New IOC Policy's on the SRY gene screening

[4everchan]

Isn't that ironic that the IOC is always wishing to add more mixed events but then does that ?

The list of competitions that are mixed is getting longer and longer. In swimming, the relays are actually very interesting because depending on the starting order, sometimes, a team will be very behind but then will catch up (or not !) with a strong male anchor against a woman anchor.

I am not too sure what to think of all that but there is one sure thing : I'd rather see an intersex or trans person compete at the olympics or at grassroots level in any sport, whatever the advantage or not this kid would have over others, than see them depressed, feeling excluded, misunderstood, left out, and forbidden to be healthy and happy.

I have met a couple non-binary kids among my students and gosh, they have it hard enough as it is. To see how insensitive some "rule makers, who are supposed to be leaders of all sorts of human values, act is beyond my understanding.

 

[gsk8]

This is a straw man argument. Caitlin Jenner did not identify as a woman in 1976.

Also - to reiterate for people in the back - trans people do not transition for the purpose of advantage in sport. Let alone after winning the Olympics already.

Also Caitlin Jenner is trash and terrible representation of the trans community.

I don't feel that it's a strawman argument at all. I also do not believe that people transition for the purpose of advantage in the sport. Whether or not you feel Jenner is "trash" or a "terrible representation of the trans community" is moot.

I think folks can go back and forth on this thread indefinitely. The reality is that if you want change, you have to present facts (without emotion) to the powers that be. In this case, the IOC.

This is not a trans "hate" thread, so please do not paint it that way.

 

[saine]

The reality is that if you want change, you have to present facts (without emotion) to the powers that be. In this case, the IOC.

'Facts' are currently being used to hurt women and children:

Kansas anti-trans sports law opens door for genital inspections of kids. That's the simple truth. • Kansas Reflector

The new law banning transgender athletes doesn't specifically force or require genital exams. But it could be used to justify them.

kansasreflector.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-short-hair-girl-gender-identity-1.6875738

Utah officials secretly looked into female athlete's gender

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah high school athletics association secretly investigated a female athlete — without telling her or her parents — after recei...

infotel.ca

‘I did nothing wrong': Broward School Board suspends mom after transgender athlete controversy

The Broward School Board decided Tuesday to suspend an employee whose transgender daughter played girls’ high school volleyball in an alleged violation of state law.

www.nbcmiami.com

Texas athlete speaks out after being questioned about gender

Comes as bills called anti-LGBTQ move through the Texas Legislature.

spectrumlocalnews.com

UT: Teen Harassed, Accused of Being Trans at JV HS Basketball Game — Assigned

A high school girl’s right to play junior varsity basketball in Canyons School District, Utah, was challenged by a furious parent who falsely believed she was transgender.

www.assignedmedia.org

This is the reality of what these policies are causing. People are using them to hurt the people they say that they are protecting. Seeing all these news stories makes me glad I am not playing sports in this climate.

 

[gsk8]

'Facts' are currently being used to hurt women and children:

This is the reality of what these policies are causing. People are using them to hurt the people they say that they are protecting. Seeing all these news stories makes me glad I am not playing sports in this climate.

I just have a hard time believing that the IOC is doing this to "intentionally hurt" anyone. I think that's also why they are moving toward a standardized eligibility criterion (like SRY screening)—to avoid subjective judgments, ad hoc investigations, or decisions based on appearance.

You can absolutely disagree with that approach.

I wish I could say I have an answer, but I don't.

 

[saine]

I just have a hard time believing that the IOC is doing this to "intentionally hurt" anyone. I think that's also why they are moving toward a standardized eligibility criterion (like SRY screening)—to avoid subjective judgments, ad hoc investigations, or decisions based on appearance.

You can absolutely disagree with that approach.

I wish I could say I have an answer, but I don't.

They may not think that they are intentionally hurting anyone with their policies. But that is the impact those policies have on people, whether they intend them or not. It is adding on to attacks an already marginalized group of people face.

With the SRY gene, the scientist who discovered it doesn't think it should even be used as a test. Human beings are complicated and reducing it down to a simple genetic test doesn't give all the answers.

World Athletics’ mandatory genetic test for women athletes is misguided. I should know – I discovered the relevant gene in 1990

World Athletics says its genetic test for women ensures ‘the integrity of women’s sport’ – but science does not support this overly simplistic idea.

theconversation.com

 

[gsk8]

I understand that policies can have real effects on certain athletes, and that shouldn’t be ignored. But framing them as “attacks” implies intentional harm, which isn’t accurate — sports organizations are trying to balance fair competition with inclusion, not target anyone.

The article from The Conversation argues that using a single gene like SRY as a definitive test is too simplistic, which is a fair scientific point. But that doesn’t mean sex-based categories in sport aren’t relevant. The bigger challenge is that biology is complex and no policy can perfectly account for every case, so trade-offs are inevitable.

 

[gsk8]

What would interesting is to learn what resources, research, etc. that led the IOC to implement the policy.

 

[gsk8]

If the IOC requires a one-time SRY screening for the 2028 LA Games, the ISU (International Skating Union) has to decide at what age a skater should be tested.

I don't want to see a positive SRY result leading to a "public outing" of any athlete's intersex or DSD status. Especially the young ones.

