Tag Archives: IOC

‘Science & Society’ Talk, Wednesday December 9th, 2026- “Who decides and on which basis who counts as a woman in sport? An overview of regulations from 1999 to 2026”

I am delighted to have been invited to deliver a talk within the ‘Science & Society’ series at KU Leuven’s Institute for Genetics & Society (LIGAS).

Date & Time: 9 December 2026 (Wednesday) from 12:00 to 13:00
Location: Auditorium O&N4, Gasthuisberg Campus, Leuven
Access: Free to attend, no registration needed – just show up!

I will be talking on one of the most debated questions in sport today: how sporting bodies have decided who is eligible to compete in the women’s category, and what science has been asked to do in that process.

Short abstract:

Who is allowed to compete in the women’s category, and who gets to decide? For more than two decades, international sports federations have struggled with this question. The resulting eligibility rules have repeatedly shifted between different biological markers, from chromosomes and hormone levels to genetic testing. In this talk, Silvia Camporesi traces how these regulations have developed from 1999 to the present, and asks on which scientific and ethical grounds each policy was built. She looks at the role biomedical evidence has played in these decisions, at the tension between fairness in competition and the rights and well-being of individual athletes, and at what this history reveals about how science is used when institutions draw boundaries.

New ‘Conversation’ piece out explaining why the new IOC policy is harming, not protecting, women

I have always considered outreach and public engagement an essential part of my work as an academic.

Even if it doesn’t earn brownie points for promotion, I think it is important that we, as academics, carve out time to communicate what matters most about our work to the wider public.
In times of post-truth, post-expertise, and post-evidence, we need to stay anchored to the values we believe are important.

Now for this piece published in theCONVERSATION I have to thank my great colleagues Marcus Mazzucco and Sarah Teetzel for leading.

For me, the take-home message is simple: alarm bells should ring whenever someone says they want to “protect you.” Even if you don’t agree with our position on the new IOC policy, those alarm bells are still there in plain sight.

Thanks for reading!

https://theconversation.com/the-return-of-sex-testing-in-sport-risks-harming-women-athletes-rather-than-protecting-them-279074

#sextesting #IOC #policy #sexvariations #DSD #eligibility #femalecategory #discrimination #LAGames

Hyperandrogenism, unfair advantage and the myth of the level playing field in competition

In this paper, published on the American Journal of Bioethics and co-authored with Katrina Karkazis (Department of Biomedical Ethics, Stanford), Rebecca Jordan-Young (Barnard College, NYC), and Georgiann Davis (Southern Illinois University), I analyse and question the 2011 IAAF  policies on the eligibility of female athletes with hyperandrogenism to compete in the female category.

Caster Semenya

Caster Semenya

We argue that the policies are  flawed on at least three grounds: 1) the underlying scientific assumptions; 2) the policy-making process; and 3) the concept of fairness for female athletes, and that they should be withdrawn.

The new IAAF policies aim at  isolating the presumed positive effect of increased androgen levels on athletic performance from a myriad of other factors. However, as we show in the paper, such a move is logically flawed, and consequently, the new regulations themselves are logically flawed—it is impossible to reduce the complexity of athletic excellence to a univocal relationship between androgen levels and performance.

Read more: my post for Somatosphere.

Karkazis K, Jordan-Young R, Davis G, Camporesi S. (2012) Out of bounds? A critique of the new policies on hyperandrogenism in elite female athletes,  Am Journal Bioethics; 12(7):3-16.