BIAS BY THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC) UNDERMINES FEMALE ATHLETES
- 2 hours ago
- 5 min read
April 19, 2026
To: Marie-Philippe Bouchard, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada; Rebecca Zandbergen, CBC Ottawa presenter; Maxime Bertrand, CBC Ombuds; Charlene Weaving, StFX Professor; and Dr. Andrew Hakin, President of St. Francis Xavier University (StFX).
Subject: Misinformation regarding new IOC eligibility policy during interview with StFX professor on March 31, 2026
Link to the program: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-100-ottawa-morning/clip/16206197-transgender-women-athletes-banned-womens-olympic-events-ioc
Dear Marie-Philippe Bouchard, Rebecca Zandbergen, Maxime Bertrand, Charlene Weaving and Dr. Andrew Hakin:
The International Consortium on Female Sport (ICFS) wishes to express our astonishment and disappointment that CBC Ottawa (Rebecca Zandbergen presiding) would air unchallenged falsehoods that undermine female athletes in Canada and around the world. The new policy announced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on March 26, 2026, has the support of most women and girls in sport. Clear, sex-based eligibility policy and protocol protect female athletes from discrimination and harm.
We the ICFS (https://www.icfsport.org ) are an umbrella group of organizations from ten countries whose specific concern is to ensure that sport for women and girls is female-only for safety, fairness and credible outcomes. Most sports enthusiasts understand the basic biological fact that women and girls are physically different from men and boys and require a female-only category in sports that are sex-affected. It is the reason why there are men’s and women’s categories in most Olympic events. It is, therefore, good news that the IOC has decided to enforce the categorical boundary for admission into women’s competition.
Rebecca Zandbergen’s interview with Charlene Weaving (March 31, 2026) failed to offer listeners balanced coverage of the topic by completely excluding the majority pro-IOC-policy perspective. The only opinion aired was Weaving’s personal biases and fears about:
SRY screen ineffectiveness and possible false results [Reality: The test is highly effective and accurate.]
“Problematic” usage of the term “biological female” [Reality: This term is a clear and necessary descriptor.]
Very few men and boys entering women’s sports, implying it is a non-existing problem [Reality: There is plenty of evidence showing otherwise.]
Grievances pertaining to terrible gatekeeping protocols of the past [Reality: Past grievances are irrelevant to current policy.]
The SRY screen being invasive and a human rights violation [Reality: The SRY screen is neither.]
Denial that there is a level-playing-field, implying that it is useless to enforce one [Reality: A categorical level-playing-field exists for women and girls when males are excluded from their sports.]
Boundary enforcement being “transphobia” that is damaging to women and girls [Reality: This framing is illogical and counterproductive.]
Male athletes being allowed to take extra testosterone via TUE [Reality: Both the meaning of this comment and how it applies to female athletes is baffling, as the situation is virtually non-existent in the Olympic Games.]
Downplaying the women’s boxing outcome at the 2024 Paris Olympics as not being a scandal [**Reality: It was a huge scandal, as males with XY-DSD conditions were permitted to capture gold medals by physically assaulting (punching with up to 162% advantage) female contestants in the boxing ring on full public display.]
Portraying Pierre Poilievre support for the pro-female commentary of JK Rowling as “concerning” [Reality: It is not, concerning. In fact, it is most appreciated.]
**Item 9 is particularly erroneous as medical geneticists, developmental biologists and the IOC commission agree that athletes like boxer Imane Khelif with XY-DSDs are born male (even if misassigned at birth as “female”) and develop pronounced male physical advantages over the time course of childhood and puberty. Since these are males with male advantage it is unsafe and unfair to include them in female competition – especially in contact sports like boxing. The SRY cheek swab screen undertaken by professionals at the beginning of their sporting careers is very helpful, because it discretely identifies these individuals before they are exposed to international scrutiny and gives them an opportunity to seek medical care if required. It is the most respectful and effective way to maintain both fairness for female athletes and dignity for males with DSD conditions.
The CBC failed its audience by not including someone who could speak to the majority opinion on this matter. Allow us to recommend the following women who are able provide strong pro-female-only argumentation when it comes to the women’s and girls’ category in sports:
Dr. Emma Hilton (UK)
Nancy Hogshead-Makar (USA)
Cathy Devine (UK)
Fiona McAnena (UK)
Dr. Linda Blade (Canada)
We would be happy to source these experts for future CBC interviews or debates on the new IOC guidelines.
Since the alternative perspective was not offered on your March 31 program, we provide it here: While Charlene Weaving views the new IOC policy as a discouraging setback, we consider it to be a welcome return to proper gatekeeping of the female category that the IOC incorrectly abandoned some 26 years ago. Female athletes had a good reason then – as they do now – to be supportive of enforceable measures guarding their rights to safe and fair sport.
Over the past two decades, women’s sports advocates have watched in silent horror as the IOC fumbled its female eligibility policy by: first, allowing castrated males into their competitions (2003); second, dropping the surgical requirement and permitting low-testosterone males who self-identify as women (2015); and, third, instituting a “Framework” policy that questioned male competitive advantage outright (2021). Each time, the outcome became worse for female Olympians and for IOC credibility, the latest of which was the boxing scandal at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. Each time, female Olympians and the viewing audience were reminded that male advantage exists and undermines achievement in women’s sport as the IOC refused to reinforce the categorical boundary.
The IOC’s return to a strict female-only requirement, enforced by sex-verification cheek-swab screening, comes as a welcome relief.
Does it violate human rights? NO: It ensures safety and fairness for women’s sex-based rights in sports; a principal requirement under CEDAW (Articles 1, 10 and 13). In your country, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) (Government of Canada, 1982) and the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) (Government of Canada, 1985), in common with UN human rights treaties, enshrine legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sex. The CCRF outlines the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression (S2b) and ensures that these “rights and freedoms are guaranteed equally to male and female persons” (S28).
Does it violate the Olympic Charter? NO: The 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism states: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The IOC has a duty to recognize athletes and fairness on the basis of sex. Allowing any male to participate in women’s sports is sex-discrimination.
An upgraded IOC cheek-swab technology that quickly and discretely identifies the presence of the male SRY gene is the solution to over two decades of misguided, anti-science ambiguity in the determination of who can be considered a female athlete. It is necessary to ensure that no male advantage will be found within women’s Olympic events going forward. We share the hope of United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, that this new IOC stance will also have an impact at grassroots and national levels so that female athletes of all ages and levels of accomplishment will be able to enjoy the benefits of safe, fair and credible sports competition.
We recommend strongly that the CBC finds a way to have a more balanced approach to future stories about sports policy as it pertains to the female category.
Please consider.
Yours in the service of safety and fairness for female athletes,
The Founding Members of ICFS
Email: hello@ICFSport.org
BIAS BY THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC) UNDERMINES FEMALE ATHLETES
