Talk:Sex verification in sports: Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

I’ve added the fact that World Athletics, World Boxing and now the FIS have all announced and two out of three implemented SRY screening. I think it should be a separate topic within this page because otherwise it is somewhat lost, where in fact it is a new and significant change in the approach to validation for the female category. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now broken out as a separate topic. SRY screening’s history straddles Hormone testing: it was introduced in 1991 and then stopped, and now has been reintroduced by multiple sports. It might therefore make sense to have “SRY screening” up to 1996, then Hormone testing, then “Reintroduction of SRY screening”.

SRY screening is being rapidly re-adopted as a testing regime and it would be good not to expunge it from the explanation of Sex verification in sports. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My attempts to include SRY screening as an important part of sex verification in sports have now twice been reverted, rather than any effort being made to improve or clarify them. I’d be grateful to know the basis for the reversion and what the reverters (@M.Bitton @Butterscotch Beluga) find objectionable, and would find acceptable.
World Athletics, World Boxing and FIS (Skiing and Snowboarding) have now announced or implemented SRY screening (again; previously used the 1990s).
The page as it stands is also incorrect: in 1992 and 1996 the Olympics used SRY screening (“Gender verification in sports“).

I have not figured out how to encode a reference – the markup confuses me – and so my edits included direct links to external sites, which I know is undesirable; I was hoping a more experienced editor might make that change.

In passing, the page’s reference list contains the same paper multiple times (13, 15, 16, 17); this could probably be tidied up. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416this is a topic which you might be able to guide on. The page on “sex verification” does not at present (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_verification_in_sports&oldid=1316529569) contain any menu items for SRY screening, despite the fact that it was in use for the 1992 and 1996 Olympics, and has now been reintroduced by multiple sporting organisations and looks as though it will be used by the FIS for the 2026 Winter Olympics. I’m at a loss on what to do without going into endless reversions.

Anyone else’s input also welcome of course. But “consensus” can’t be drawn from thin air. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean by menu items. But I see that there seems to be no mention of SRY testing and that should be fixed. I don’t think you will have a problem if you have reliable sources support whatever you add. What did you think of writing? Vegan416 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I missed the first paragraph. I will look in the history and see what I can do. Vegan416 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton @Butterscotch Beluga I suggest adding the following. Any comments?

The discovery in 1990 of the SRY gene, which drives male development in the developing embryo, led to a refinement of sex verification in sports. At the Winter Olympics in 1992 and then the Summer Games in Barcelona in the same year, the IOC approved cheek swabs which would screen for the presence of the SRY gene: participants without SRY would automatically qualify for the female category. In all, 2,406 athletes were tested for the female category at the Barcelona games; five tested positive for the SRY gene, though no names were released.^[1]

SRY testing continued at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, where 3,387 athletes were tested, with eight testing positive. A poll of the female athletes received 928 responses, with 82% in favour of continuing it and 94% saying it did not make them nervous.^[1]

However pressure from other bodies led to the IOC deciding to cease mass SRY screening after the 1996 Games, in favour of an individualised intervention where requested. The IOC and other sports bodies moved instead to a screening system using levels of the male testosterone hormones.^[1]

Towards the end of the 2010s, concerns about athletes who had gone through male puberty rose but were classified as female grew. In 2019 the IAAF introduced “DSD regulations” to deal with athletes in the female category with excessive natural testosterone levels caused by DSDs.^[2]

Following further scientific consultation, World Athletics reintroduced SRY screening program, announced in July 2025, for its biennial World Championships held in September in Tokyo. More than 1,000 female athletes took and passed the screening test to participate. During the World Championships, a presentation by Dr Stéphane Bermon, head of health and science at World Athletics, said that between the years 2000 and 2023, between 50 and 60 athletes with differences of sex development (DSDs) who “had gone through male puberty” took part in 135 female elite international finals (with some athletes participating in multiple events). The numbers were derived from doping tests which showed excessive testosterone levels not found in females.^[3]

World Boxing also instituted compulsory SRY testing in all their sporting events, starting with its championships in Liverpool in September 2025, with more than 50 female competitors.^[4] Imane Khelif, a gold medalist in the 2024 Olympic games, didn’t participate in the 2025 event and filed a complaint on 9 August 2025 with CAS, the sports arbitration court, objecting to the instigation of SRY screening.^[5]

On September 26 2025, the International Ski and Snowboard Federation announced that it would introduced SRY screening. The announcement came six months before the start of the 2026 Winter Olympics in Turin.^[6] Vegan416 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal. I’d suggest that there should be two new sections – one “Introduction of SRY screening” which goes from “The discovery in 1990..” to “..caused by DSDs.”

Then the “Hormone regulations” section that is already there which looks fine.

