The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced a new policy on the protection of the women’s category that will force thousands of elite women athletes from around the world to undergo genetic sex testing in order to compete.
Critics argue the policy is based on weak science and raises urgent and important questions about fairness and human rights. It requires athletes seeking to participate in the women’s category at IOC events, such as the Olympic Games and the Youth Olympic Games, to undergo screening for the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene.
The IOC’s policy is an extension of the genetic sex testing practices recently adopted by international sport federations for athletics, swimming, boxing and skiing and snowboarding. It also encourages other international sport federations to implement similar exclusionary policies for competitions outside the Olympics.
The purpose of the test is to identify and exclude transgender women and women with sex variations due to the perception that they threaten the integrity of women’s sport. Athletes who test positive for the SRY gene are ineligible for the women’s category, unless they can demonstrate complete insensitivity to testosterone through clinical evaluations.
Global backlash raises red flags
While groups advocating to restrict eligibility in women’s sport are celebrating this return to genetic screening, the implications are deeply troubling. The use of genetic sex testing in sport was discredited and abandoned in the 1990s due to scientific, ethical and legal concerns — all of which remain relevant today.
The IOC moved ahead with its new policy despite stern warnings and petitions from United Nations experts, 140 human rights and sport advocacy organizations and more than 90 legal experts worldwide.
These groups noted that the intrusive and exclusionary practices now codified in the IOC’s policy are rooted in stereotypes and generalized assumptions of performance advantage rather than robust, sport-specific evidence. They also noted that the practices risk violating the human rights principles of non-discrimination, bodily and psychological integrity, dignity and privacy for all women athletes.
Ethics, flawed evidence and cost
According to the IOC, the new policy is informed by consultations with experts, reviews of scientific evidence and input from the IOC’s “Protection of the Female Category Working Group.” Yet, the identities of these experts and members of the working group have not been revealed, and the alleged scientific evidence relied upon by the IOC has not been cited.
Determining eligibility in women’s sport based on the presence of a single biological marker, such as the SRY gene, ignores the complexity of biological sex and the many other factors that influence sport performance but are not regulated.
The truth is that there is no independent, high-quality evidence showing that women with the SRY gene and sex variations have an athletic advantage. Similarly, for transgender women, the scientific research is inconclusive and recently led a Belgian court to conclude that a ban on transgender women in international cycling was unlawful.
Contrary to the IOC’s assertions, genetic sex testing is highly invasive, which is why it is strictly regulated under various laws.
In many jurisdictions, it can only be conducted for clear medical purposes, after an individual has provided free and informed consent, and where the processing of genetic data is subject to adequate safeguards. Yet, genetic sex testing in sport violates these requirements.
The IOC’s response to this illegality is that athletes can simply travel to other countries without such laws to take the test.
Pragmatic questions about the costs of genetic sex testing have not been addressed in the IOC policy and cannot be ignored. It is estimated that the cost to test an athlete could exceed US$10,000 in some cases, and it is not clear who will finance these costs.
Two days earlier, the Future of Sport in Canada Commission released its final report. The report recognizes the precarity of Canada’s sport system and the need for a massive infusion of funding to maintain safe sport standards for all athletes.
Given this national focus, the genetic screening of women athletes seems far from a priority.
What’s at stake for the future
While the IOC has said its new policy only applies at the international level, there are concerns that this narrowing of the women’s category will filter down to lower levels of sport.
Without a change in course, genetic sex testing could become commonplace, and many women and girls may choose to leave sport to avoid having their bodies policed and their identity questioned.
To truly protect women’s sport, we believe that governments, athletes and other members of civil society must strongly oppose the exclusionary and rights-infringing policies of the IOC and international sport federations.
The outcome of a recent privacy complaint in Canada that will limit the use of certain sensitive personal data for sex testing provides a glimpse of the resistance that is possible.
Silvia Camporesi is a member of WADA's Ethics External Advisory Group (EEAG).
Marcus Mazzucco and Sarah Teetzel do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