 

[4everchan]

I don't want to see a positive SRY result leading to a "public outing" of any athlete's intersex or DSD status. Especially the young ones.

Unfortunately, that's very likely to happen. Would they run these tests for youth Olympics ? Would they do them as soon as athletes are doing " serious" sport like let's say in figure skating, advanced novice events or JGP ? We are talking about very young athletes who often have no idea their biological gender may be "different" than what they think. Imagine at 12 or 13 receiving such a test result compromising not only one's athletic career but also, one's identity ? Is that really necessary ? To preserve what ? Sports integrity ? It's just sport. We are talking about human beings here, not just athletes. I find it very scary for these young athletes. Will the IOC provide years of therapy to a child receiving such an unexpected result ? I think we can collectively do better than that.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I understand that policies can have real effects on certain athletes, and that shouldn’t be ignored. But framing them as “attacks” implies intentional harm, which isn’t accurate — sports organizations are trying to balance fair competition with inclusion, not target anyone.

The article from The Conversation argues that using a single gene like SRY as a definitive test is too simplistic, which is a fair scientific point. But that doesn’t mean sex-based categories in sport aren’t relevant. The bigger challenge is that biology is complex and no policy can perfectly account for every case, so trade-offs are inevitable.

Non malicious intent isn’t absolved when it impacts people negatively. It is irrefutable that these rules will be harmful towards trans athletes and diminish their capacity to play in elite sports.

As far as “balancing fair competition with inclusion”, how do you even argue these policies are “inclusive”? These are rules that expressly exclude (and stigmatize) many trans women for the perceived benefit of making fairer competition - when only one trans woman has ever even competed at the Olympics (placing last at that).

 

[gsk8]

How do you even argue these policies are “inclusive”?

I hear what you’re saying. It’s true that regardless of the 'why,' the 'what' is a policy that limits participation for trans athletes, and that has a very real, negative impact.

I did not imply that non-malicious intent makes the outcome any less difficult for those affected. I'm simply saying that this is clearly a situation where there are no easy answers that satisfy both biological categorization and full inclusion.

 

[Dr. Jenn]

Here's a good video where the policy is critiqued, well backed up by scientific studies and other publications/examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USs6WIyyOuk

 

[Dr. Jenn]

Here's a good article on the topic: https://english.elpais.com/health/2...s-athletes-are-a-threat-to-womens-sports.html

 

[gsk8]

Here's a good article on the topic: https://english.elpais.com/health/2...s-athletes-are-a-threat-to-womens-sports.html

Nice summary, but it’s also pretty consistent with what a lot of other articles posted on here have already put out.

At this point, I’m more interested in what new evidence or perspectives are being added rather than more articles reinforcing the same conclusion.

 

[Dr. Jenn]

Nice summary, but it’s also pretty consistent with what a lot of other articles posted on here have already put out.

At this point, I’m more interested in what new evidence or perspectives are being added rather than more articles reinforcing the same conclusion.

They are discussing an academic article that was published this year, so it's quite recent. It's a meta-analysis of several varied, international studies. That's pretty much the gold standard.

 

[gsk8]

They are discussing an academic article that was published this year, so it's quite recent. It's a meta-analysis of several varied, international studies. That's pretty much the gold standard.

Right. But one thing that keeps getting overlooked is what this study doesn’t actually measure.

It’s not looking at real sports performance. There’s no data on competition results, rankings, win rates, or outcomes in actual events. It also doesn’t focus on trained or elite athletes—most of the included studies are on general populations.

Instead, it looks at proxy measures like body composition (fat/lean mass), strength tests, and VO₂ max in controlled settings. Those are useful, but they don’t directly translate to performance in specific sports, where things like technique, explosiveness, endurance under competition conditions, and skill all matter.

So even if the paper finds “no clear difference” in some of these lab-based metrics, that’s not the same as showing there’s no advantage in real-world competition. It just means the available data on those specific measurements is limited and inconsistent.

This distinction is important because organizations like the International Olympic Committee base their policies on actual competitive outcomes and sport-specific evidence—not just lab-based proxies.

Basically, it’s answering a narrower question than people are using it for.

 

[el henry]

I would like to know what sport based outcomes that the IOC relied on. Where were they peer reviewed, how did they account for variables, what was the data base, was it broad enough and varied enough to produce reliable conclusions or was it self-referential?

Rather than the impression I get from the IOC as much as they try to gussy it up with fancy words:
"OMG they went through male puberty and they have male muscles and they look like East Germans from the 70s. We want women who fit what we think women should look like. Unfair, unfair unfair"

I could ask them, but I doubt they would answer. They have reached a conclusion and they are trying to justify it. Insufficiently, IMO, but they're not listening to the likes of me.

 

[yfan1]

They are discussing an academic article that was published this year, so it's quite recent. It's a meta-analysis of several varied, international studies. That's pretty much the gold standard.

I do not get why this debate is about trans solely. You do not require SRY testing for identifying trans people.

This test (and policy) is also meant for identifying intersex athletes. Is there research on that?

 

[gsk8]

I would like to know what sport based outcomes that the IOC relied on.

I would like to know all the data they used as well.