The International Olympic Committee has taken a decision that does not seek to please everyone, but to remain faithful to the essence of sport. The introduction of criteria such as the SRY test is neither a whim nor an ideological gesture, but a specific stance to protect women’s sport. With the arrival of Kirsty Coventry at the IOC, this debate has been resolved and a decision has been taken that had previously been avoided. There is courage in assuming the political cost of a measure that inevitably divides, but responds to a reality of high performance.

Perhaps the fundamental mistake in the debate has been to mix two dimensions that do not operate under the same rules. On one hand, individual rights, the personal sphere, identity… On the other, elite sport, which is a structure based on categories, rules and standardization (where money and livelihoods are at stake).

No one disputes that in their private life each person should be able to live as they wish. But professional sport is not private life. Professional sport is a regulated competition where segmentation exists by age, by weight, by disability… and also by sex. Not as a cultural imposition, but as a competitive necessity. International federations such as World Athletics, World Aquatics or World Rugby had already moved in that direction and the IOC has consolidated this trend.

A global debate, not a consensus

The reaction to this decision taken last week has been immediate and organizations such as Sport & Rights Alliance or ILGA World have denounced the measure as discriminatory. Likewise, governments such as France have described it as a “step backwards” and part of the scientific community also questions the need for this type of testing.

At the same time, other voices have supported the decision, such as the group Sex Matters or historical figures of women’s sport, who have insisted that the female category exists precisely to compensate for biological differences. And that without this protection, it would simply cease to exist as a fair competitive space.

Political support from the United States

Among all the reactions, institutional backing from the United States stands out. The administration of Donald Trump has publicly supported this direction, also in the context of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games, which will mark the next major global stage.

Sport cannot absorb all social debates without losing its own logic. It cannot become a space where rules are constantly redefined based on external pressures. Because then it ceases to be a reliable system for the athletes themselves. And this is not about excluding, but about preserving. Because without clear rules, there is no competition. And without fair competition, sport loses its reason for being.

Support from within sport itself further reinforces the decision. Figures such as Martina Navratilova, Sharron Davies or Nancy Hogshead have long argued that fairness requires recognizing biological sex in competition. Others such as Kaillie Humphries have celebrated the measure as “a great day for women’s sport”, while athletes like MyKayla Skinner have reacted with a firm “about time”. Even voices such as Tyler Clary have appealed to common sense: biological differences matter. It is not a unanimous block, but it is significant, and it reflects that this decision is not only debated in offices or institutions, but also where it truly matters: among those who compete.