The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has unveiled a significant change to how eligibility for the women’s category would be determined, proposing a one-time gene-screening test collected via saliva, cheek swab or blood. The organisation says the new approach aims to protect fairness, safety and integrity in female events, and it follows an 18-month consultation. The policy is slated to apply beginning with the 2028 Los Angeles Games, but the proposal has prompted swift pushback from civil society and sport-rights groups.
Leading Australian advocates — including InterAction for Health and Human Rights, Equality Australia, Pride in Sport and Pride Cup — have issued a joint appeal calling on the Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Olympic Committee and all national sporting organisations to reject the guidance. They warn the plan carries profound legal and human rights implications, and argue it would create a hostile environment for women, girls, and gender-diverse people rather than protect anyone.
What the IOC policy proposes
The core of the IOC proposal would determine an athlete’s eligibility for the women’s category through a single, compulsory genetic screening encounter. Samples could be taken from saliva, a cheek swab, or blood, with decisions made on the results of that test. The framework is presented as a universal rule to be applied at the Olympic level, replacing more case-by-case approaches used by some sports. Proponents stress its intent is to standardise eligibility across sports; opponents contend it over-simplifies complex biological and social realities.
Why advocates say the rules are harmful
Critics emphasise that mandatory biological checks risk stigmatizing already marginalised groups. Australia-based campaigners point out that transgender and gender-diverse people represent an estimated 0.9% of the population, while roughly 0.3% of Australians are born with variations of sex characteristics. Participation in organised sport is already lower among these communities, and the threat of intrusive testing or a public disclosure process could further discourage involvement at grassroots and elite levels.
Legal and rights concerns
Legal experts argue the measures are likely to collide with Australian protections. The groups warning against the policy assert it would conflict with the Sex Discrimination Act, the nation’s National Integrity Framework, and the Elite Youth Athlete Guidelines. They further raise issues about bodily autonomy, privacy and the risk of coerced medical procedures. Equality Australia’s legal team has cautioned that international sporting policies cannot simply override domestic anti-discrimination obligations without exposing organisations and athletes to litigation and safeguarding failures.
Voices from the sport and rights community
Advocates and athletes have framed the proposal as intrusive and unnecessary. Pride Cup CEO Hayley Conway described mandated checks as a form of targeting that does not enhance protection for women; she emphasised that there is no single scientific marker that defines biological sex. Human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden warned that the policy could normalize scrutiny of girls and young women, creating situations where coaches, officials or parents might feel empowered to question a participant’s sex or eligibility. Other experts, including Associate Professor Morgan Carpenter and Equality Australia’s Heather Corkhill, outlined how the approach risks repeating harmful practices previously abandoned because of the damage they caused.
What comes next and potential outcomes
The IOC says the new guidance is intended to be in place for the 2028 Games in Los Angeles, and observers note it aligns with recent political moves in the United States that restrict transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sport. Australian advocates are urging domestic sporting bodies to maintain existing inclusive policies and to refuse to implement any rule that would mandate invasive testing or categorical exclusion. They say national organisations can and should apply Australian law and safeguarding standards rather than adopting an international policy they believe is unlawful and damaging.
As the debate continues, key questions remain about enforcement, privacy protections, and whether affected athletes will pursue legal challenges. For now, rights groups want clarity from national federations that they will protect participants from harassment and uphold non-discrimination, arguing that sport should begin from a position of inclusion, evidence and respect for human rights.