This story highlights the broader discussion about gender, sport and inclusion – and what happens when an athlete is accused of being ‘too good to be a woman’.
Khelif’s experience mirrors that of Indian sprinter Dutee Chand, who faced a similar situation in 2014. Chand, who won two gold medals at the 2014 Asian Junior Athletics Championships, was excluded from the 2014 Commonwealth Games and Asian Games after the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) stated that she has hyperandrogenism (high testosterone), making her ineligible to compete in the women’s category.
But how is Khelif competing in Paris if she has been banned by IBA? To understand this, we must look to the context of IBA’s withdrawal of recognition as an international federation by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2023 (confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport), after its suspension in 2019. Reasons for this discreditation include governance and integrity issues, after major concerns arose over IBA’s leadership, financial management, lack of transparency and judging scandals, which have undermined the sport’s credibility. IOC itself is administering boxing in Paris.
In this context, Khelif’s ban by IBA is notable. The joint statement released by Paris 2024 Boxing Unit (PBU)-IOC reveals, ‘These two athletes [Khelif and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting] were the victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA. Towards the end of the IBA World Championships in 2023, they were suddenly disqualified without any due process.’ This decision, taken solely by the IBA secretary general and CEO, raises red flags about its trustworthiness. Khelif had three days earlier won a bout against the Russian boxer Azalia Amineva.
A further complication is the fact that no valid and reliable sex test exists. While we don’t know what (if any) testing Khelif was subjected to, we do know that the science of sex testing is highly contested, and not a settled science. All forms of sex testing (including chromosomal testing, testosterone level testing and physical exams) have been phased out by IOC because they have been shown to be arbitrary, unreliable, open to subjectivity and – above all – harmful. As such, we can’t take IBA’s decision, nor sex testing itself, at face value.Sex testing in sport is recognised as harmful, perpetuating discrimination and stigma. Gender eligibility policies have disproportionately targeted Black and Brown women from marginalised backgrounds and non-Western countries, raising issues of discrimination and enforcing traditional White, Western gender norms.It also ignores basic human rights, eroding bodily autonomy, and personal and medical privacy. Athletes subjected to these invasive tests face psychological distress, public scrutiny and career derailment – as we have seen last week in the case of Khelif. The rigid criteria fail to account for the natural diversity in humans, leading to unfair exclusions.
This practice also undermines principles of inclusivity and equality that sport aims to uphold. A more compassionate approach is needed, one that respects athletes’ dignity without resorting to intrusive and contentious sex testing protocols.
Chand later had her exclusion lifted through an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with her going on to compete at various championships, including the 2016 and 2020 (that took place in 2021 because of the pandemic) Olympic Games. Khelif is competing at the Paris Games under IOC’s competition eligibility and entry regulations, and is, at time of writing, guaranteed a medal. She has also won the hearts of supporters worldwide, who have recognised propaganda and moral panic for what it is.
When an athlete is singled out for speculation about whether or not she is a woman – especially in the context of sex testing remaining a deeply problematic ‘nude parade’ under the guise of scientism and medico-legal language – our first duty of care should be towards her as a human. Such policies, rather than making sport safer, place girls and women and gender non-conforming people at risk.
Rather than asking whether or not she is a woman, we should be interrogating why women cannot yet be accepted as excellent athletes without generating a global moral panic.
