The IOC is poised to announce new eligibility rules that finally ground womenâs sport in biology.
By: Colin Wright
Published: Nov 18, 2025
Somehow, the question of who should be eligible to compete in the womenâs category has become one of the most hotly contested issues of our time. With growing frequency, men who identify as womenâand also men with differences of sex development (DSD) who were incorrectly recorded female at birthâare entering female sporting events and winning medals. After repeated controversies, it appears that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is finally ready to take a stand: womenâs sports are for women, defined biologically.
A brief look at recent Olympic history shows why this conclusion was inevitable. Laurel Hubbard, a New Zealand weightlifter who transitioned from male to female, competed in the womenâs +87 kg category at Tokyo 2020. Although he did not medal, his participation marked a watershed moment in elite sport. Caster Semenya, a male athlete with a difference of sex development known as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5-ARD), won double Olympic gold in the womenâs 800 meters (London 2012, Rio 2016). Semenya has XY chromosomes, functional testes, and male-range testosterone levels. At the Rio Games, the entire womenâs 800 m podiumâbronze, silver, and goldâwas occupied by athletes with 5-ARD, all biologically male but competing under rules that, at the time, allowed them to do so.
The same pattern repeated at the Paris 2024 Games, this time in womenâs boxing. Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting of Chinese Taipeiâboth male athletes with 5-ARDâwon gold in their respective weight classes after having been disqualified from previous competitions for failing sex-eligibility tests. Neither identifies as transgender, but both were recorded female at birth due to their DSD and permitted to compete in the womenâs category under rules that blindly went by what was printed on their birth certificates.
Last week, the IOC signaled a change in policy. Under the leadership of President Kirsty Coventry, the IOCâs âProtection of the Female Categoryâ working groupâchaired by medical-scientific director Jane Thorntonâpresented a scientific review stating the obvious: athletes who experience male puberty retain permanent physical advantages in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and cardiovascular fitness. The new policy under consideration would impose a blanket ban on athletes who have undergone male puberty, regardless of identity or whatâs indicated on oneâs birth certificate.
Predictably, this has been grossly misrepresented in the press. An article in Them titled âOlympics Move to Ban Trans Women and Cis Female Athletes With âMale Levels of Testosteroneââ frames the issue as if the IOC were targeting âcisgender womenâ merely for having higher testosterone. The piece suggests that athletes like Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya fall into this categoryââcis women with male levels of testosteroneââwhile ignoring the fact that both are biologically male and were simply misclassified as female at birth due to their DSD. They are not âcisgenderâ women, a term that most people understand as referring to individuals who are biologically and identifiably female. They are male athletes with retained male physiology competing (legally or not) in the female category. To see this clearly, one must look past the ideological framing: identity-based language obscures the biological reality, which is the part that actually matters.
Another article, published in Sportskeeda by Janhavi Shinde, bizarrely describes athlete and IOC advisor Nikki Hiltz as âa transgender athlete⌠who identifies as cisgender,â adding that Hiltz âcame out as transgender non-binary in March 2021.â Iâll let readers untangle that identity puzzle for themselves. Hiltz denounced the proposed ban on male athletes in female sports as âmisogyny and controlling women and femininity,â yet fails to recognize the misogyny in redefining womanhood according to identity and stereotypes, and the controlling impulse behind people demanding unrestricted access to womenâs spaces, including their sports and places on the Olympic podium.
If the womenâs category is to mean anything at allâif women are to compete on a level biological playing fieldâthen eligibility rules must reflect biology, not identity. Female sport exists precisely because of the physical advantages conferred by male development. To deny that is to erase the very rationale for womenâs categories in the first place.
The IOCâs decision to ground its policy in biological reality is necessary and long overdue. This is not an act of bigotry toward people who identify as transgender or men with DSDs, but an act of fairness toward women. If implemented, this policyâexpected within the next yearâwill mark a turning point, restoring common sense to womenâs sport after years of confusion.
