The controversy involving Olympic boxing

If this is indeed about sex and gender, some aspects of the gender controversy in the boxing event at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games are an inevitable consequence of the current disorder with gender eligibility regulation in sport. The traditional binary categorisation of male and female sport is being challenged by gender diverse athletes who do not necessarily align with those norms, such as trans athletes and differences of sexual development (DSD) athletes. This is all taking place at a time when gender identity is evolving and expanding beyond a binary across society. There is also an enhanced focus on the rights and well-being of athletes and the legal accountability of sports governing bodies. The participation of gender diverse athletes has ignited global debate about fairness, inclusion and safety and the validity of gender eligibility policies. As the boxing story unfolds, it is indicative of the conflict and slow progress being made in the understanding of gender diversity and sport participation.

Beyond the binary

Gender identity is broad and varied, but the inclusion of gender diverse athletes in the female sport category has been at the centre of attention in recent years following high profile cases involving athletes such as Caster Semenya, Laurel Hubbard and Lia Thomas. Their eligibility is contested because of a perceived unfair biological advantage over typical females which may have fairness, inclusion and safety implications. Increasingly, academics, experts, stakeholders, policy makers and athletes are tussling with the conundrum of how to include gender diverse athletes in a system that has been historically designed for typical female bodies.

The matter itself is far from binary, rather a multidimensional topic concerning sex and gender that reaches to the essence of sporting activity. The debate cuts across a range of disciplines and presents a real challenge of reconciling inclusion and exclusion in sport. The boxing matter forms part of a much deeper narrative about gender which goes beyond the superficial headlines.

There are key questions around how to regulate this matter effectively and whether to balance or prioritise competing interests. Although advancements are being made, the present environment is divisive because there is an absence of collaborative research and consultation to accurately inform research led policy making. The influence of less informed public and political opinion is having a greater negative impact upon regulation, which is resulting in inaccurate assumptions about athletes, as evidenced by the boxing gender row. There are in fact very few experts in this nuanced field.

The current controversy

The athletes appear to have complied with boxing rules at every stage, yet their gender identity is speculated, and they are being mistreated and misrepresented in the media. The humiliation of athletes in this way is familiar, with Indian athlete Dutee Chand and South African athlete Caster Semenya previously exposed to similar prejudice. Semenya’s legal challenge against athletics gender eligibility rules is currently at the European Court of Human Rights.

The implication that the female boxers have been subject to sex-based chromosomal testing to prove their femininity, is reflective of early versions of gender policing, which were based upon limited knowledge and a limited understanding of gender diversity and fuelled by political tensions between governing bodies and nations. Previous methods were invasive, inaccurate and were seemingly abandoned. The November 2021, International Olympic Committee (IOC) Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations is non-binding, but centres around ten key principles of inclusion. The Framework recognises the unique characteristics of each sport and encourages each international sports federation to develop sport-specific knowledge in the context of their own eligibility criteria.

Sports bodies are under significant pressure to address gender eligibility with more rigour and transparency. The current approaches are varied but there is a general trend towards bans and testosterone suppression requirements. The boxing rules seem to be ambiguous at the international and national levels and the regulation of the sport is in a transitional period. The nature of the testing conducted on the boxers is unclear. Suppose gender-based tests did reveal excessive testosterone levels or the presence of a Y chromosome, the situation is much more complicated and the scientific basis for performance advantage in sport is greatly debated across science and humanities disciplines. There are multiple aspects to gender diversity in sport and the discussion cannot be reduced to simplistic arguments relating to male athletic advantage. Overall, the current regulatory approaches are incoherent and piecemeal across and within sports and we are at risk of moving backwards.

Conclusion

Gender eligibility policies are increasingly subject to challenge as athletes who are impacted by the rules, begin to assert their legal rights and human rights. In order to ensure that evidence and respect are observed during gender eligibility considerations, such as those concerning boxing, it is necessary to bring together a diverse range of perspectives to truly value the multidisciplinary nature of gender diversity and sport participation. It is important to eliminate misleading information in favour of developing knowledge and education about gender diversity. In time this will reduce unnecessary fear and division and improve governance in this area. The ambiguity surrounding the gender boxing row should not distract sports bodies or governments from focusing on the key matters and treating gender diversity in sport with sensitivity and care.