NEW YORK, United States — A renewed argument over who may compete in women’s sport is exposing sharply different understandings of fairness, inclusion and the purpose of the female category.
Reuters reported on 28 August that recent comments from basketball player Sophie Cunningham had revived the issue as several sporting bodies introduced or considered sex-screening requirements.
The International Olympic Committee’s 2026 policy limits eligibility for the female category at its events from the Los Angeles 2028 Games onward. It uses a one-time test for the SRY gene, ordinarily associated with male sexual development, as the initial screening method. The Women’s Tennis Association has adopted a similar approach.
Supporters say sex-linked physical advantages can remain relevant after puberty, particularly in strength, power and endurance. Critics argue that gene screening reduces a medically complex subject to a single marker and may expose athletes with differences of sex development to involuntary disclosure.
The rules affect transgender women, but they also reach women who have always lived and competed as female and may not know they have a variation in sex characteristics. Athletes including Caster Semenya have previously faced intrusive medical examination, exclusion and public speculation about their bodies.
There are currently no openly transgender players in the WTA or WNBA, according to Reuters. That fact matters because the volume and hostility of public debate can suggest a large competitive presence that does not exist.
Athletes interviewed by Reuters expressed competing concerns. Coco Gauff supported protecting fairness in women’s competition while objecting to animosity directed at transgender people. Advocacy groups remain divided over whether screening is necessary protection or discriminatory exclusion.
Good policy requires more than selecting a scientific threshold. Sporting bodies must publish evidence, provide confidential appeals, minimise collection of sensitive data and specify who may see test results. A positive screen should never be announced publicly or treated as evidence of deception.
Women’s sport deserves protection from structural inequality, including inadequate pay, facilities and investment. Transgender and intersex people also deserve safety and dignity.
Those obligations need not be discussed as mutually exclusive. The test of any eligibility system is whether it produces fair competition through transparent and proportionate rules—without turning individual women’s bodies into public property.
Join the discussion