development of testes, which then make testosterone, resulting in the development of male physical traits like increased muscle mass, a greater number of red blood cells, and denser bones.
With no SRY gene, XX chromosomes embryos usually will develop as females.
The test does not measure levels of hormones directly. It simply seeks if the SRY gene is present. Negative test results showing there is no Y chromosome indicates eligibility to the female category. It gets more complicated if winners have SRY +.
Athletes with SRY + have a Difference in Sex Development (DSD), a condition whereby genetic, hormonal or anatomical features of an individual cannot be classified as male or female. For example:
- Some people have XY chromosomes with external features of a female.
- Some people have functioning testes with female secondary characteristics.
Individuals affected by Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) do not develop any male physical traits because their body is unable to respond to testosterone even though they possess XY chromosome. Thus, they develop as females and do not have any male athletic advantages.
World Athletics states that there will be some medical exceptions, and only those who have undergone male puberty and the physiological benefits associated with it will be ineligible.
How will the tests be administered in the real world?
The procedure is the sorry, the “simple” murder, which is to draw blood sample and/or conduct a cheek swab that is to be administered once in a lifetime to some athlete who is under the care of a federation as an athlete.
World athletics states that the results will be encrypted with biometric locks so that only appropriate authorities are in a position to access such info, hence, access certificates will be handed over the relevant sporting body.
Athletes with a positive medical history will be analyzed in greater detail to determine the level of their disability before any eligibility decisions are made.
Even this “one-time” requirement has over been completed.” Canadian athlete records are and have been held hostage over the fact that their lab records came under the care of a facility which lacks the level of professionalism necessary to deal with such imperative, specialized documents.
World Athletics president Lord Sebastian Coe admitted the difficulty but still responded: “It is quite pivotal that in a sport that is trying to attract more women, the more women there are, the more participation there is, and there is no biological glass ceiling.”
Why Now?
The roots of this type of rule go more than 10 years back. In 2009, Caster Semenya, a South African runner, won the 800 m World Championship in Berlin and shocked everyone in the process. It was soon revealed that Semenya was suffering from a condition called DSD, more specifically, 46 XY 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, which initiated a discussion on the topic of fairness in sport.
The conversation picked up in intensity during the 2016 Rio Olympics when all three women’s 800m race medalists were DSD athletes. Critics said that the other side was not suppressing testosterone and taking cross-sex hormones and, so, the other side was openly relevant. At the same time, however, supporter of athletes on the other side said that a lot of this cross-examination is pretty invasive and discriminatory.
Semenya herself when was asked to take the imposing testosterone-lowering medication, which is often described as violating the human rights, flatly said no. She has gone on a legal war with a lot of cross including the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), however, in the end, losing to the European Court of Human Rights, which in 2023, Semenya was issued a decision that said she was not given a fair hearing, which in my opinion no one really deserves.
Transgender Inclusion and Stricter Rules
At the same time, the matter of transgender inclusion became a focus of heated debate. In 2023, World Athletics issued a ban on transgender women who undergone male puberty from competing in the women’s category. The DSD rules also became more Draconian: testosterone levels were lowered to stricter thresholds in all track and field events.
A working group, however, decided that testosterone suppression could not permanently eliminate the benefits of male puberty. And that led to the SRY gene test that is now in place and in use.
Impact on Other Sports
Athletics is not the only one’s concerned. In 2024 World Boxing introduced rules that are, in essence, the same. To participate in women’s bouts, athletes must not possess a Y chromosome nor have male androgenization.
This was a really big deal during the Paris 2024 Olympics and centers around athletes Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan who won gold. Khelif was actually barred from competing the previous year by the International Boxing Association (IBA) over gender eligibility issues. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), who was in charge of Olympic boxing after the IBA was suspended, had no restrictions on Khelif competing which led to Imane Khelif to compete and later sparked widespread controversy over the fairness of the matches and the IBA.
It remains to be seen whether the IOC will implement blanket SRY testing. Outgoing president Thomas Bach said in 2024, “XX or XY is not the clear distinction some claim.” In contrast, new IOC president Kirsty Coventry has said there seems to be more openness to sex testing, especially since President Donald Trump said he would implement it for the LA 2028 Olympics.
The Legal and Ethical Minefield
Opponents of sex testing claim it could stigmatize some athletes, especially those who are not aware they may possess DSD traits. Former Olympian and now sociologist Madeleine Pape says, “It is very harmful to the athletes affected while it is far from scientifically accurate as a performance indicator.”
Some scientists have equally questionable reasoning. Mandatory sex testing has been called “misguided” by Professor Andrew Sinclair, who discovered the SRY gene in 1990. He states there won’t be male physiological development because of the presence of the gene alone and warns of false lab contamination positives.
It is unquestionable that the memory of past injustices is still quite unsettling. One of the instances is the case of Spanish hurdler Martinez Patino who in the 1980s was barred from her right to participate after a chromosome test was done, only to be reinstated years later after it was demonstrated that she had CAIS, and thus was never taking any advantage of testosterone. That case was part of what led to the IOC’s decision to end the use of blanket gender testing in the 1990s.
He still believes that the modern test is “extremely accurate,” and that the legal advisers who say that it will stand any challenges are quite right. With Semenya’s case still to be resolved, and plenty of human rights groups paying attention to it, it does seem that inescapable delays are the order of the day.
Athletes’ Responses
The supportive side: Advocacy group Sex Matters called the reinstatement of sex testing “welcome and overdue,” arguing that any fairness for female competitors was better than none at all. Several female athletes also privately said that it would help clarify a category that had been overshadowed by so many eligibility disputes.
The critical side: Nikki Hiltz, a middle-distance runner who is both transgender and non-binary, was not so supportive: “I just don’t like the precedent it sets. $100 per test could be spent on tackling doping or abusive coaches.” Hiltz agrees that there is testing that needs to be done, but there are also limits of how invasive a process should be used.
For some athletes, the issue gets personal. Some embrace the promise of a rule that mechanically silos athletes into divisions, while others worry that it will deepen divisions and vent additional pressure onto already fragile people.
Wider Consequences
The introduction of gene testing in athletics assumes gene testing of some people in the sport.
- Scientific: Are gene factors enough for someone to be considered athletic for a single gene? Numerous scholars would argue athleticism is multi-faceted. Factors like culture, access to certain foods, training and even possible altitude can contribute greatly.
- Legal: In the eyes of the law, would the rule be considered a necessary for the protection of discrimination? In the case of Semenya, her partial ‘victory’ at the European Court suggests the opposite is also possible.
- Cultural: Judging from the attitudes of certain societies, how would they reconcile with the fact that they have a common rule that dictates what is acceptable? The push-back that different countries have, like Norway and France, is complex and shows this.
- Sporting: Other federations, do they plan to set a standard athletic and boxing. edition for other women sports, or will they be the only ones?
Next Steps
More than 90% of female athletes have been tested and as the World Championships draw near, the remaining cases in Tokyo will be cleared. Life will be normal for a number of athletes and for some, the outcomes will help solidify their standing in competition.
Women’s sporting activities are at a crossroad, an attempt at balance fairness with fairness. World Athletics, in this case, considers the SRY test a bold attempt at a solution which could open as many questions as it closes.
On the other hand, Lord Coe clarified “At elite level, for you to compete in the female category you have to be biologically female.” Only time will tell whether the sporting world, and the courts, will agree with this statement.
Stay updated with reliable news:
Sports: Sport Flash HQ
Business: Biz Rush
Weather: The Climate Post
Travel: Neon Report
US Local: 24 Hour Bulletin
India Finance: The Lucky Ledger
General: The Chrono Post