Dr Seema Patel argues the IOC’s proposed use of SRY genetic testing in women’s sport risks reviving discredited forms of sex verification, raising questions around scientific validity, athlete privacy and the limits of sporting regulation.
The decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to introduce genetic SRY testing as a determinant of eligibility in the female category represents a controversial development in the regulation of gender in sport.
Framed as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ verification mechanism designed to protect fairness and integrity, the policy reverts to biological essentialism in sport regulation.
Although proponents present the SRY test as a clear and objective scientific tool, its implementation raises concerns regarding scientific validity, discrimination, privacy, and the erosion of fundamental human rights principles. This comes at a time when the political landscape of sex and gender rights is unpredictable
From historical sex testing to contemporary regulation
The reintroduction of sex verification echoes earlier practices when visual examinations, chromosomal sex tests, and hormone assessments were imposed to police the female category. These methods were eventually discredited as unscientific, invasive, and rooted in femininity stereotypes rather than performance. By the early 2000s, both the IOC and bodies such as World Athletics abandoned routine sex testing.
Recent years, however, have seen renewed political scrutiny of women’s sport and intensified public debates about sex and gender. Gender diverse athletes such as differences of sex development (DSD) athlete Caster Semenya and trans female swimmer Lia Thomas challenge the binary categories of sport.
These pressures have contributed to inconsistent eligibility rules across global sports. Although the IOC attempted to address this in its Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination in 2021, that guidance was non-binding and deferred to individual sports to design their own policies.
The re-emergence of SRY testing signals a reversal of the 2021 framework’s core principles, particularly inclusion, non-discrimination, bodily autonomy and privacy. It also indicates that political narratives about ‘protecting women’s sport’ have surpassed scientific evidence and human rights considerations.
Scientific uncertainty
Yet the scientific basis for such rules is unclear and the IOC has not disclosed its supporting evidence. Genetic testing for sex determination typically examines DNA for the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. Although this appears to offer a definitive biological marker, the science of sex development is much more complex such it is not reducible to a single gene.
The IOC’s reliance on SRY testing therefore oversimplifies the biology of sex. Instead, gonadal development, hormonal signalling, androgen sensitivity, and broader physiological processes all interact to produce a wide range of sex characteristics.
A causal or universal link between the presence of a Y chromosome and athletic advantage has not been conclusively established. Despite claims that ‘male-bodied’ athletes retain fixed performance benefits after puberty, research remains limited, inconclusive and often based on small or non-representative samples.
There is even less research on trans female and DSD athletes, the populations most directly affected by such policies. This lack of robust evidence complicates any attempt to justify exclusionary genetic testing eligibility.
Legal tensions: Discrimination, privacy and bodily autonomy
Mandating genetic testing for all female athletes has serious legal and ethical implications and sets a global precedent where national and grassroots organisations may feel compelled to follow. This could normalise routine genetic screening for female adults and children.
International, regional and domestic human rights frameworks, especially those governing genetic data, impose strict obligations around consent, confidentiality and non-discrimination. Compulsory SRY testing cuts directly against these principles.
Firstly, DNA contains deeply sensitive information, and its collection requires explicit, voluntary and informed consent. Athletes may feel coerced to consent due to career pressures, or financial dependence. Even assurances of confidentiality cannot eliminate risks of misuse, data breaches, or unintended exposure of genetic traits unrelated to sport.
Second, excluding athletes based on genetics risks discriminating on the grounds of sex characteristics or genetic features. International institutions explicitly warn against the use of genetic data for non-medical purposes. Genetic testing may disproportionately harm women with DSD variations, some of whom may live as women and have no performance advantage. This prompts central questions of proportionality and whether such intrusive measures are necessary, evidence-based and the least restrictive means of achieving fairness.
Thirdly, athletes whose results fall outside IOC thresholds may be pressured into further medical interventions, including hormone suppression, which the courts have increasingly scrutinised. The European Court of Human Rights Judgment in Semenya v Switzerland and the Court of Justice of the European Union decision in Royal Belgian Football Club Seraing v FIFA (and UEFA) signalled that even within the traditionally private, self-regulating sphere of sport, fundamental rights cannot be sidelined. These cases emphasise that sport cannot regulate beyond the limits of human rights law.
Eligibility rules demanding intrusive medical or genetic scrutiny may face legal challenge in the future as athletes begin to assert their rights and confront discriminatory rules. Yet when these tensions have reached the legal courts, there have been inconsistent conclusions. Some domestic courts have upheld biological sex rules, whereas others have found such policies discriminatory or unsupported by adequate scientific evidence. This legal uncertainty further complicates the IOC’s position.
The turbulent political landscape
The IOC’s policy shift must be understood within a broader, changeable regulatory environment in which legal statutory definitions of sex are tightening and protections for gender-diverse individuals are being rolled back.
This trend has contributed to increasingly restrictive eligibility rules across sport. In this context, the IOC’s U-turn can be seen not simply as a scientific decision, but as a response to mounting political, legal, and institutional pressures, particularly given upcoming major events, such as the Olympic Games in the US.
Moreover, the policy reinforces narrow, binary and outdated notions of sex, contributing to social stigma against gender diverse people. Sport plays a powerful cultural role and policies that treat genetic variation as a threat are exacerbating public and political attitudes and shaping broader discriminatory practices.
Toward a fundamental rights assessment
Rather than returning to discredited genetic testing during these uncertain times, sport regulation could adopt a ‘fundamental rights assessment’ that integrates science, ethics, law, and human rights. This approach evaluates proportionality, necessity, evidence and discrimination risks before imposing eligibility restrictions.
It acknowledges the complexity of sex development, the limitations of current scientific evidence, and the legal obligations to protect privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy.
A rights-based, multidisciplinary assessment provides a more legitimate, fair and sustainable alternative to SRY-based testing, one that respects both the integrity of women’s sport and the fundamental rights of all athletes.
Dr Seema Patel, Associate Professor at Nottingham Law School. Seema is an international expert on gender discrimination in sport. She has been involved in sport policy in this field and has also contributed to government consultations on inclusion and participation in sport.
