The New Zealand Olympic Committee has responded to the International Olympic Committee’s newly introduced policy on eligibility in women’s sport, acknowledging the depth of work behind it and stressing that its implementation will be handled with sensitivity.
The IOC’s updated framework, released on Thursday, introduces genetic testing measures that are set to restrict transgender athletes and some individuals with Differences of Sexual Development (DSD) from competing in the female category at the Olympic Games.
One immediate impact of the rule change is on Laurel Hubbard, who made history at the Tokyo Olympics 2020 as the first openly transgender athlete to compete in a different gender category than the one assigned at birth. Under the new guidelines, Hubbard would no longer qualify for the women’s division.
NZOC chief executive Nicki Nicol emphasised that the policy was the result of extensive consultation.
“We recognise the extensive consultation and expert input that has informed this policy to bring greater clarity, consistency and fairness to eligibility for the female category at the Olympic level,” Nicol said.
She also highlighted the organisation’s cautious approach moving forward.
“Our focus now is on understanding the policy fully and working carefully to ensure any next steps are approached with a clear understanding, respect and care. This is a complex and sensitive area that directly affects people, not just policy. We are committed to showing Manaaki (care) by supporting athletes’ wellbeing, privacy and dignity.”
The IOC’s decision is based on findings from its working group, which concluded that biological males retain a performance advantage across all sports, with differences exceeding 10% in some cases and even higher in explosive events like weightlifting. The report also stated that there is currently no evidence to suggest that testosterone suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatments fully remove this advantage.
“Current evidence does not show that testosterone suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatment eliminates this advantage,” the policy document noted.
However, the policy has sparked strong opposition. Critics have questioned the scientific basis of the findings and raised concerns about the psychological impact on transgender athletes, as well as issues around fairness and privacy, particularly for those who may only discover a DSD condition after undergoing genetic testing.
Australian advocacy group Pride Cup urged national federations to reject the framework.
“It shifts the focus of women’s sport to exclusion by proposing genetic testing and stricter eligibility rules that do nothing to improve conditions for women in sport,” the group said.
The Australian Olympic Committee, meanwhile, acknowledged the clarity the policy could bring while also recognising its human impact. President Ian Chesterman said, “This decision will be challenging for some athletes, and we are mindful of their welfare and well-being. We also acknowledge this decision does not apply to any grassroots or recreational sports programmes.”
In France, the French Olympic Committee raised ethical and legal concerns, noting that genetic testing such as the SRY test would conflict with the country’s strict bioethics laws.
Despite this, the IOC maintained that such testing is widely permissible.
“Based on the International Federation experience, genetic screening for sex does not create significant problems in practice. It is legal in most countries, and athletes from countries where it is not permitted can be tested elsewhere,” the IOC stated.
The debate now moves beyond policy into implementation, as sporting bodies worldwide grapple with balancing fairness in competition and the rights and dignity of athletes.
