It is not about that, university swimming championships promote the president of World Athletics (WA), the athletic body of the hand, issue drastic statements. After Lia Thomas became the first transgender women to win a title at the highest university level in the US, Sebastian Coe warned that “integrity” and even the “future of women’s sport” was at stake. “Gender cannot overcome biology,” Coe saidWhich implies that Thomas and other female transgender athletes had an unfair advantage over cisgender women.
Since transgender and intersexual athletes become more visible in the world stage, the issue has become increasingly controversial. The discussion is reduced to the questions that contemplate equity and inclusion: Is it fair to include a person who submitted to male puberty in the female category? Is it unfair to prohibit someone because their body naturally produces higher amounts or testosterone? International Sports Federations see themselves with thesis questions and fight to find answers.
For decades, the body of female athletes has been subject to public evidence and scrutiny (Pieper, 2016; Erikainen, 2020). In 1992 alone, World Athletics stopped an extensive gender verification, while maintaining the right to perform suspicion -based tests. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) abolished sexual evidence in 1999. However, both the IOC and the IAAF have been accused of finishing only sexual tests on paper, while the underlying problems are Still present in organizations.
The IOC addressed the problem of transgender athletes for the first time in 2003 and updated thesis policies In 2015. Since then, transgender women needed to maintain their testosterone levels below 10 NMOL/L for two years to be eligible to compete. In November 2021, the IOC launched its new expected guidelines on transgender and intersex athletes. In his “Frame of equity, inclusion and non -discrimination based on gender identity and sex variations“The IOC, surprisingly, Tok is a completely new approach: the testosterone limits were abandoned (in fact, the word testosterone is not mentioned in the six -page document), but the guidelines focus on inclusion, human rights and affected athletes. Human rights activists praised The IOC (a rather weird fact), while the federations were skeptical and Some scientists even critical of the lack of medical considerations.
The frame, however, is not binding. It depends on international federations to put into action the recommendation of the IOC. After the framework, World Athletics, whose testosterone regulations have been dalt in cases in front of CAS, the Swiss Federal Court and soon the European Court of Human Rights, declared the European Federal Court, said Your intention Not to change their rules, which apply to transgender women, as well as to female athletes with differentials or sexual development (DSD), whose bodies naturally produce higher levels or testosterone. This yearWA proposed to its member federations a rule change that would make the criteria chosen for transgender and DSD athletes equally stricter.
While the IOC has established a new tone, focusing on inclusion, world athletics adopts a different approach to its Chosen regulations. WA is addressing the importance of inclusion, but does not hide the fact that for the Federation, competitive equity is the most important issue. Taking into account the history of sexual evidence and the scrutiny of the female body in athletics, it could be argued that the paragraph about the inclusion in WA’s eligibility criteria is simply a lip service.
The COI framework is divided into ten main categories: inclusion (1), damage prevention (2), not discrimination (3), justice (4), without presumption of advantage (5), evidence -based approach (6), autonomy centered on the primary right to privacy (9) and periodic reviews (10).
Like WA in its chosen criteria, the IOC refers to equity in the frame and addresses the need for rules that provide athletes with disproportionate competitive advantages of competing. This is where WA and the IOC are the most aligned. Crucially, he thought, COI mentions equity as an aspect to consider within the most important theme of inclusion, Waseas WA is addressing inclusion as a margin note. Priorities are established differently.
“Damage prevention” (principle 2) is neglected in WA’s regulations. This, however, is an important issue that WA should address. In accordance with the report “They are chasing us from sport“The Human Rights Watch.
On paper, WA is in line with some of the principles of the IOC frame. However, athlete stories interviewed by HRW paint a different image. The IOC asks the federations not to assume advantages for certain athletes and, on the other hand, have science rules guided by peer reviewed science (principles 5 and 6). WA demonstrated this study, but while it was reviewed in pairs, the study was strongly criticized for its flaved methodology. On the surface, WA is acting in line with the IOC frame here, if this is real, the case is discussed. This adds another layer of complexity to the subject. As sports scientist Ross Tucker has pointed out: “A good study would be not very ethical and ethical studies are not very good.”
Similarly, WA claims to periodically review its regulations based on new developments. But from Neinder the defects exposed in the study by Bermón and Garnier Nor did the new COI framework led to a reconsideration, it seems that new innovative evidence would be needed for WA to act. WA also states that the regulations are not there to question an athlete’s genre, in line with the principle of the “non -discrimination” IOC. However, the HRW has been accused of WA or performing sex tests in athletes that do not meet western stereotypical standards of femininity. According to the Nana Adom-Babogaye researcherIt seems that WA is “aimed at African women, based on their assumption characteristics, once they begin to exceed the global stage.”
This impression could be counteracted by adhering to the COI’s Principle 8, “focused focus on interested parties.” If the affected athletes were included in the formation of policies, WA could protect Itelf, to some extent, of criticism and, more importantly, improve their regulations by limiting the physical and mental consequences harmful to DSD athletes. WA should not be criticized for focusing on equity, a legitimate objective for a sports organization, but for not addressing the problematic results to which the regulations are driving.
WA must be particularly cautious to inform athletes and guide them through procedures. Even if doctors and WA officials did not force athletes to medical treatment, which HRW’s report suggests that it happened in some cases, athletes are still presented with an impossible option. “The choice is to subjugate to power: alter its body, accept to be tagged or leave,” Karkazis and carpenter Write (p. 586). This dilemma is difficult to address for WA and can only be resolved in consultation with the affected athletes, the human rights activist and the social scientist. In the past, WA has focused on the biological side of the problem, but has not been able to see humanitarian and ethical Conerns. To improve that, WA could look more closely at the IOC frame, since it sheds light on the aspects that Wa does not consider.
Until now, the IOC has not made any public effort to urge international federations to follow the new guidelines. This year, several other federations have implemented new regulations on transgender athletes, most of which include a testosterone limit and are excluded. At the moment, the world athletics approach seems more popular in the world of international sports government than the recommendations of the IOC.
Graduated student, international sports and political development
Colony of the German Sports University
Blog posts represent the author’s opinions and not those of Sports & EU or their members members
