I. Executive Summary

On March 26th, 2026, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a new policy on the protection of the female (Women’s) category in the Olympic sports. The policy mandates that eligibility for the female category is restricted to biological females only, verified through a one-time gene screening program. This brief covers the growing global debate over fairness and inclusion in sports, particularly on transgender athlete eligibility. It will cover a wide range of opinions, detail the IOC’s prior policies regarding the issue, and describe the ethical considerations shaping it. 

II. Overview

This section provides a brief look at the evolution of the IOC’s transgender athlete policy throughout the years and its current implications.    

A. Pointed Summary

• Historically, the IOC has struggled with balancing inclusion and fairness in their gender policies, cycling through four different eligibility policies since 2004
• The IOC’s new policy aligns with greater political trends, including the U.S. executive order under President Trump restricting transgender athlete participation

B. Relevance

This highly controversial policy has created an immense global impact and brought about intense criticism. Critics, including human rights groups, argue that the ban violates the privacy, equality, and bodily integrity of all women athletes. Many are wondering what the ban will mean for intersex women and fear that it will increase scrutiny amongst them.  With the policy set to take effect at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, affected athletes, host nations, and associations have little time to account for or adapt the legal challenges that the ban might bring on for participation. 

III. History

A. Current Stances

The IOC’s transgender athlete policy has sparked intense discussion due to its controversial nature, which places it at the junction between equality, inclusion, science, and human rights [1]. Those in favor of restrictive policies have argued that women’s sports were designed to create equal opportunities for female competitors, who lack physiological traits provided by puberty, including more muscles, bone density, and a better cardiovascular system [3]. These factors might remain intact despite hormone treatment and impact sporting equity and even safety for certain sports [3]. The opponents claim that restrictions will prevent transgender women from participating based on their identity [2]. It is important to note that sports should foster inclusivity and provide equal opportunities while current scientific findings do not indicate that a universal ban is justified [1], [2]. A middle ground proposal focuses on creating discipline-specific policies to account for the varying importance of physiological disparities in different types of sports [1].

B. Tried Policy

The Stockholm Consensus policy established in 2004 by the IOC stated that transgender individuals must have sex reassignment surgery, a legally recognized change in gender, and at least two years of hormone therapy before competing [3]. The IOC has since been criticized for implementing an invasive, excessive, and medically unnecessary policy [3]. However, in 2015, the organization issued new policies where transgender women could participate in the women’s event provided that their blood testosterone was less than 10 nanomoles per liter and had persisted for at least twelve months before participation [1]. In 2021, the IOC abandoned its hormone threshold system and replaced it with an approach centered around concepts of inclusiveness, fairness, and discrimination prevention, and delegated decisions about eligibility to individual international federations [1], [2]. The decision made it possible for each sport to set up its own eligibility criteria based on the specific physical demands in a particular type of activity [1]. Finally, in 2026, the IOC introduced a more restrictive eligibility criterion, allowing only biological women to participate in women’s events in the Olympics [4].

IV. Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

IOC executives stated that the decision was “based on science and has been led by medical experts,” in a 10-page policy document [12]. However, one former IOC human geneticist Eric Vilain argued that questions about gender and sex eligibility still persist. This policy is expected to affect athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) such as Olympian Caster Semenya who do not possess an XX chromosome, leading to higher levels of testosterone. Transgender athletes, although few have participated in recent years with the most recent athlete being  weightlifter Laurel Hubbard in the Tokyo 2021 games [13], will also be barred from participating in any games under the female category. The IOC has outlined a one-time gene testing protocol for future athletes. The new policy will take into effect for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, aligning with the U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order on sports [8].

B. Risks of Indifference

Indifference over the topic of transgender and non-assigned-female-at-birth athletes  will only continue to polarize and erode trust within systems. Over recent years, transgender athlete restrictions and policies have both been introduced and repealed. Scholars note that unclear or rapidly changing eligibility criteria can erode trust in institutions and contribute to perceptions of arbitrariness in sport governance [9]. Furthermore, limited engagement with the issue allows polarization to intensify, as nuanced and scientific considerations are replaced with extreme narratives [10]. Discussions on the topic will aid athletes and the IOC with appeal processes. 

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Olympic athlete and IOC president Kirsty Coventry stated that ““At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat,” reinforcing her stance on the need to discuss the eligibility of transgender athletes [11]. “Males experience three significant testosterone peaks: In utero, in mini-puberty of infancy and beginning in adolescent puberty through adulthood,” specified the IOC document [12]. In several sports, men hold a performance advantage over women of 10-12% with the number increasing in sports such as wrestling [13]. Concerns over the advantages with being born male in female categories continue to be the main source of discussion. 

