As a renowned quadrennial tradition, the Olympics is more than just a sporting event; it’s an international community of athletes coming together to celebrate unity, excellence, and sportsmanship- or at least it once was. Unfortunately, the Olympics is no longer the pillar of inclusion it used to be, as discriminatory policies begin to take the forefront of the entire establishment. 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided on March 26 to ban all trans athletes from competing in women’s events, now requiring every woman to undergo a mandatory SRY genetic screening to be eligible for competition. This reversed a previous decision from 2015 that was quite progressive, allowing trans athletes to compete even if they hadn’t received gender affirming surgery, as long as they were below 10 nmol/l of testosterone. 

While the IOC argued that this new policy will protect women athletes and promote fairness, it raises many questions regarding the validity of the SRY test, and the implications of forcing women to prove their gender. Additionally, intersex individuals worry that this new requirement will make them unable to compete.

However, this type of policy certainly isn’t anything new. Trans individuals, athletes or not, have been under fire recently, especially with a surge in anti-trans legislation in the United States. The Olympic’s ban on trans women is only the beginning. 

Any anti-trans policy that claims to protect women furthers a misogynistic narrative of female fragility while oppressing an already marginalized population, harming both biological women and the trans community. It’s certainly been effective though, as we now see international spaces like the Olympics being infiltrated by these toxic ideologies.

The IOC’s decision to require genetic testing for women is unethical, and quite frankly, blatant discrimination. Misogynists relish in the idea of putting women under constant scrutiny, forcing them to prove their femininity. It enables them to exclude anyone that doesn’t fit the binary. This new rule will threaten all women, whether they’re trans, cis, or intersex. 

What’s truly bizarre about this ban is that their claim of women needing to be sheltered from trans individuals isn’t backed by scientific research. Findings have shown that statistically, trans athletes may not have as much of an advantage over cis women as many believe.

According to the National Library of Medicine, the only true biological advantage men may have over women are higher levels of testosterone. However, this ceases to be an issue if trans women use puberty blockers, or undergo certain hormonal treatments. It is also worth noting that testosterone is just one factor that contributes to overall athletic performance, and doesn’t necessarily correlate with coordination, skill, or strategic thinking. 

A 2024 study conducted by the IOC and the British Journal of Sports Medicine performed a series of fitness related tests on cis women and trans women to compare the results. On average, trans women performed the same, if not worse, than biological women. Trans women had similar performances on bone density and hemoglobin measurements, and worse performances on lung capacity and lower body strength. 

All individuals are different, and biological sex isn’t the singular factor that determines how well someone will compete. Only about 0.001% of Olympic athletes are even trans, making it illogical to declare war on a demographic that doesn’t even have a strong presence at the Olympics in the first place.

As if it’s not bad enough that the IOC is intent on excluding an underrepresented demographic from competing, but the inaccuracies and biases of the SRY gene test could potentially exclude intersex women as well.

The SRY test uses either a blood sample or cheek swab, to identify the presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This test has been extremely controversial in the scientific community, as biological sex isn’t black and white, and more complex than just having X and Y chromosomes.

This test could exclude some female athletes that are born intersex, meaning they were born with a variation in sexual characteristics. For example, those born with CAIS. CAIS is a rare genetic condition that results in XY chromosomes, but the male hormones are rejected, resulting in lower levels of testosterone and physical female characteristics. These individuals would test positive for the SRY gene, despite being more similar to cis women than cis men.

Andrew Sinclair, the scientist who initially discovered the SRY gene, has publicly opposed and condemned the IOC for the usage of the test. 

“All it tells you is whether or not the gene is present. It does not tell you how SRY is functioning, whether a testis has formed, whether testosterone is produced and, if so, whether it can be used by the body,” Sinclair wrote in an op-ed.

The IOC’s new policy clearly discriminates against women that don’t meet the binary, but even cis women aren’t excluded from the consequences of this policy. 

Historically, numerous biological women in the Olympics have already faced backlash for their phenomenal athletic talent, such as Imane Khelif, a female Algerian wrestler who was continuously harassed after receiving false allegations of her secretly being male, simply because of her prowess and skill.

And let’s not forget Caster Semenya, a South African mid-distance runner who was forced to take a gender verification test after receiving a gold Olympic medal. Despite proving to be a woman, many believed it was unfair that her body naturally produced levels of testosterone that are slightly higher than the average woman.

These attacks on biological women are extremely telling, demonstrating the extent these people will go to in order to police women’s bodies, regardless of the scientific facts. Forcing women to jump through hoops to compete in a space that they’ve earned a spot in will only exacerbate this pre-existing misogyny. 

Not only that, but according to the United Nations Women’s Initiative, 21% of all women involved in any level of sports have experienced sexual abuse in an atheltic environment. Everyone seems to have an opinion on trans women, but no one ever has any solutions to offer for this alarming rate of abuse. Why? Because it was never actually about protecting women in the first place.

Attacking marginalized groups of women will only have a negative trickle down effect, hurting all women in the process. If we really want to protect female athletes, the IOC should focus on reducing sexual violence, instead of passing more exploitative and harmful polices.