IOC SRY One Time Gene Test. Considerations and Questions

The International Olympic Committee’s latest policy on the female category marks one of the clearest shifts we’ve seen in this space for years. From LA 2028 onwards, eligibility for women’s events will be limited to biological females, determined through a one-time SRY gene test. In practical terms, that replaces the IOC’s previous, more flexible framework with a firmer, science-led line. 

At a basic level, there is something to be said for that clarity. One of the biggest issues with earlier policies was inconsistency. Different sports applied different testosterone thresholds, timelines, and medical requirements, often leaving athletes in limbo. Moving to a single standard removes much of that uncertainty. The IOC has also framed the policy around dignity, privacy, and athlete welfare, with a one-time test intended to reduce repeated scrutiny. Compared to past approaches, that is a noticeable improvement. 

However, much of the debate surrounding this policy centres on whether that “science-led” label holds up under closer scrutiny. Questions have already been raised about the reliance on the SRY gene as a determining factor. Critics argue that the presence of the SRY gene alone does not reliably define sex, nor is there clear evidence linking it directly to athletic performance. If that is the case, basing eligibility on a single genetic marker risks oversimplifying what is, in reality, a far more complex biological picture. 

There are also concerns around how this policy would work in practice. While the initial test is described as non-invasive, a positive result is unlikely to be the end of the process. In many cases, it could trigger further examinations to assess androgen sensitivity, some of which have historically been highly invasive. That raises questions about whether this approach genuinely reduces intrusion or simply shifts it further down the line. 

Consent is another issue that cannot be ignored. Athletes are technically given a choice, but in reality, refusing the test means losing the ability to compete. That makes it difficult to argue that consent is truly free or informed. There are also wider legal and data protection concerns, particularly around the handling of sensitive genetic information and whether consistent safeguards can realistically be guaranteed across different countries and governing bodies. 

In terms of impact, the policy provides a clear answer on eligibility for the female category, but it leaves other areas unresolved. Transgender athletes are effectively excluded from women’s competition and redirected towards male, mixed, or open categories. At present, those alternatives are limited in practice, which raises ongoing questions about where these athletes meaningfully fit within elite sport. As LGBT+ activist and trans athlete Verity Smith says, “Sport is for all shapes, bodies and people, and policing whether someone is allowed to compete or not is a dangerous place to be in, especially when the future is not a binary one.” 

IOC SRY One Time Gene Test, Considerations and Questions by Kobe Van Hecke.

A similar issue arises for athletes with differences of sex development (DSD). While there is a narrow exception for those who do not benefit from testosterone, this is likely to apply to very few individuals. Many will fall outside that category and face exclusion, despite the acknowledged complexity of sex development. 

None of this is straightforward, and it is important to recognise the IOC is attempting to address a genuinely difficult issue. The move towards a clearer, more consistent framework is, in some respects, an improvement on what came before. But clarity alone does not resolve the underlying challenges. 

If anything, this policy shifts the focus. The question is no longer just who can compete in the female category, but what happens next. How can sport create viable, competitive pathways for trans athletes? How should governing bodies approach DSD athletes in a way that reflects both fairness and scientific nuance? And can a system built on a single genetic test ever fully capture the complexity it is trying to regulate? The IOC has drawn a line. What remains unclear is what gets built around that line.  

Written by Kobe Van Hecke, Trainee Paralegal