A group of academics has condemned World Athletics' policy of mandatory SRY gene testing for female track and field athletes as a harmful anachronism. The testing, introduced last September, aims to ensure only biologically female individuals compete at the elite level. Critics argue it violates human rights and lacks scientific grounding.
World Athletics implemented mandatory testing for the SRY gene in female track and field athletes last September. The policy seeks to confirm that competitors are biologically female, thereby maintaining the integrity of women's events at the elite level. Sebastian Coe, president of World Athletics, explained that the measure was designed to "protect and promote the integrity of women’s sport."
In response, 34 academics, led by figures including Professor Alun Williams, have issued a report denouncing the policy as a "backwards step" and "harmful anachronism." They contend that the approach oversimplifies the concept of sex and could lead to stigma and distress for athletes. The report emphasizes that there is insufficient robust data connecting the SRY gene directly to performance advantages in athletics, and it raises concerns about violations of athletes' human rights.
World Athletics has pushed back against the criticism, maintaining that the policy safeguards the human rights of female athletes overall. The organization cites extensive research demonstrating the performance advantages held by biological males in sports. This debate highlights ongoing tensions in elite athletics over fairness, inclusion, and scientific evidence in regulating competition categories.
The academics' intervention comes amid broader discussions on how governing bodies balance competitive equity with individual rights in women's sports.
