In a charged atmosphere of sporting politics, global athletic figures are grappling more openly than ever with the question of who is allowed to compete in women’s sporting events. At the heart of these debates lies a community rarely centered in the conversation: transgender athletes, who dream of stepping onto the Olympic stage, and the young trans children who nurture these same aspirations. As the International Olympic Committee (IOC) gears up for a crucial presidential election in March, the topic of transgender eligibility and women’s sports has become a complex web of fairness concerns, competing visions, and human rights considerations.
A High-Stakes Election and Manifestos on Inclusion
At the core of the upcoming election for IOC president is Lord Sebastian Coe, a renowned figure who oversaw the London 2012 Games and currently leads World Athletics. He is one of seven candidates vying to succeed Thomas Bach, whose tenure has been marked by the IOC’s policy of deferring transgender participation decisions to individual sports. Lord Coe’s newly released manifesto pledges to “introduce science-based policies that safeguard the female category.” While this statement may seem straightforward, it underscores a debate that is anything but simple.
In this race, calls to safeguard women’s categories have become a crucial battleground. The key tension is whether creating strict boundaries between men’s and women’s categories will unfairly exclude transgender women, deepening discrimination against an already vulnerable community. Some fear that leaving policy decisions to each sport’s governing body, as is currently the case, will only foster inconsistency, confusion, and a lack of cohesion that hurts everyone—women, cisgender and transgender alike.
This year’s Paris Olympics made headlines for its approach to transgender participation: the IOC’s administration maintained that if an athlete’s passport indicated they were a woman, they could compete in women’s events. This left the nuances of eligibility to each sport’s federation—an approach that critics say led to uncertainty and, for some, sparked disquieting moments of scrutiny and doubt about who belongs where. In this context, Lord Coe’s approach proposes a more precise and cohesive policy, striving for clarity and incorporating feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, including national Olympic committees, international federations, medical experts, and crucially, the athletes themselves.
Divergent Views in a Crowded Field
Coe’s stance, mirroring the regulations he enforced at World Athletics, would likely mean that transgender women would not be able to compete in elite-level women’s categories. World Athletics has already implemented restrictions on male-to-female transgender athletes and tightened rules for competitors with differences in sex development (DSD). Under Coe’s leadership, the organization has taken a clear position that fairness in women’s categories requires stringent eligibility criteria—leading many to believe that, should he ascend to the IOC presidency, a similar framework could be introduced at the Olympic level.
But Coe isn’t the only candidate. Spanish financier Juan Antonio Samaranch, an IOC vice president, has made safeguarding women’s sport a central theme as well, though he is less direct about the outcome. Samaranch speaks of “maintaining unambiguous distinctions” but suggests there could be room for case-by-case evaluations. He emphasizes the importance of scientific criteria and believes the IOC must show leadership by setting universal standards that provide “peace of mind” to athletes and viewers alike.
Johan Eliasch, president of the International Ski Federation, goes even further in urging the IOC to take a leadership role. He calls for a “simple and clear policy” across all sports—something that would end the current patchwork approach and align the entire movement under a single banner. Meanwhile, David Lappartient, president of the International Cycling Union, recognizes that opinions may vary among sports. He advocates a balanced approach that respects human rights, acknowledges the voices of female athletes, and is grounded firmly in science.
Trump, Populist Rhetoric, and the Wedge Issue of Trans Inclusion
While the IOC candidates navigate a complex political terrain, the broader cultural conversation is also shifting. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, during his campaign for a second term, repeatedly emphasized what he described as the need to “keep men out of women’s sports.” His rhetoric has resonated with some voters, transforming what is statistically a rare occurrence—transgender women competing in women’s categories—into a potent political flashpoint. Advertising dollars flowed into anti-trans messaging with the goal of depicting transgender inclusion as a threat, despite the fact that the number of trans athletes actively competing at elite levels is extraordinarily small.
