For a serious treatment of the issue of “feminine” categories in sport

Not a single left-wing media outlet – including Mediapart, unfortunately, despite the journalistic rigor that is usually required there – has correctly covered the controversy raised by the participation in the 2024 Olympics of Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, the two boxers excluded in 2023 from women’s competitions by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for non-compliance with its biological criteria for eligibility for these competitions.

It is frequently implied, or even asserted, that the debate sparked by their participation in the 2024 Olympics is inspired only by Russian disinformation, sexism or misogyny, transphobia, intersexophobia, racism, or even by ” The Zionist lobby », car « They don’t want that a Muslim girl or Arabic girl goes higher in the level of the rank of female boxing ” (said the director of the Algerian Olympic Committee according to an Australian media outlet [1]). However, it is not because Russian agitators, fascists or transphobes scream that Imane Khelif “is a man”, a “cheater” or even a “trans-identified person”, that to counter them we can say anything and claim that they are just women (or intersex people) unduly discriminated against as usual, and “move along, there is nothing to see”.

What particularly shocks me is the treatment given on this occasion to a more general question: what to do with athletes who present certain forms of intersexuality, or more precisely certain atypical sexual characteristics (which is the case of Imane Khelif in particular, as the IOC implicitly acknowledged on August 3rd). [2]), and who wish to compete as women in sports where competitions are divided into two categories, “female” and “male”? Should these categories be eliminated altogether, or should they be redefined differently and no longer given these names, or should all biological eligibility tests be banned and only the gender reference on civil status documents (or even the sworn statement of gender identity by competitors, particularly those who live in a country where it is not possible to change this reference assigned at birth) be created, or should a third gender category be created?

Evading the issue by invoking hyperandrogenism as a reason for unjustified discrimination

Now, Caster Semenya was indeed assigned female at birth and wished to keep this sex designation in her civil status, but she has a 46,XY karyotype (i.e. a male chromosomal sex), testes and no ovaries (i.e. a male gonadal sex), and her body, which is sensitive to androgens, naturally produces a level of testosterone well above the normal female range and within the normal male range (“normal” in the statistical sense of the term). [5]. It is unfortunate that such personal information is thus made public, but I have decided to do so here because it is in fact already public and because the constant misinformation on this subject obliges me to do so, her case being constantly cited as emblematic of the issue raised here. I would add that this does not amount to publicly discussing “what she has in her pants” as some people denounce: I have not spoken about her genitals except for her testicles, which she herself speaks about publicly. The sports authorities do not care about them, genital anatomy having long since ceased to be a criterion for eligibility for women’s competitions.

The rules of the International Athletics Federation, which have become stricter in recent years and were extended to all disciplines in 2023, are unambiguous for those who are aware of the different forms of intersex targeted: no woman with karyotype 46,XX who has ovaries can be excluded from international athletics competitions just because she produces more testosterone than the average woman, or even a very high testosterone level because she has a particularity such as polycystic ovary syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The rules specify on the contrary this [6] : “These DSD Regulations do not apply to any other conditions (including, without limitation, polycystic ovary syndrome and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), even if such conditions cause the athlete to have testosterone levels in her blood above the normal female range.“). In short, it is not women who simply present “hyperandrogenism” who are targeted.

The basketball player’s fallacy

This same expert popularized a fallacy that is being repeated everywhere these days: no man is excluded from competitions because he has a natural advantage while women are, so it is misogynistic or sexist discrimination, in short, it is distressing and must be denounced. The comparison is often made with abnormally tall basketball players who are not excluded, or with the natural advantages of Michael Phelps which did not lead to his exclusion. However, abnormally tall female basketball players or swimmers with abnormal abilities are not excluded either. The bodies that regulate sports competitions are blind to all natural or biological inequalities other than doping EXCEPT when it has been decided to hold competitions by category: there are age categories for young people, weight categories in certain sports and various other categories in disabled sports [9]and in these cases there are rules of eligibility for each category. In the same way, there are gender categories in most sports and if we do not question their very existence (which we can of course do), we cannot protest that there are objective criteria used to define the boundary that separates them.

As for sports in which people with a Y chromosome, functional testes and normal sensitivity to androgens (i.e. almost all people classified as “boys” at birth and raised as such) have advantages such that in the absence of “female” competitions, people without a Y chromosome and with ovaries (i.e. almost all people classified as “girls” at birth and raised as such) would probably never win medals, which is the case for example in boxing, the biological tests that are sometimes carried out make it possible to ensure that certain participants in these competitions do indeed have a “feminine” constitution and not a “masculine” constitution in the sense indicated above. These are not tests by which sports authorities would arrogate to themselves the right to say who “is a woman” and who is not.

Denouncing these tests is almost like being offended that only boxers wanting to enter competitions reserved for those under 92 kg are excluded if it turns out that they are heavier, while no boxer in the “92 kg and over” category is excluded because he is abnormally heavy: it seems like “reverse fatphobia”, and we would denounce the fact that sports authorities are arrogating to themselves the right to define who “is heavy” and who is not.

The problem is that in the case of competition categories based on the “sex” of people, unlike categories based on weight, the boundary between the categories is blurred, with people who are within the thickness of the line that forms the boundary. Concretely, when biological tests are done (rarely, with a selection bias of the competitors subjected to the verifications which is in itself problematic), it is therefore verified that the targeted competitor does not present certain characteristic traits of biological masculinity which happen to be those which structurally advantage “men” over “women” in certain sports.

Defining the relevant criteria for such testing is a complex issue, and the existence of such testing leading to exclusion from top-level competitions also clearly raises significant ethical issues. It should be possible to discuss this calmly, honestly and without ignoring the inconvenient facts.

Odile Fillod

[1] Cf https://www.smh.com.au/sport/algerian-boxer-at-centre-of-gender-storm-breaks-down-in-tears-after-win-20240803-p5jz7l.html

[2] Cf : “CORRECTION | In today’s IOC – Paris 2024 press briefing, IOC President Bach said: “But I repeat, here, this is not a DSD casethis is about a woman taking part in a women’s competition, and I think I have explained this many times.” What was intended was: “But I repeat, here, this is not a transgender casethis is about a woman taking part in a women’s competition, and I think I have explained this many times.”“

[3] Cf https://www.telerama.fr/debats-reportages/taux-de-testosterone-certificat-de-feminite-quand-le-milieu-sportif-veut-definir-ce-qu-est-une-vraie-femme-7021596.php

[5] Any researcher who has worked on this issue knows this perfectly well, and this can be deduced in particular from the simple fact that the International Athletics Federation (formerly IAAF, now called World Athletics) continued to exclude it when its inclusion criteria explicitly mentioned these precise aspects. In May 2019, to cut short the fantasies, the IAAF had clarified this in a “Q&A” intended for the general public and the media ( : The DSD regulations only apply to individuals who are:
• legally female (or intersex) and
• who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have:
– male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX)
– testes not ovaries
– circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and
– the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgensensitive’). >>

[6] Cf (2023 regulations, knowing that this was already specified in the 2021 regulations).

[7] Cf https://www.lessurligneurs.eu/jeux-olympiques-de-paris-2024-non-les-boxeuses-imane-khelif-et-lin-yu-ting-ne-sont-pas-des-hommes/

[8] Cf dont : “This Policy is only concerned with 46 XY DSD, i.e., DSD affecting athletes with testes (males as defined below).“

[9] For the Paralympic Games, see