The International Olympic Committee is under growing scrutiny as it reviews eligibility rules for women’s events ahead of the Los Angeles 2028 Games. Led by President Kirsty Coventry, the IOC’s working group on “Protection of the Female Category” is reassessing participation criteria amid reports that genetic sex testing and tighter restrictions on transgender and intersex athletes are being considered. Will they follow through with it?

While the plan is meant to standardize eligibility across sports, it has sparked concern from human rights and sports advocacy groups. More than 80 organizations like the Sport & Rights Alliance, ILGA World, and Humans of Sport have publicly called on the IOC to drop these reported plans.

“A sex testing and blanket ban policy would be a catastrophic erosion of women’s rights and safety,” stated Andrea Florence, the Executive Director of the Sport & Rights Alliance.

“Gender policing and exclusion harms all women and girls, and undermines the very dignity and fairness the IOC claims to uphold. Our concerns are compounded by the fact that the IOC also seems to be, at the same time, divesting from the safe sport infrastructure that actually provides protection for women and girls.”

Sex testing was once a standard, invasive part of the Olympics, introduced in the 1960s to “verify” the sex of female athletes through physical or chromosome exams. By 1996, the process had become widely criticized for being inaccurate and unfair.

After the Atlanta Games, the International Olympic Committee ended universal testing, calling it “scientifically and ethically unjustifiable.” The practice had proven useless in measuring athletic advantage and deeply harmful to those targeted. It marked a rare moment when the IOC chose empathy over outdated science.

Global voices have slammed sex testing for years. From the UN’s human rights office and UN Women to the World and American Medical Associations, along with a team of UN experts, they’ve all called these tests and unnecessary medical procedures discriminatory, unethical, and deeply harmful to athletes.

Julia Ehrt, the Executive Director of ILGA World, said: “Sport should be a place of belonging.” Even the executive director of Humans of Sport, Payoshni Mitra, cautioned that mandatory sex testing is a “violates women’s and girls’ privacy” and subjects young athletes to danger.

Well, the privacy issues are grave. Genetic testing exposes very personal information, such as chromosomes, genes, and even health information that athletes might not wish to disclose. This compels athletes to provide this information as a way of demonstrating their eligibility, which is regarded as coercive, unnecessary, and even harmful.

Jon Pike, an English academic in the philosophy of sport, described the opposition letter as “laughable, desperate, and silly.” He emphasized that the working group is not proposing a ban on transgender athletes per se, but is focused on excluding males from women’s events. Pike added, “Nothing is fixed but I’m optimistic because of the pessimism of this group.”

However, simultaneously, the controversy shows a conflict with the rules of the IOC itself. The 2021 IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion, and Non-Discrimination places the burden on individual federations to decide who is eligible. Critics now say that the plans reported go against this framework, which clearly said that there was “no presumed advantage” of the male over the female.

Although the proposals have not yet been confirmed, their implementation would be a significant change in policy, especially ahead of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics.

At the same time, it’s important to note that several sports organizations have already introduced targeted gender testing or strict eligibility rules for athletes competing in women’s events.

World Athletics and Aquatics set strict rules for Women’s competition

World Athletics approved a new rule requiring a one‑time SRY gene test for any athlete wishing to compete in the female category at world‑ranking events. This test checks for the presence of the SRY gene, which is found on the Y chromosome and plays a key role in male sexual development.

The rule came into effect in September 2025 and was first applied at the 2025 World Athletics Championships in Tokyo. Under this rule, athletes had to submit a genetic sample to confirm eligibility.

Also, World Aquatics, the international governing body for swimming, diving, water polo, and artistic swimming, introduced strict rules for transgender women and some intersex athletes. While these rules do not require full genetic testing, they impose strict eligibility criteria based on biological factors only.

Moreover, in case a transgender woman experienced male puberty, she could also qualify under the condition that puberty was inhibited at an early age and she has remained at very low levels of testosterone. Athletes should also submit medical or other documented evidence indicating that they fulfil these conditions, including evidence of undeveloped male puberty or a medical condition such as complete androgen insensitivity.

Collectively, these policies show how elite sports organizations are already dealing with the difficult eligibility problems. For now, only time will tell how these ongoing debates will ultimately unfold. What’s your take on it?