Fact check: How do sports leagues handle cases of intersex athletes?

1. Summary of the results

Sports leagues handle intersex athletes through a complex and often controversial patchwork of policies that frequently result in exclusion or discriminatory treatment. World Athletics has implemented eligibility criteria requiring transgender women and athletes with intersex traits to reduce testosterone levels below specific limits ^[1]. However, this policy has been criticized as "exclusionary and not based on scientific evidence" by advocates ^[1].

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) faces ongoing controversy regarding its handling of intersex athletes, as demonstrated by the case of Imane Khelif, an intersex boxer who won gold but is now required by World Boxing to undergo sex testing to prove her eligibility to compete in the female category ^[2]. This highlights the lack of consistent, clear guidelines across different sports organizations.

Current laws and regulations often fail to account for the unique biological characteristics of intersex individuals, potentially leading to their exclusion from sports entirely ^[3]. The situation is further complicated by legislation that creates "intersex exceptions" in gender-affirming care bans, which paradoxically can harm intersex people by allowing nonconsensual surgeries ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact how intersex athletes are treated:

• The prevalence and diversity of intersex traits: Intersex is described as "a broad categorization of people with anatomical, genetic, or hormonal variations that do not fit typical male or female patterns" ^[5], yet many policies treat intersex as a monolithic category.
• The intersection with broader anti-LGBTQ+ legislation: Current attacks on transgender and intersex athletes are part of "another front in the fight against LGBTQ+ rights" ^[6], suggesting that sports policies are influenced by broader political agendas rather than purely athletic considerations.
• The medical intervention aspect: Intersex individuals face "forced medical interventions" and "nonconsensual intersex surgeries" ^{[5] [7]}, which directly impacts their ability to participate in sports under current eligibility rules.
• Human rights perspective: OutRight International and other advocacy organizations frame sports participation as a fundamental human right, arguing that "all people, regardless of gender identity or sex characteristics, should be able to participate safely and equitably" ^[8].

Organizations and individuals who benefit from restrictive policies include sports governing bodies that avoid complex case-by-case evaluations, and political figures who use sports as a platform for broader anti-LGBTQ+ messaging.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral but contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading. By asking "how" sports leagues handle intersex athletes, it suggests that there are established, consistent protocols across sports organizations. However, the evidence shows that many sports leagues lack clear, evidence-based policies and instead rely on discriminatory practices.

The framing also omits the documented harm these policies cause to intersex individuals, including exclusion from sports participation and the perpetuation of "prejudice and societal judgments" ^[5]. The question fails to acknowledge that current handling methods are widely criticized by human rights advocates and intersex individuals themselves.

Additionally, the question doesn't address the political context in which these policies operate, where sports have become "a pivot" in broader attacks on LGBTQ+ rights ^[6], suggesting that current policies may be driven more by political considerations than athletic fairness or scientific evidence.