The Olympics banned transgender women from competing. Here is the how, why, and what's next.

Introduction

In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) introduced a new policy that limits the female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event to athletes classified as biological females, determined by a one-time sex-determining region Y (“SRY”) gene screening. This policy will be implemented for the first time at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. According to the IOC, this policy is necessary to ensure fairness, safety and integrity in elite competition. The IOC believes that this policy is also necessary for the attainment of the IOC’s modern goals for the Female Category, which include: equality, enhancing Olympic Values, and visibility and inspiration. Put simply, the policy introduces a de facto exclusion of transgender athletes and many athletes with various differences of sex development (“DSD”) from female categories. The IOC attempts to justify this by arguing that these excluded athletes may have performance advantages in strength, power, or endurance. 

At its core, this policy bans transgender female athletes and androgen-sensitive athletes from participating in the Female Categories in the Olympics.

Criticism of the Policy

This policy is divisive and has generated immediate and widespread backlash. Following the announcement of the policy, numerous critics, including human rights, sports, and medical organizations, have voiced their disapproval of the latest IOC policy.  

Over 150 medical, human rights, and sports organizations issued a joint statement shortly after the policy announcement, calling on the IOC to abandon any plans to implement it. The statement argues that the policy’s mandatory genetic screening violates fundamental rights and risks reinforcing stigma and discrimination against marginalized groups. 

Child athletes compete at the Olympics, which means this policy would require young women and children’s bodies to be investigated and disclose intimate health information. The joint statement further adds that the policy ignores the reality that transgender and intersex athletes disproportionately face barriers to access, as well as harassment, exclusion, and abuse. 

Sue Bird, WNBA legend and Basketball Hall of Famer, stated that the policy was “fearmongering” and disagrees with the IOC’s presentation of the policy as “protecting women.” Nikki Dryden, human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer, says that this policy is not about protecting women’s sport, but rather “policing girls’ bodies.” Harrison Browne, actor from Heated Rivalry, reiterates the previous criticism that this policy is policing women’s bodies, and further adds that this policy has now created moral panic around trans athletes.

As other critics have pointed out, the latest IOC policy is a stark reversal from their framework in 2021, named “IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations.” This earlier framework explicitly recognized that “every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination and in a way that respects their health, safety, and dignity.” The contrast between the two approaches underscores a broader shift in the IOC’s priorities, from a rights-based model to exclusion. 

What’s behind this shift in Tone and Messaging

One likely reason is the election of Kirsty Coventry, who was elected IOC president last year, becoming the first woman to serve in that position. When Coventry campaigned to lead the IOC, her campaign messaging relied on addressing the “protection of the women’s category” amid debates about the participation of transgender athletes. 

Another likely reason is the current political climate. There is a rising extreme conservative ideology in Europe and North America, which coincides with the announcement of this policy. The 2028 Olympics will be held in the United States of America, and its President, Donald Trump, is a frequent advocate against transgender athletes in women’s sports. In fact, the President congratulated the IOC when the policy was announced. Regardless of the actual reasons for implementing this policy, it is problematic from a human rights perspective.

Human Rights Considerations

The IOC’s new policy raises serious concerns under international human rights law, specifically relating to non-discrimination, privacy, bodily and psychological integrity, and human dignity.

International human rights law prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and sex characteristics. By categorically excluding transgender women and certain intersex athletes, the IOC risks violating these protections. Legal experts, including those contributing to a joint statement co-authored by Lincoln Alexander Assistant Professor Michele Krech, argue the policy creates unjustified distinctions that disproportionately harm specific groups without necessity or fairness. As stated by Krech, this policy is a “stigmatizing and exclusionary policy that lacks democratic legitimacy, scientific grounding, and proportionality between its harms and its aims.”

Mandatory genetic testing requires the collection of highly sensitive personal data. Such information is protected under privacy rights but, one must ask whether these protections are sufficient. This question is relevant now, more than ever, given the concerns and lawsuits surrounding recent 23andMe company decisions and data breaches.

In 2025, the CBC released an article summarizing the recent lawsuits filed in Canada and the United States regarding 23andMe’s attempt to auction off customer’s genetic information and their previous data breach which allowed hackers to access customer genetic information. Additionally, a 2024 lawsuit alleged that 23andMe failed to notify customers that Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews data had been specifically targeted and sold online. 

Unlike the IOC regulations, the 23andMe events included the voluntary participation of customers. With the IOC regulations, the mandatory nature of the requirement strips athletes of the ability to decide how or if their genetic information is assessed and gathered, if they wish to remain athletes. Such required disclosure raises ethical, legal and privacy concerns. It asks athletes, including minors, to trust governing bodies with banks of valuable, high performance genetic information. Given the value of this genetic information, several questions must be asked: what rights does an athlete have to that information once gathered? Could this information be used in academic research or by the bio-tech industry? Is this a slippery slope which slides into regulations which view the body and its genetic components as property and the governing bodies as authorities on the appraisal and control of said property?  

The policy also implicates the right to bodily and psychological integrity. Even if it is a ‘one-time’ test, mandatory genetic testing raises questions about meaningful consent, as refusal results in exclusion from competing. 

Historical policies subjected women athletes to invasive and humiliating testing procedures.  For example, in the Cold War era, women athletes were required to undergo compulsory physical examinations, retrospectively referred to as "naked parades," where they were forced to present themselves nude in front of a panel to determine if they were female. Another jarring example is that of Spanish hurdler Maria Martínez-Patiño, who was excluded from the 1985 Universiade Games in Kobe after failing a genetic sex test. After failing, she was advised to fake an injury to avoid a scandal. At her own expense, Martinez-Patino was diagnosed with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which, if properly verified, would have made her eligible to compete. This is just one example of the harms that can come with genetic testing.  The reintroduction of genetic testing risks repeating these harms under a new scientific framework, reinforcing stereotypes and policing women’s bodies rather than protecting them. 

Consequences of this Policy and Questions about the Future

The IOC’s policy is likely to have far-reaching consequences for athletes and the broader sporting community. Beyond immediate exclusion, it risks legitimizing similar measures at national and international levels, contributing to a broader rollback of inclusion in sport. Furthermore, the IOC will likely spend time and resources fighting future legal disputes challenging this policy's validity, when those resources could have been better spent on other issues, such as reducing barriers to the enjoyment of sport. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) will likely hear these legal disputes since the CAS is an international institution established to resolve sports-related disputes. If the actions of specific sports bodies align with the policy, they may also be involved in these legal disputes. There are around two years left until the next Olympics, meaning any issue regarding this policy will likely need to be raised soon to ensure the CAS can decide on the eligibility of transgender athletes in time.

According to the IOC, the three values of Olympism are excellence, respect, and friendship. And yet, this policy was seemingly not made with these values in mind.