On the other hand, many experts and athletes alike have expressed human rights and privacy concerns. In France, privacy laws ban genetic testing tied to gender [13] with many others expressing concerns over invasive testing options. The IOC has responded with plans of utilizing cheek swab or blood sample screens for the SRY gene, a Y chromosome segment. 

V. Policy Options

Amidst the controversy surrounding transgender women participating in women’s sports, three plausible policy solutions ultimately came to the table. The first is the addition of a “third legal gender” as a separate category for olympic transgender athletes to compete in. Second, is allowing athletes to compete under the gender which they identify as opposed to their biological sex. And lastly, the policy in which an Olympic athlete must compete under the gender they were assigned at birth. This policy enforces each athlete to take a DNA test to affirm their biological sex and sort them into the correct division. Although the first option is already present in multiple countries, it failed to be approved by the IOC because many transgender athletes do not identify as the “third gender” and therefore would not participate in the games under that title. The policy of allowing athletes to play as the gender they identify as also was not passed by the IOC as many claim transgender women have a biological advantage, making competition unfair. Ultimately, the ban on transgender women in women’s sports was passed as it ensures competition is fair. Although the IOC is working to produce policy proposals that ensure both fairness and justice for transgender athletes, they need further research to prove their validity. Therefore, the ban may be subject to change in the future if research reveals a policy that better suits the demands of all.

VI. Conclusions

To conclude, by restricting the participation of biological males from women’s categories, the IOC’s policies for 2026 reflect a significant change in its long-term relationship with the evolution of eligibility, competitive fairness, inclusion, and the consideration of scientific evidence regarding athletes. This policy, as discussed in this brief, comes from a combination of the history of eligibility, stakeholder viewpoints, and the larger social and political climate. While supporters focus on providing equity through equal opportunity for all competitors while taking into consideration physiological differences between male and female athletes, those opposed to the policy are concerned about their civil and human rights; hence, privacy; and the impacts on transgender and intersex athletes. The controversy may continue without a universally accepted solution that will require the further development of a dialogue that uses evidence to evaluate the varying effects both on individual athletes and on the integrity of sport.

VII. Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Irene Kang for editing this brief.

VIII. References

[1] S. M. Metev and V. P. Veiko, Laser Assisted Microtechnology, 2nd ed., R. M. Osgood, Jr., Ed.  Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1998.

[2] J. Breckling, Ed., The Analysis of Directional Time Series: Applications to Wind Speed and Direction, ser. Lecture Notes in Statistics.  Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1989, vol. 61.

[3] S. Zhang, C. Zhu, J. K. O. Sin, and P. K. T. Mok, “A novel ultrathin elevated channel low-temperature poly-Si TFT,” IEEE Electron Device Lett., vol. 20, pp. 569–571, Nov. 1999.

[4] M. Wegmuller, J. P. von der Weid, P. Oberson, and N. Gisin, “High resolution fiber distributed measurements with coherent OFDR,” in Proc. ECOC’00, 2000, paper 11.3.4, p. 109.

[5] Reynolds, Allie and Alireza Hamidian Jahromi. 2021. Transgender athletes in sports competitions: How policy measures can be more inclusive and fairer to all. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 3 (14. July):704178.doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.704178, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8316721/.

[6] Aldred, Tanya. “The IOC’s Decision to Protect the Female Category Is a Victory for Fairness.” The Guardian, 21 Apr. 2026, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/21/ioc-decision-female-category-olympics-trans-athletes. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[7] Dunbar, Graham. “Transgender Women Athletes Banned from Female Olympic Events by New IOC Policy.” AP News, 26 Mar. 2026, apnews.com/article/ioc-olympic-transgender-female-eligibility-520cd9cee152a312767a667acf77dbc8. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[8] Ellingworth, James, and Sally Ho. “Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Makes History at Olympics.” AP News, 2 Aug. 2021, apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[9] International Olympic Committee. IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. Olympics.com, 22 Nov. 2021, www.olympics.com/ioc/documents/athletes/ioc-framework-on-fairness-inclusion-and-non-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-gender-identity-and-sex-variations. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[10] International Olympic Committee. IOC Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport. 26 Mar. 2026, stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[11] Pretot, Julien. “France Hits Out at IOC’s Step Backwards on Gender Testing.” Reuters, 27 Mar. 2026, www.reuters.com/sports/france-calls-ioc-gender-testing-rule-step-backwards-2026-03-27/. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[12] The White House. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The White House, 5 Feb. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/. Accessed 8 May 2026.

[13] Weisman, Dennis L. “Transgender Athletes, Fair Competition, and Public Policy.” Cato Institute, Fall 2022, www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2022/transgender-athletes-fair-competition-public-policy. Accessed 8 May 2026.