IOC ban debate: Fair play or unfair edge?

The IOC has announced that it will ban transgender women from participating in women’s events, and has agreed to a gene screening policy to determine eligibility, starting from the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Here is a look at the long-running debate around participation of transgender women in the female category of competitive sports.

The International Olympic Committee has stated that trans women will not be able to compete in the women’s category, ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, and that eligibility to participate will depend on a gene screening test. 

Should transgender women be allowed to compete in the women’s category of competitive sports? Would doing so meaningfully advance the inclusion of a historically underserved and underrepresented group within competitive athletics, or would it instead perpetuate unfairness against another group (cisgender women) who purportedly face a biological disadvantage relative to their transgender counterparts? 

These questions reverberated through the halls of the United States Supreme Court in early 2026, as the justices completed oral arguments in two landmark cases that will shape the future of women’s sports in the country. The cases in question involve Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson—two young transgender girls caught in the crosshairs of state laws (one in Idaho and the other in West Virginia), that barred them from participating in the girls’ sports teams of their respective schools.

Indeed, the issue of transgender inclusion in girls’ and women’s sports has been animating sociologists, philosophers, medical professionals, sports-governing bodies, lawmakers, and politicians for some time now. And given the global nature of sport—particularly in the realm of international competition—this debate, while largely driven by US legal and political discourse, is now influencing conversations well beyond American borders, including in India. In 2022, for instance, the Kerala High Court upheld a female transgender athlete’s right to participate in the sports category of her choice in the absence of a separate transgender category.

A bench comprising Justice Arun VG observed: “It is my considered opinion that a transgender person has an equal right to participate in competitions. If the organisers have not made arrangements for participating transgenders, then the petitioner will have to be permitted to participate in her chosen category.”

Weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, the first openly transgender woman to compete at the Olympics (Tokyo 2020), sparked conversations around fairness and policy.

The United States Supreme Court, however—now marked by a conservative supermajority—appears poised to move in the opposite direction. Some experts suggest the Court’s ruling could even pave the way for a nationwide ban on transgender inclusion in girls’ and women’s sports. Notably, the United States does not legally recognise a third gender category either and globally, only about seventeen countries (including India) formally recognise transgender or non-binary identities under the law. This leaves transgender athletes particularly vulnerable to exclusion from most, if not all sporting activities.

No clear answers yet

How then, does fairness come into the picture when it is claimed that transgender athletes have a biological advantage over cisgender women? Contrary to popular belief, the scientific evidence on these biological advantages is far from settled. For every study suggesting an inherent athletic advantage, there exists another showing limited or no meaningful difference, particularly following gender-affirming hormone therapy. In fact, lower courts in the U.S. grappled with these evidentiary disputes years ago by relying on testimony from competing expert witnesses.

On one side was Dr Joshua D. Safer, MD, FACP, FACE—a staff physician in endocrinology at Mount Sinai—who testified in favour of transgender inclusion in girls’ and women’s sports, arguing that testosterone suppression largely mitigated performance-related physiological differences. On the other side was Dr. Gregory A. Brown, PhD, FACSM, a professor of exercise science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, who argued against their inclusion, claiming that biological advantages persisted despite hormone therapy. Yet courts found Dr. Safer’s testimony more credible than Dr Brown’s, even noting that at least one study that Dr. Brown cited reached conclusions directly contrary to the claims he was trying to make.

When looked at more broadly, much of the scientific literature examining physiological differences between cisgender men and women and between transgender women and cisgender women rarely if ever support categorical exclusions or blanket bans in sports. The issue becomes even more complex when considering cisgender women with Differences of Sex Development (DSDs) or conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which can naturally elevate testosterone levels. If testosterone alone were dispositive, these women too might be considered “unfairly advantaged” despite not being transgender — a conclusion that sporting bodies and courts might be reluctant to endorse.

Physiology as a defining factor?

Therefore, this raises a deeper, more fundamental question: should sex itself remain the primary organising category in competitive sports? Some scholars have proposed alternative frameworks—drawing comparisons to the classification systems used in the Paralympics—that assess athletes based on functional ability alongside sex, with the goal of creating fairer and more inclusive competition for athletes with different physiological characteristics. However, critics counter that sex-based categories have always existed in competitive sports and do so precisely because they are administratively simpler to implement and reflect broadly observable physiological distinctions. Instituting case-by-case eligibility determinations, or creating entirely new sporting categories for transgender/non-binary athletes may prove impractical when participation numbers are small and/or when logistical and financial costs are high.

More longitudinal studies, larger sample sizes needed

Ultimately, principles of fairness and inclusion must be balanced with care. Decisions governing athletic participation should be grounded in the most current and rigorous scientific evidence available, while also ensuring that neither women nor transgender people are relegated to the margins through sweeping exclusions rooted in political rhetoric rather than empirical findings.

Therefore, if there is any consensus to be drawn, it is this: more longitudinal studies, with larger sample sizes and across different sports and populations, are needed to better understand the physiology of male and female bodies and how athletic performance evolves over time with hormone suppression. Blanket bans based largely on fear mongering may end up pushing certain groups perpetually trapped in the crosshairs.

(The author is a communications manager at Nyaaya, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and can be reached at [e-mail])