World Athletics has recently announced a controversial new policy affecting athletes in the women’s category. Beginning this September, any female athlete will be required to undergo a mandatory genetic test, focusing on the detection of the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome. This move is framed by President Sebastian Coe as an initiative to safeguard the “integrity of the female category” in athletics, particularly in light of the upcoming World Championships in Tokyo.
If an athlete tests positive for the SRY gene, which is seen as an indicator of male biological sex, that athlete will be disqualified from competing in elite women’s events. However, the scientific community has raised significant concerns regarding the implications and accuracy of this approach. Professor Andrew Sinclair, who discovered the SRY gene in 1990, has been vocal about the oversimplifications embedded within this policy.
According to Sinclair, who serves as the deputy director of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, the science behind sex determination is not as clear-cut as the new policy suggests. “The presence of the SRY gene typically spurs the development of testes in embryos, but it’s not a simple on/off mechanism,” he noted in a widely shared op-ed. He highlighted that many genes and proteins interact in complex ways to influence whether an embryo develops male or female characteristics.
Complexities of Biological Sex Determination
Sinclair elaborates on the intricacies surrounding the SRY gene, explaining that the gene’s mere presence doesn’t determine a person’s sexual development decisively. Some individuals might possess an SRY gene that is non-functional, or they may develop a condition where their bodies are resistant to testosterone, even in cases where internal testes are present. Consequently, these individuals may lead their lives as women, potentially unaware of their genetic makeup until a test indicates otherwise.
For instance, athletes who possess XY chromosomes but do not develop testes because of a malfunctioning SRY gene would be unfairly excluded from competition under the new regulations. Sinclair argues that this punitive measure fails to account for the full spectrum of biological diversity among athletes, raising severe ethical and scientific issues.
Moreover, occurrences in the past highlight the inadequacies of such testing methods. At the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, 8 out of 3,387 female athletes displayed a positive result for the Y chromosome, with 7 of them being resistant to testosterone. Such instances led to the International Olympic Committee scrapping these tests just a few years later. Sinclair expressed disbelief that, nearly 25 years since this controversial practice was deemed unnecessary, it is being revived in this new form.
Logistical and Psychological Implications
The method for conducting these tests, via a cheek swab or dried blood spot, raises further logistical and ethical questions. Sinclair warns that even minor contamination during the testing process could yield false positives, thereby misclassifying an athlete and prematurely barring them from competition based on inaccurate information. Furthermore, the lack of guidelines for preventing such contamination raises concerns about the test’s validity.
Even more troubling is the potential psychological impact on athletes who receive a positive test result. Sinclair criticizes World Athletics for neglecting the need for genetic counseling, an essential resource for interpreting complex genetic information, especially for individuals who face such sensitive revelations. Without proper guidance and support, the adverse effects of a positive SRY test could extend far beyond exclusion from competition, affecting an athlete’s mental health and social standing.
A Pattern of Exclusion
This policy isn’t the first instance of exclusionary measures from World Athletics. Earlier in 2023, the organization barred transgender women who experienced male puberty from participating in the female category. Furthermore, intersex athletes have faced their own challenges, having been excluded unless they lower their testosterone levels to specific thresholds. The addition of a genetic test creates a new layer of scrutiny that risks unfairly targeting intersex women who identify as female but may test positive for the SRY gene.
“Using SRY to determine biological sex is misguided,” Sinclair asserts. “It only indicates whether or not the gene is present, failing to reveal its functionality or the biological effects of testosterone produced.” In his view, the implementation of SRY testing could lead to unjust discrimination against deserving athletes, thus compromising the ethical underpinnings of competitive sports.
As the athletics community enters this new era of genetic testing, it is crucial for organizations and governing bodies to carefully consider the implications of their policies on not just the integrity of sporting competitions, but also on the lives of the athletes themselves. Given the complexities of genetics and gender identity, the SRY gene should not be employed as a determinant for exclusion from competitive sports.
