Morality v. the scientific test: Examining the International Olympic Committee’s new policy

In 2021, New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard became one of the few athletes in the world to compete against her rivals after changing her gender. Identified as a male in the initial years, Laurel then played a female candidate in an altogether different category. This kind of situation has become prevalent in recent years. From an ethical perspective, there have been polarising opinions on what is morally right and legally sound. To instill clarity, the International Olympic Committee has come up with a new policy to identify females. This piece analyses the recently released policy of the International Olympic Committee and proceeds to examine some of the grey areas. It also proposes some solutions which can be relevant for the sports fraternity and concludes that while the policy is a welcome step in terms of effort to resolve the conundrum, there is still a long way to go.

Grey Areas in the New Policy Framework

One of the foremost problems lies with the eligibility for the female category to be determined on the basis of SRY gene screening. According to Andrew Sinclair, who has been researching the SRY gene screening for several years, there are several problems associated with the test. These include issues such as the limitation of determining traits from the lens of biological sex, disregard for hormonal and secondary sex characteristics, and so forth. Interestingly, such a policy can also touch upon infringing upon the privacy of individuals. Many countries, such as India, the European Union, and ASEAN countries, have a strong, robust framework that places protecting human dignity at the forefront. The International Olympic Committee has clearly stated that these rules only apply to Olympic-level competitions related to their events. Thus, at the national level and sub-regional level, it may happen that an athlete continues to participate while they may be denied entry into the Olympics. All the problems highlighted above all heighten the risk for a new litigation at the Court of Arbitration for Sports, a body that is responsible for resolving legal matters related to sports.

Possible solutions

For reducing ambiguities, it will be prudent to consider a multidimensional framework that can combine various aspects related to gender traits, such as chromosomes, hormones, bone density, and so forth. Instead of having a uniform policy for all the sports within the ambit of the International Olympic Committee, there should be a sports-specific criterion, since male hormones are not the same across varied sports. Additionally, the International Olympic Committee can consider introducing a practical threshold that assesses the advantage rendered to any athletes, along with exceptions for athletes who have not yet benefited from having male puberty-related advantages. These solutions can help in the long run to avoid any contentious argument being raised on the grounds of Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that all human beings are equal and are entitled to equal protection without any discrimination. Thus, solving the existing conundrums can help in promoting a balanced policy framework.

Way Ahead

With the Olympics set to be hosted in Los Angeles in less than two years, it will be difficult for the International Olympic Committee to make changes at the last minute to address all the concerns regarding gender change policy. However, it is notable to mention that India has officially announced its bid for the 2036 Olympics. It is essential for it to actively deliberate and consult other nations regarding emerging contentious issues, such as that of athletes who have changed their gender. This will be useful in establishing a clear pathway and also help in holding a controversy-free sports event after a long time in the country’s history.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation.