The controversy surrounding Olympic boxing

If this is indeed about sex and gender, some aspects of the gender controversy surrounding the boxing event at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games are an inevitable consequence of the current disarray with gender eligibility regulations in sport. The traditional binary categorization of male and female sport is being challenged by gender-diverse athletes who do not necessarily align with these norms, such as trans athletes and athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD). All of this is happening at a time when gender identity is evolving and expanding beyond a binary across society. There is also an increased focus on the rights and well-being of athletes and the legal accountability of sport’s 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 story of boxing unfolds, it is indicative of the conflict and slow progress being made in understanding gender diversity and sport participation.

Beyond binary

Gender identity is broad and varied, but the inclusion of gender-diverse athletes in women’s sports has been in the spotlight 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 women, which can have implications for fairness, inclusion and safety. Increasingly, academics, experts, stakeholders, policymakers and athletes are grappling with the conundrum of how to include gender-diverse athletes in a system that has historically been designed for typical female bodies.

The issue itself is far from binary, but rather a multidimensional topic about sex and gender that touches on the very essence of sporting activity. The debate crosses a range of disciplines and presents a real challenge of reconciling inclusion and exclusion in sport. The boxing issue is part of a much deeper narrative about gender that goes beyond the superficial headlines.

There are key questions about how to regulate this issue effectively and whether to balance or prioritize competing interests. While progress is being made, the current environment is divisive because there is a lack of collaborative research and consultation to accurately inform research-led policymaking. The influence of less informed public and political opinion is having a greater negative impact on regulation, resulting in inaccurate assumptions about athletes, as evidenced by the gender divide in boxing. Indeed, there are very few experts in this nuanced field.

The current controversy

The athletes appear to have complied with boxing rules at every stage, but their gender identity is being speculated upon, 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 bias. Semenya’s legal challenge against gender eligibility rules in athletics is currently before the European Court of Human Rights.

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

Sporting bodies are under significant pressure to address gender eligibility more rigorously and transparently. Current approaches vary, but there is a general trend towards bans and testosterone suppression requirements. Boxing rules appear to be ambiguous at international and national levels, and the regulation of the sport is in a period of transition. The nature of the testing conducted on boxers is unclear. Assuming that gender-based testing reveals 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 widely debated across the sciences and humanities. There are multiple aspects to gender diversity in sport, and the discussion cannot be reduced to simplistic arguments relating to male athletic advantage. Overall, current regulatory approaches are inconsistent and fragmented across all sports, and we are in danger of going backwards.

Conclusion

Gender eligibility policies are increasingly subject to challenges as athletes impacted by the rules begin to assert their legal and human rights. To ensure that evidence and respect are observed during gender eligibility considerations, such as those relating to boxing, it is necessary to bring together a diverse range of perspectives to truly appreciate 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. Over time, this will reduce unnecessary fear and division and improve governance in this area. The ambiguity surrounding gender competition in boxing should not distract sporting bodies or governments from focusing on the key issues and treating gender diversity in sport with sensitivity and care.