Fact check: What are the IOC rules for sex verification in women's sports?

1. Summary of the results

The IOC's approach to sex verification in women's sports is not based on direct, specific rules but rather operates through a framework system that delegates authority to individual sport governing bodies. The IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations serves as non-binding guidance rather than mandatory regulations ^{[1] [2]}. This framework emphasizes inclusion, non-discrimination, and fairness while recognizing the need to protect rights of all athletes, including those with differences of sex development (DSDs) and transgender athletes ^[2].

Key operational aspects include:

• Individual sport governing bodies have discretionary authority to create their own eligibility criteria for elite competition ^[3]
• For Olympic competition, gender and age verification is primarily based on athletes' passports ^[4]
• The IOC has expressed concern over arbitrary decisions by organizations like the IBA that disqualify female athletes without due process ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to capture several critical contextual elements:

Historical discrimination and invasive practices: Sex testing in women's sports has been criticized as discriminatory and invasive, with many athletes subjected to unnecessary and humiliating tests ^[5]. The Caster Semenya case exemplifies the complexity and potential harm of using testosterone levels as eligibility criteria ^[1].

Emerging stricter policies: While the IOC maintains a relatively hands-off approach, World Boxing has introduced mandatory sex testing for all boxers, including PCR genetic tests conducted via nasal/mouth swab, saliva, or blood, effective July 1, 2025 ^[6]. This represents a significant departure from the IOC's framework approach.

Human rights concerns: Critics argue that current sex testing policies violate women athletes' human rights to health, privacy, and dignity and call for policy changes that prioritize women's human rights while promoting competitive fairness ^[5].

Beneficiaries of different approaches:

• Traditional sports organizations benefit from maintaining control over eligibility criteria
• Legal and medical testing industries profit from mandatory testing requirements
• Conservative political groups may benefit from stricter verification policies that align with their gender ideology

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that the IOC has specific, direct rules for sex verification, when in reality the IOC operates through a framework system that delegates authority to individual sport governing bodies ^{[1] [3]}. This framing could mislead readers into believing there are uniform, IOC-mandated verification procedures across all Olympic sports.

The question also omits the controversial nature of sex verification practices and fails to acknowledge the ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding these policies. By asking simply about "rules," it presents the topic as settled policy rather than an evolving area of significant controversy involving human rights concerns, legal challenges, and discriminatory practices ^[5].