The IOC Has Banned Trans Women from the Olympics. Here Is What That Really Means.
I joined Natasha Devon MBE on LBC to talk about the IOC’s new SRY gene testing policy, and why this decision affects far more women than people realise.
On the 26th of March 2026, the International Olympic Committee announced that women’s events at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games and beyond would be restricted to athletes who screen negative for the SRY gene. It was presented as a policy to protect fairness, safety, and integrity in the female category. I joined Natasha Devon MBE on LBC on the 28th of March to talk through what this decision really means, because I want people to understand not just what the IOC has done, but who it is going to hurt.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
What the IOC Has Actually Decided
The new policy uses SRY gene screening to determine eligibility for women’s events at the Olympics. The SRY gene usually sits on the Y chromosome, and the IOC takes its presence as evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development. If you screen positive, you are excluded from the female category at Olympic Games from 2028 onwards, with a narrow exception for athletes with a diagnosis of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or certain other differences of sex development in which testosterone provides no performance benefit.
The IOC has described the test as evidence-based and expert-informed. What it has not told you is that the scientist who discovered the SRY gene, Professor Andrew Sinclair, has publicly opposed using it for exactly this purpose. He has written that the test is not cut-and-dried. All it tells you is whether the gene is present. It does not tell you whether a testis formed, whether testosterone was produced, or whether any testosterone produced could even be used by the body.
Biology Has Always Been More Complex Than XX and XY
Most of us were taught in school that women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and a Y. That is a majority pattern, not a complete picture of human biology. There are people with a single X chromosome, a condition known as Turner syndrome. There are people with XXY, known as Klinefelter syndrome. There are women who carry a Y chromosome but whose bodies do not respond to testosterone at all. There are many other variations, and human bodies have never conformed neatly to a simple binary model.
Variations in sex development are present in the population at roughly the same prevalence as having red hair. When you apply population-level genetic screening to female athletes, you will inevitably find results that nobody anticipated, in women who have been raised as girls, have lived as women throughout their lives, and have never had reason to question their biology. That is not a hypothetical concern, given what we know about the prevalence of DSD conditions, but a clinical certainty that deserves to be taken seriously.
Imane Khelif Was Not a Trans Athlete
It is important to say this clearly, because the confusion and hostility around her case has shaped the political environment in which this policy was created. Imane Khelif, the Algerian boxer who won gold at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, is a cisgender woman. She was assigned female at birth. The controversy around her arose because some people do not think she looks the way they imagine a woman should look, and that is not a scientific or clinical argument: it sits in the territory of prejudice, not medicine.
The IOC’s new policy has been shaped, at least in part, by the media and political environment that her gold medal victory generated. That is not a foundation for sound science or equitable policy-making. The people making decisions within large organisations are individuals, and they bring their own perspectives, and sometimes their own biases, to the table. We rarely get to see who holds the loudest voices in those rooms, but we do see the consequences of the decisions they make.
Who Gets Hurt by This Test
This is where I feel most strongly, and why I wanted to speak on LBC this week. A woman who has lived her whole life as a woman, who has never had reason to question her biology, could attend an Olympic qualifier and receive a positive SRY screen. She would not be allowed to compete. In all likelihood, given the level of media attention that elite athletics attracts, her result would become public knowledge before she had even had a chance to process it herself.
That woman has done nothing wrong. She is not seeking an unfair advantage. She has a variation in her sex development that she did not choose and may not have known about. The policy removes her from competition anyway, and it does so publicly, and with no apparent consideration of the harm that causes.
There are women competing in elite sport right now who would screen positive for SRY and have no idea. That is a near-certainty, given what we know about the prevalence of DSD conditions in the population. They deserve better than this.
If You Make a Space for Women, All Women Belong in It
The principle here is straightforward, even if the politics around it are not. If you create a category called women’s sport, all women should be able to compete in it. If you want to create a performance category that limits participation based on particular physical characteristics, then make that your category. Do not call it women’s sport and then exclude women from it.
Women’s elite netball, as I mentioned on LBC, is played predominantly by athletes who are well over six feet tall. That does not make them ineligible. Women who are tall, or broad, or strong are still women. Women who have DSD conditions are still women. Trans women who have transitioned are women. The category exists for all of them.
We have seen this kind of reasoning used to exclude women from shared spaces before, and we should recognise it for what it is. When we allow the exclusion of one group, we make it easier to exclude others. The history of women’s sport is in part a history of being told that certain women do not fit, and that story has never ended well for anyone.
Diversity Has Always Existed. Inclusion Is Not Optional.
The IOC talks about protecting the female category. I want to protect female athletes, all of them: the ones whose biology is more complex than a saliva swab can capture, the ones who have transitioned, and the ones who have always lived as female and will now be subjected to genetic scrutiny they never asked for.
Real people are being hurt by decisions like this one. The voices celebrating this policy should ask themselves what, exactly, they are celebrating. We should never celebrate exclusion. History is very clear on that point.
Diversity exists. It has always existed. The human body is not a simple binary system, and no policy built on that assumption is going to serve women in sport well. What we need is inclusion, equity, and human rights: for all women, in all of their wonderful complexity.
If this matters to you, please share it. The truth always wins.
Resources
IOC Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport, 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
Andrew Sinclair on SRY gene testing, The Conversation, 2025
UN Human Rights Council concerns on mandatory genetic sex testing in sport, February 2026
CNN: IOC bans transgender women from competing in women’s events:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/26/sport/olympics-transgender-women-athletes-banned
NPR: The Olympic committee bans trans athletes from women’s events:
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5762579/ioc-bans-trans-women-events-genetic-testing
Euronews: Transgender women athletes banned from competing in female Olympic events:
https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/27/transgender-women-athletes-banned-from-competing-in-female-olympic-events-in-new-ioc-polic
Dr Helen Webberley, Gender Specialist and Medical Educator
www.helenwebberley.com
Hi Helen
Perhaps you should edit "Women who have transitioned are still women" to clarify. I presume you mean that people who have transitioned TO womenhood are women? It could be interpreted as "women who have transitioned to manhood are still women" which is surely undermining the argument which you are making! The bodily changes which take place after transition with hormones etc turn a formerly male body into a female body, and vice versa.
Or am I getting confused?
I only point this out for clarity. I otherwise think this is an excellent piece, thank you.
Also.... I doubt "male" athletes get tested 😏 The whole SRY thing should be stopped.
Ken