Data shows that at the U.S. high school and collegiate levels, the participation of openly transgender athletes is minimal. Yet, their existence has been used to stoke public anxiety. The NCAA has policies for trans inclusion, but tracking the actual number of transgender athletes remains elusive. Estimates suggest that only a tiny fraction of the student-athlete population is openly transgender, challenging the narrative that trans participation is somehow widespread or dominant.
Empathy in the Eye of the Storm
In the swirling debate over rules, categories, and scientific parameters, the voices of transgender athletes and their supporters are often overshadowed. The trans community, along with their families and allies, yearns for more than just policy pronouncements; they need empathy, clarity, and a sense of belonging within a global sporting ecosystem that is often hostile. For transgender youth who dream of competing at the Olympics, these debates can feel deeply personal. Seeing older athletes, international federations, and powerful figures treat their very existence as a “problem” sends a disheartening message.
The current IOC framework, published in late 2021, was a step toward a more inclusive vision. It spoke of fairness, inclusion, and non-discrimination, stating that athletes should be granted access to competitions that align with their self-identified gender. But it then delegated the actual implementation of these principles to individual sports. Many in the trans community felt this was a half-measure—words without the powerful, enforceable policies needed to guarantee genuine inclusion.
The Human Element Behind the Science
Advocates argue that any policy must blend science with a nuanced understanding of what it means to be human. Testosterone levels, puberty timelines, and biological attributes are undeniably relevant. Yet focusing solely on these metrics ignores the lived experiences of transgender individuals who have faced systemic discrimination, mental health challenges, and lack of access to supportive training environments. Some trans athletes spend their entire athletic careers behind their peers, struggling to secure coaches who accept them, teammates who embrace them, or even locker rooms free of hostility.
Skeptics worry about the “unfair advantage” debate overshadowing the bigger picture—how to ensure that sports welcome everyone. Women’s categories were created to ensure fairness and safety, which is absolutely important. But too often, the argument for fairness is pitted against the rights of transgender women, as if these concepts cannot coexist. The truth is that with rigorous science, thoughtful eligibility criteria, transparent communication, and genuine inclusion, it is possible to protect women’s sports while also ensuring trans athletes aren’t cast aside.
A Need for Real Leadership
Whether it’s Lord Coe or one of the other candidates who emerge victorious in March, the next IOC president will face mounting pressure to unify policies across sports. Athletes, medical experts, and national committees all want concrete guidelines that resonate with the core Olympic values of excellence, friendship, and respect. The world’s eyes are on the IOC not just to enforce rules but to foster an environment where every athlete can thrive, regardless of gender identity.
This task won’t be simple. The “common sense and sensible debate” that some call for is often drowned out by social media outbursts, political soundbites, and fear-driven rhetoric. Younger athletes—trans and cis—worry about reputational risks, corporate sponsorships, and online harassment. It’s no wonder so many remain silent, fearful that speaking out could bring about personal and professional backlash.
The Bottom Line
During these turbulent times, the trans community and its allies can find comfort in the prominence of these issues. The very presence of a debate means the world is grappling with these questions rather than ignoring them. Advocacy groups, educators, and some sports leaders are working diligently to ensure that policies reflect the most up-to-date science, just as they reflect humanity’s best virtues: fairness, empathy, and solidarity.
As the election for IOC president draws near, the conversation will likely intensify. Yet, there is hope that, with the right guidance, the Olympic Movement can forge a clearer, kinder path—one that respects women’s sport while also holding space for transgender athletes who have been too easily marginalized. Achieving this balance is not about taking sides but about recognizing that real lives and real dreams are at stake.
These policies hold immense importance for transgender youth who envision themselves carrying their country’s flag into an Olympic stadium one day. They speak to the possibility that their identities can be celebrated rather than questioned and that their bodies are welcome rather than scrutinized. In the end, the Olympics were founded to champion the human spirit. Ensuring that spirit thrives in all its diversity is the ultimate test of the IOC’s integrity, courage, and capacity to lead.
