Policing the Podium: Mandatory Genetic Testing and the Future of Women’s Sports
Last week, the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’) introduced a new policy requiring eligibility for the women’s category to be determined by biological sex.[1]
In practice, this requires athletes to undergo a one-off test for the SRY gene – a genetic marker typically associated with male sex development. Subject to narrow exceptions, athletes who test positive will be excluded from women’s competition.[2]
As IOC President Kristy Coventry explains, it is intended to “support equality and fairness” and to protect safety on the field of play.[3] The underlying premise is that biological sex confers performance advantages that cannot be fully mitigated, even with hormone treatment.[4]
This is not merely a technical eligibility rule; it represents a significant legal and ethical turning point in the regulation of women’s sport.
Why this Change Matters?
While the IOC does not regulate every sport, it sets the global baseline – and many federations are already moving in the same direction.
Take World Athletics. From 1 September 2025, it introduced its own requirement for genetic testing of elite female athletes using the same SRY marker.[5] Athletes who test positive face exclusion, with President Sebastian Coe defending the move as necessary to protect the “integrity of women’s sport.”[6]
The legal complications are already emerging. In France, bioethics laws prevented athletes from accessing the test domestically, forcing them to travel overseas.[7] In Canada, testing failures left an entire national delegation without valid results shortly before competition deadlines.[8]
What appears to be a uniform global standard is, in practice, colliding with fragmented domestic legal systems.
An Australian Legal Problem?
The main problem is that both the law and the science underpinning it remain unsettled.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) only permits exclusion from sport where a person is not reasonably capable of performing the activity in question – excluding an athlete on the basis of a genetic marker alone, without demonstrated athletic advantage, sits uneasily within that framework.[9]
This tension is reinforced by the position of the Australian Institute of Sport. Its ethics guidelines state that genetic testing should not be used to include or exclude athletes, that athletes may refuse testing, and that no adverse consequences should follow from that refusal.[10]
The IOC’s model, by contrast, makes testing a mandatory condition of participation. The inconsistency is difficult to ignore.
Broader Human Rights Issues
Internationally, the response has been forceful. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Women, and the World Medical Association have all criticised mandatory sex testing as discriminatory and harmful.[11] A joint statement backed by over 80 organisations – including the ILGA World and the Sport & Rights Alliance – has warned against turning sport into a form of “gender policing.”[12]
This is no longer just a policy debate. It is a live contest over how the law should respond to evolving definitions of sex, identity, and fairness.
Where this Leaves Us
What looks like a technical eligibility rule is, in reality, something much bigger.
The IOC abandoned universal sex testing after the 1996 Atlanta Games on the basis that it was scientifically unjustifiable and harmful to athletes. So why has it returned – now reframed as “science-based fairness”?[13]
Whether the revival of genetic testing can withstand scrutiny under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws and international human rights obligations remains uncertain. And whether Australian athletes, federations, or courts will ultimately be drawn into that contest is a question sport’s governing bodies may soon be forced to confront.
References
[1] International Olympic Committee, 'Policy on the Protection of the Female Category', International Olympic Committee (Policy Document, 2026) <https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf>('IOC Policy').
[2] Ibid; ‘World Athletics Introduces SRY Gene Test for Athletes Wishing to Compete in the Female Category', World Athletics, (Press Release, 30 July 2025) <https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/sry-gene-test-athletes-female-category> ('WA Press Release')
[3] IOC Policy (n 1); ‘International Olympic Committee announces new Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport’, International Olympic Committee (Web Page, 26 March 2026) < https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/international-olympic-committee-announces-new-policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-women-s-category-in-olympic-sport>.
[4] Ibid.
[5] WA Press Release (n 2).
[6] Ibid; Silvia Camporesi et al, 'Sex Testing in Women's Sport: Historical Harms, Contemporary Risks, and World Athletics' 2025 Policy Shift' (2026) 7 Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 1723127, 5; L Ewing, 'New Gene Tests System in Disarray Ahead of World Athletics Championships', CBC Sports (online, 2025).
[7] ‘France calls Olympic gender test ‘a step backwards’, other countries approve, News.com.au (online, 28 March 2026) < https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/france-calls-olympic-gender-test-a-step-backwards-other-countries-approve/news-story/f051582b2bd2ff8587bccfd55a79a023>.
[8] Doug Harris, '’Invasive’ gene test by World Athletics causing headaches for athletes before world championships’, CBC Sports (online) 26 August 2025. <https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/athletics/track/sry-gene-testing-canadians-athletics-canada-dynacare-world-athletics-1.7618005>.
[9] Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 28 (1), (3).
[10] Nicole Vlahovich et al, 'Ethics of Genetic Testing and Research in Sport: A Position Statement from the Australian Institute of Sport' (2017) 51 British Journal of Sports Medicine 5, 10 (Box 1).
[11] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'Joint Statement on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination in Sport', United Nations Human Rights (Web Page, 26 February 2025) https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/discrimination/260225-joint-statement-on-fairness-inclusion-and-non-discrimination-in-sport.pdf ('OHCHR Joint Statement').
[12] Daniele Paletta, ‘Olympics: Sex testing harms all women and girls’, ILGA World (Web Page, 17 March 2026) < https://ilga.org/news/olympics-sex-testing-harms-women-girls/>.
[13] Andrew Sinclair, 'World Athletics' Mandatory Genetic Test for Women Athletes is Misguided. I Should Know — I Discovered the Relevant Gene in 1990', The Conversation (online, 5 August 2025) https://theconversation.com/world-athletics-mandatory-genetic-test-for-women-athletes-is-misguided-i-should-know-i-discovered-the-relevant-gene-in-1990-262367; Camporesi et al (n 6) 5.