The debate surrounding the inclusion of biologically male athletes in women’s competitions at the Olympics has reached a fever pitch. Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, who missed out on a gold medal due to East German doping in the 1980s, believes that a new issue is hindering women’s success – the presence of biologically male athletes competing against women. Davies, along with many others, expresses concern about the safety and fairness of this practice, citing the significant strength advantage that males possess.
The recent victories of boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, both of whom have been banned by the International Boxing Association for having male chromosomes, have further fueled the controversy. These athletes have faced intense scrutiny and online abuse, highlighting the complex and sensitive nature of this issue.
While the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has adopted a policy based on passport declarations, this approach has been criticized for failing to address the underlying scientific disparities. Biologist Dr. Emma Hilton, whose research has established the significant difference in punching power between men and women, argues that “safety is a cut-off.” She emphasizes that the focus should be on ensuring the safety of female athletes, rather than striving for a balance between fairness, inclusion, and safety.
The case of Khelif and Yu-ting underscores the shortcomings of the current system. They have faced significant backlash, with many questioning their gender identity and questioning the validity of their victories. However, both athletes maintain their identity as women and highlight the prejudice they have faced.
Sebastian Coe, President of World Athletics and a potential future head of the IOC, has acknowledged the need to prioritize fairness. He states that “if we ever get pushed into a corner to the point where we’re making a judgement about fairness or inclusion, I will always fall on the side of fairness.” This statement reflects the growing concern about the impact of including biologically male athletes on the integrity of women’s sports.
The current system, based on self-identification and testosterone testing, is far from foolproof. The definition of “female” within the context of sports remains unclear, raising questions about how to accurately measure and define this category. The Olympics have historically struggled with defining “female,” from nude parades to chromosome testing, ultimately highlighting the lack of a definitive and scientifically sound solution.
As the debate continues, the need for a comprehensive and scientifically-based approach to determining eligibility in women’s sports becomes increasingly evident. The safety and fairness of female athletes must be prioritized, and the IOC faces the crucial challenge of developing a system that ensures a level playing field for all.
