IOC Announces SRY Gene Screening Policy for Female Athletes Starting 2028 Olympics
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced a new policy, effective starting with the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, which will require all athletes competing in female categories to undergo a one-time SRY gene screening.
This policy effectively bans transgender women and athletes with Differences in Sex Development (DSD) from elite female sports. The IOC stated the decision aims to ensure fairness and safety in women's competition, representing a shift from its previous guidelines that allowed international federations to set their own criteria. The announcement has drawn both support and significant concerns from various groups.
Policy Details and Implementation
The new policy mandates that eligibility for the female category in elite individual and team sports will be determined by a one-time screening for the "Sex-determining Region Y" (SRY) gene. This test, typically conducted via a cheek swab or saliva sample, detects the gene associated with male sexual development.
The IOC states that the presence of the SRY gene is constant throughout life and accurately indicates that an athlete has experienced male sex development. The policy will apply to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics and all future Games, but not retroactively, and does not extend to grassroots or recreational sports.
Rationale and Support
IOC President Kirsty Coventry stated that the decision was made to ensure fairness and safety in women's sport, emphasizing that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category, particularly given the slim margins often seen in Olympic competitions.
Coventry, who is slated to become the first female president of the IOC in 2025 and campaigned on strengthening women's sports, also cited potential safety concerns in some sports.
The IOC's 10-page policy document references scientific evidence suggesting a performance advantage for males. This includes a reported 10-12% edge in most running and swimming events, over 20% in throwing and jumping, and potentially more than 100% in explosive power sports. The document notes that XY transgender athletes and athletes with XY-DSD typically have testes and testosterone levels in the male range.
Proponents of the policy describe the genetic test as reliable, confidential, and proportionate, claiming it has the backing of sports scientists and a majority of athletes. Some supporters suggest this method is more humane than requiring athletes to suppress testosterone levels and may reduce media scrutiny for some athletes. The charity Sex Matters expressed support for the IOC's decision, stating SRY screening helps return female sport to female athletes. Former President Trump's administration also expressed support for the decision, though IOC President Coventry denied any external political influence on the policy.
Concerns and Opposition
The policy has drawn significant criticism from various experts and organizations.
Scientific and Practical Concerns
Questions have been raised about the reliability, cost, and interpretation of the SRY test results. Critics point to potential risks of accidental contamination and false positives.
Andrew Sinclair, the scientist who discovered the SRY gene, has publicly opposed using the test for determining biological sex, explaining that it only confirms the gene's presence, not its function or its impact on the body, nor does its mere presence always signify an athletic advantage from male-typical testosterone levels.
Human Rights and Privacy
Concerns exist that the policy could invade the privacy of all women and discriminate against intersex individuals.
Academics who submitted a report to the British Journal of Sports Medicine labeled sex testing as a "backwards step and a harmful anachronism," arguing it violates athletes' human rights, could lead to stigma and psychological distress, and is a "simplistic way of reducing a characteristic to a single gene, which does not reflect the complex nature of sex."
Privacy issues associated with genetic testing are significant, with some European countries, such as France and Norway, already prohibiting non-medical genetic testing.
Access and Fairness
The estimated cost of $250 per screening could impose a financial burden on athletes and national federations. While the IOC mentioned "rare exceptions" for athletes diagnosed with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) or other disorders in sex development, the process for accessing these exceptions or appealing decisions remains undefined.
Erika Lorshbough of interACT raised concerns about potential invasive examinations and additional biomedical testing required for appeals. A sports historian noted that the policy might deter women who suspect they might not pass the screening from pursuing sports altogether.
Organizational Opposition
The charity Dsdfamilies voiced disappointment, raising concerns about the proportionality of eligibility rules and potential harm to a vulnerable minority group, as well as a perceived lack of understanding, dignity, and respect.
Historical Context
The discussion around transgender and DSD participation in sports has been prominent for over a decade. Notable cases include New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, who became the first openly transgender woman to compete in the Olympics in 2021, and DSD athletes such as Caster Semenya, an 800m Olympic gold medalist in 2012 and 2016, and boxer Imane Khelif, whose sex eligibility was questioned during the Paris 2024 games.
Historically, women in elite sports have faced various forms of sex verification challenges for over a century, including intrusive examinations and different genetic tests. The IOC itself previously used the SRY gene test in the 1980s.
However, the committee had abolished sex verification tests in 1999 (or the 1990s, depending on the source) following athlete and scientific pressure, citing issues such as false positives and the penalization of natural variations.
Future Outlook
The IOC recommends that international sports federations and governing bodies adopt this new policy. Potential legal challenges to the policy are anticipated.