The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has published a new eligibility rule that will limit entry to the female category at the Olympic Games to those who test negative for the SRY gene. The policy is presented by the IOC as an evidence-based and expert-informed approach and will apply beginning at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics. Under the measure, a single genomic screening — described as a once-in-a-lifetime test — performed by saliva, cheek swab or blood sample will determine whether an athlete can be classified as biologically female for Olympic competition. The IOC president framed the rule as necessary to protect fairness and safety in sport.
Key elements of the new eligibility framework
The central technical mechanism of the policy is a screening that detects the presence of the SRY gene, the sex-determining region on the Y chromosome associated with male development. Athletes who return a negative result will be deemed to meet the IOC’s criteria for the female category permanently, unless there is reason to doubt the result. Conversely, a positive SRY finding, or an athlete who has undergone male puberty, will render that person ineligible to compete in female events. The IOC says those who fail the screening may still participate in male, mixed, open or other appropriate classifications, and the test results will not be applied retroactively to past competitions.
Who is affected and what exceptions exist
The policy explicitly covers transgender women who have experienced male puberty and many athletes with differences in sexual development (DSD) who have similar biological histories. There is, however, a narrow exemption for rare conditions: for example, athletes with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), who did not undergo male puberty, are treated differently because their bodies do not respond to androgens in the usual way. Previously, some sports federations allowed transgender women to compete if they reduced testosterone, while others had already adopted bans; the IOC’s decision now pushes for a unified standard across Olympic sport.
Historical context and precedents
Sex verification has a fraught history in international sport. The IOC used genetic screening methods in the 1980s but abandoned routine checks in the 1990s after concerns about false positives and the stigmatization of athletes with natural variations. Recent years saw individual federations take divergent paths — with athletics and boxing among those implementing restrictive rules — and earlier Olympic participation by athletes who are openly transgender highlighted the complexity of policy-making. The IOC says its review combined scientific input, consultations with athletes and experts, and survey feedback to reach this position.
Reactions, legal questions and human rights concerns
Responses to the rule have been mixed and often polarized. Some sports bodies and campaign groups welcomed a uniform standard they consider necessary to preserve a level playing field, arguing that biological sex can affect performance in strength and endurance events. Other voices — including academic critics and rights advocates — warn that targeted genetic testing risks stigma, psychological harm and potential human rights violations. Experts have pointed out the complexity of sex characteristics beyond a single gene, and some have framed the reintroduction of screening as a step backward.
Potential consequences for athletes and sport governance
Beyond immediate eligibility decisions, the policy is likely to trigger legal challenges and intense debate about implementation, privacy and medical oversight. The IOC has stated that athletes will be treated with dignity, that screening is limited to a single lifetime check, and that counseling and education should accompany the process. Still, questions remain about test accuracy, the risk of laboratory error, and how international federations will align their rules. High-profile athletes who have been affected by previous DSD and gender eligibility controversies have already voiced strong objections, underscoring that sport, science and rights will continue to clash around these decisions.