By Lori Ewing and Iain Axon
LONDON, March 26 (Reuters) – Reactions to the International Olympic Committee’s new policy on gender testing were sharply divided on Thursday, with supporters hailing a long‑overdue move to protect women’s sport and critics warning it risks stigma and harm to young athletes.
Supporters of the decision said it was essential for the governing body to reassert the importance of a protected female category and to provide clarity for sports organisations worldwide.
Fiona McAnena, Director of Campaigns for UK-based advocacy group Sex Matters, called the ruling “extremely welcome”.
“Women’s sport can only be for those who are female,” McAnena told Reuters in an interview. “The IOC sets the standard for sport worldwide. It’s very welcome that the IOC has recognised that the only way to have fair sport for women and girls is to have a protected female category.”
She said it was crucial for the IOC to take the lead, rather than leaving individual sports to navigate the issue alone.
“Their influence is enormous,” she said. “Many sports used the IOC’s previous policies to justify not protecting the female category. That’s why I’m really pleased the IOC has called this policy ‘protecting the female category’.”
McAnena rejected the idea that broader inclusion automatically increases participation.
“We know that women and girls drop out of sport when they are forced to compete with boys, or when they find that changing rooms or playing fields are not single‑sex when they thought they would be,” she said.
While broadly supportive, McAnena said there were elements of the policy that fell short. She criticised the IOC’s decision not to backdate the rules, saying it failed to address past injustices.
“We know that three women were cheated of medals in the Rio Olympics, deprived let’s say, by male athletes with disorders of sex development in the 800 metres,” she said. “It seems a shame that that cannot be put right for those three women.”
At the 2016 Games, Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui claimed the medals in the women’s 800 metres, with all three classified as having differences of sexual development (DSD).
All three have been ineligible to compete in the women’s 800 metres since 2019, after World Athletics introduced tightened eligibility regulations covering events from 400 metres to one mile.
The rules require athletes with DSD to medically reduce naturally high testosterone levels in order to compete in those events.
Semenya refused to do so, arguing the regulations were discriminatory and violated her rights. Wambui has not competed since the rules were implemented seven years ago, while Niyonsaba switched to longer distances.
McAnena also pointed to an exception in the policy for athletes with the diagnosis of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), saying it still allowed for some male advantage, even if reduced.
Opponents of the IOC’s ruling, however, argue it is not backed by solid science and risks harm to athletes, particularly girls and minors.
Dr. Payoshni Mitra, founder of advocacy group Humans of Sport, described the ruling as “a safeguarding disaster” and said it appeared to be driven more by politics than by science.
“It’s not science‑based, it’s stigma‑based,” Mitra said in an interview with Reuters. “It’s more under political pressure rather than really what is required in women’s sport.”
Mitra said she was “shocked” that the policy includes minor athletes, since it will encompass all athletes competing in female category events at the Olympics, Youth Olympics and Games qualifiers.
“As far as I know, there were about 14 minor athletes competing in the Paris Olympics,” Mitra said.
The youngest of those was 11-year-old Chinese skateboarder Zheng Haohao.
She also questioned the timing of the decision, suggesting political considerations around the next Summer Olympics in Los Angeles played a role.
“(The U.S.) is a country where we are very aware that things are going in a direction which is not what progressive‑minded people expected,” she said.
TOKEN VOICE
“The IOC could have focused on robust, independent research. But they rushed into this decision, which tells me this is all because of where the Summer Olympics is going to be hosted next.”
Mitra said sex‑based eligibility rules have historically had a disproportionate impact on women from Africa and Asia.
Double Olympic gold medallist Semenya was one of nine African women athletes with alleged sex variations who wrote to IOC president Kirsty Coventry on Wednesday. A similar letter had previously been sent to the President by Semenya in June 2025.
“When I was asked to be consulted, I made one thing clear: I will not be used as a token voice,” Semenya said. “Consultation means nothing if you have already decided. It means nothing if you have not sat with our stories, our pain, what our bodies have been put through in the name of sport.
“If the IOC had truly listened — if President Coventry had done what evidence-based policy demands — this policy would not exist. It does not smell of science. It smells of stigma. It was not born from care for athletes. It was born from political pressure.
“As a woman from Africa, I had hoped President Coventry would be different. I had hoped she would listen to all of us — not just the powerful, not just the comfortable. She failed us.”
World Athletics in 2023 banned transgender women who had gone through male puberty from competing and tightened its DSD rules, lowering permitted testosterone thresholds and making eligibility contingent on sustained medical suppression.
Women competing at last year’s world championships had to have a one-off gene test to comply with requirements.
“We have led the way in protecting women’s sport over the last decade,” a World Athletics spokesperson said on Thursday.
“Attracting and retaining more girls and women into sport requires a fair and level playing field where there is no biological glass ceiling. This means that gender cannot trump biology. A consistent approach across all sport has to be a good thing.”
(Reporting by Lori Ewing, Iain Axion; writing by Lori Ewing; editing by Pritha Sarkar)
Comments