ICFS REBUTTAL TO SPORTS RIGHTS ALLIANCE

March 25, 2026

To: Kirsty Coventry – IOC President; IOC members

Subject: Female Eligibility – A Rebuttal to Sports Rights Alliance Statement 

Dear President Coventry and IOC members:

The International Consortium on Female Sport (ICFS) wishes to express our support for reinforcing the boundary of the female category in sports. Contrary to allegations in the recent statement by Sport & Rights Alliance (SRA), ILGA World, and Humans of Sport (heretofore referred to as “The Statement”) we believe that clear, sex-based eligibility policy and protocol protects 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. While the entities who published The Statement have the support of some trans advocacy groups, a preponderance of 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.

Authors of The Statement appear to be particularly concerned with the possibility that the IOC will soon follow the World Athletics policy mandating a sex-verification screen (by the simple cheek swab) for all athletes seeking entry into women’s competition. They characterize this possible change in IOC policy as a “30-year setback.”

We view it, instead, as a welcome return to proper gatekeeping of the female category that the IOC incorrectly abandoned 30 years ago. Please bear in mind that in making its decision to abandon rigorous sex-verification, the IOC’s representatives admitted that most female athletes wanted the screening to continue: “At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games [1996] were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that the testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure.” [Genetics in Medicine, 2000:2(4):249-254]

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. Women’s sports advocates have watched in silent horror over these past 30 years 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 when the IOC refuses to reinforce the categorical boundary.

It is time for the IOC to return to a strict female-only requirement, enforced by sex-verification cheek-swab screening. Arguments against such gatekeeping by those supporting The Statement falter when scrutinized from the female perspective:

• 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).

• Does it violate the Olympic Charter? NO: The 6^th 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.

• Do all UN representatives support the claims made by proponents of The Statement? NO: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, stands firmly behind the principle of sex-verification screening for safety and fairness of the female athlete.

A new IOC policy that clarifies and reinforces female-only eligibility in women’s Olympic competition by implementing an upgraded cheek-swab technology that quickly and discretely identifies the presence of the male SRY gene is the solution to three 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. It will ensure that female athletes in future Olympic Games will enjoy the benefits of safe, fair and credible competition.

For its part the IOC might find relief from scandal and the constant questioning about its commitment to integrity. Perhaps, at long last, viewers of the Olympic Games will be able to focus on superb sporting achievements without being distracted by nonsensical exhibits resulting from a substandard policy.

Please consider.

Yours in the service of safety and fairness for female athletes,

The Founding Members of ICFS

Email: hello@ICFSport.org

https://www.icfsport.org/

 CICFS REBUTTAL TO SPORTS RIGHTS ALLIANCEA)