★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ SEX SCREENING PUSHBACK ≡
Under pressure from women athletes and seeing the results of some research work compiled by World Athletics and other International Federations, International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry (ZIM) announced shortly after taking office in June 2025 that she would set up a review of the “protection of the female category.”
This resulted in a September 2025 formation of a “Protection of the Female Category Working Group,” to “consist of experts and IFs. The names of the members of the working group will remain confidential for now to protect the integrity of the group and their work.”
Shortly before, on 30 July 2025, World Athletics – the leader among the federations in research and regulations in this area – issued a new requirement for anyone wishing to compete in the female category for the 2025 World Athletics Championships in Tokyo (JPN):
“All athletes wishing to compete in the female category at the World Championships are required to undergo a once-in-a-lifetime test for the SRY gene – a reliable proxy for determining biological sex. This is to be conducted via a cheek swab or blood test, whichever is more convenient.”
There have been occasional stories in European outlets that the IOC’s working group will lean in the direction of the same kind of qualification requirement for the Olympic Games, at least in some sports.
Coventry, asked repeatedly about this, said in December:
“We’ve got the working group and they’re working very well, with all of the stakeholders … we’re going to find ways of trying to find a consensus that has all aspects covered. It’s maybe not going to be the easiest thing to do, but we are going to try our best to be sure than when are talking about the female category, we are protecting the female category and doing that in the most fair way and in finding a consensus for everybody to be able to at least believe in and get behind in.”
She expected to be able to announce results of this work by the end of the first quarter or 2026, or perhaps just a little later, so now is the time for the opponents to get out their megaphones.
And they have.
A 25 February 2026 “Joint Statement on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination in Sport” from the United Nations Human Rights Council condemns the movement toward sex screening and insists that – essentially – transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s competitions. It says so plainly:
“Discrimination on grounds of sex and gender is prohibited. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has clarified that discrimination against women includes discrimination based on gender, as also affirmed by the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, and that the Convention’s protections extend to trans and intersex women in their right to participate in sport.
“The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has warned that indiscriminate bans of trans, genderdiverse and intersex women from women’s sport – or categorising them as ‘male’ – is inconsistent with international human rights standards. United Nations mandate holders have further cautioned that rigid, binary definitions of sex risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes and eroding progress toward substantive gender equality.”
And for extra emphasis, there was this:
“[B]lanket bans on the participation of transgender women in the female category raise serious concerns. Such measures presume uniform advantage without adequate evidence, rely on categorical exclusions rather than individualised assessment, and risk imposing disproportionate burdens on a small and already marginalised group.
“Mandatory genetic sex testing likewise raises concerns in relation to privacy, bodily integrity, informed consent and data protection, particularly where athletes are compelled to undergo testing under threat of ineligibility and where sensitive personal data may be processed or disclosed without adequate safeguards.”
This is nothing new and has already been rejected, notably by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In considering the case of athletes with “differences in sex development” in the Semenya vs. IAAF in 2019, the panel noted:
● “[T]his case involves a complex collision of scientific, ethical and legal conundrums. It also involves incompatible, competing rights.”
● “The Panel considers that, once it is recognised that the reason for organising competitive athletics into separate male and female categories rests on the need to protect one group of individuals against having to compete against individuals who possess certain insuperable performance advantages derived from biology rather than legal status, it follows that it may be legitimate to regulate the right to participate in the female category by reference to those biological factors rather than legal status alone.”
That’s the whole issue in a nutshell. The Court of Arbitration panel’s conclusion was this:
“Claimants were unable to establish that the DSD Regulations were ‘invalid’. The Panel found that the DSD Regulations are discriminatory but the majority of the Panel found that, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties, such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the IAAF’s aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics.”
That was in 2019. The scientific research has advanced considerably since then as have the World Athletics regulations.
Beyond the Court of Arbitration holding, which has not been reversed in any further hearing by multiple other courts, there was another voice that should be considered.
The U.N. Human Rights Council’s statement attempts to present a “United Nations” position on the matter, but very conveniently – actually, pathetically – skips and does not mention the findings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem (JOR).
She reported in August 2024 on this exact issue and said in an October 2024 news conference:
“In order to ensure, fairness, dignity and safety for all, including females – women and girls, females – we would need to maintain a female-only category in sports, while at the same time also having more ‘open’ categories for those wishing to play sports in categories that do not respond to the sex they were born into.
“That is one thing. The other thing is, as requested by many women and girls in sports, is to bring back – or actually not bring back – is to introduce sex screening, which as you know was discontinued in 1999.
“So that should be sex screening have become a lot more reliable now, cheap, can be administered in a confidential, dignified manner, should be introduced … as an element of – what was that called – eligibility, in female sports.”
Alsalem also dealt specifically with the worries of the new U.N. statement, back in 2024:
“According to international human rights law, differential treatment on prohibited grounds may not be discriminatory if it is based on reasonable and objective criteria, it pursues a legitimate aim its effects are appropriate and proportional to the legitimate aim pursued and it is the least intrusive option to achieve the intended result.
“Maintaining separate-sex sports is a proportional action that corresponds to legitimate aims within the meaning of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and does not automatically result in the exclusion of transgender persons from sports, nor does it require invasive sex screenings.
“When combined with other measures, such as open categories, fairness in sports can be maintained while ensuring the ability of all to participate – a course of action followed by several professional sports associations.”
Coventry wants a general consensus on this issue and is looking for common ground in a sporting world where athletics and swimming are in a different reality than equestrian.
The IOC’s findings will be delivered soon enough, and need not take any more time to consider the ill-conceived, one-sided and childlike protests from the pro-transgender crowd in one corner of the U.N. bureaucracy.
Rich Perelman
Editor
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 45-sport, 910-event International Sports Calendar for 2026 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