Then “Reintroduction of SRY screening”, beginning “Following further scientific..” Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. But let’s wait for Bitton and beluga comments. Vegan416 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you’re allowed to discuss Imane Khelif? I’m referring to what is said on your talk page regarding her and GENSEX. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was only blocked on her article page and talk page. There is no prohibition on discussing GENSEX or Imane Khelif elsewhere, as long as it is done according to the general rules of course. Do you claim that I said here anything against the rules? Vegan416 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we deal with the matter in hand, about the SRY screening insert, and seek consensus on it as you originally wanted @M.Bitton? Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask you to engage in WP:CANVASSING? M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure it’s canvassing if the tagged person is the one making the proposal. In any case, M.Bitton, you didn’t answer the question. What do you think of the proposal? Riposte97 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we take it that as @M.Bitton has visited this section of the Talk at least twice and left two comments and not suggested any alterations to the proposed inserts that they can go ahead? We haven’t heard from @Butterscotch Beluga who seems not to have been active for some days. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to ask the previous reverter for their input? If you don’t have thoughts on this proposal but just generally want to see consensus from others, you can say that too. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Woshiwaiguoren: I have no idea what previous reverter you’re referring to, and in any case, there is nothing remotely reasonable about canvassing (by someone who keeps violating BLP and GENSEX), and therefore, I saw no reason to entertain what the canvassed editor (who never edited this article before) has to say.

Any attempt at imposing that POV about Khelif will be reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me at first like you were complaining about his tags of you, but I now see you were referring to the tag of Vegan416. Makes more sense now. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the previous reverted, but @Thisischarlesarthur seems like an inexperienced editor with only 46 edits, so I suppose he wasn’t aware of the canvassing rules. In any case one way to overcome non-responsiveness by a dissenting editor is to ask the wider community to weigh on the issue as explained in Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Vegan416 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are aware of the rules, why did you respond to their notification? M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the rules forbid me from doing that? Vegan416 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been canvassed (this is a fact), therefore, I will ignore whatever you have to say about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been canvassed by someone who clearly did it in good faith, and now that he became aware of it I assume he won’t do it again (AGF). But even if I were canvassed by someone who did it in bad faith there still isn’t any Wikipedia rule that forbids me from participating in this discussion once I had been made aware of its existence. Vegan416 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You assume whatever you want to assume, and I will do the same regarding the undisputed fact that you responded to a clear-cut WP:CANVASSING by someone who keeps violating the BLP and GENSEX policies. M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with M.Bitton here. This is a BLP violation, as Thisischarlesarthur conceded on October 8. It’s no less of a BLP violation being on this page as opposed to Imane Khelif. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the BLP violation? Unless I am mistaken the only mention of Khelif in the suggested text says “Imane Khelif, a gold medalist in the 2024 Olympic games, didn’t participate in the 2025 event and filed a complaint on 9 August 2025 with CAS, the sports arbitration court, objecting to the instigation of SRY screening” and is sourced to the Guardian. We could replace SRY screening with ‘genetic sex testing’ if you like?  Tewdar  17:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, I don’t really think that paragraph is necessary actually, but it’s not a BLP violation as far as I can see.  Tewdar  17:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Imane Khelif for the history of this specific editor trying to cast doubt on her being a woman. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific editor do you refer to? Vegan416 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m only discussing the proposed text above, on this page, which was not suggested by Thisischarlesarthur, if that is who you are talking about.  Tewdar  17:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were suggested by Thisischarlesarthur we are supposed to comment on content, not on the contributor, so what he might have said elsewhere doesn’t really matter here. Vegan416 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What one persistently says and claims about living people (LP) matters everywhere, because the LP’s reputation is far more important than the editors’ feelings. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of BLP in the edit that is under discussion here, so please stop playing the man instead of the ball. Vegan416 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that Khelif has gone through male purberty, i.e. that they are a male, is a BLP violation. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested by the editor that they canvassed (for a reason). M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Is our aim here to make Wikipedia more accurate? SRY screening was used in the Olympics in 1992 and 1996. Multiple organisations are reintroducing it. (References above.)

Does the page presently say that? No.

Would adding the proposed content make Wikipedia more accurate? Yes.

I feel that your objections are not to the content but to the process. I apologise for not knowing the precise details of how to seek consensus; there’s no obvious place to seek people who will take part. (I asked for your input at the very top of this thread but had no reply.)

I don’t see why content that informs the naive reader should be left out of Wikipedia on the basis that an editor didn’t follow the correct process. That doesn’t help anyone. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any objection to the remaining proposed text beyond the line about Khelif? It seems to me like it would improve the article by addressing a currently unaddressed facet of the topic. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. In any case I don’t see any violation of BLP and GENSEX policies in my suggested edit here, and you failed to show any such thing.

@Thisischarlesarthur, here are some relevant places where you might ask for more opinions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Just make sure that you frame the request in a neutral way like in this example. Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that’s very helpful. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Certainly makes sense to include in this article. A little shakier on the Khelif point specifically, but I think it’s pretty germane given the high profile and the CAS challenge, which could potentially bear on SRY testing (and indeed sex verification itself) more broadly. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is too verbose and it implies that Khelif if male. If this proposed wording is implemented it should be reverted on sight as a BLP violation. TarnishedPath^talk 03:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that saying “it implies that Khelif is male” is an extreme stretch. But I won’t argue with that, since I agree that my proposed edit is too verbose, and I intend to propose a revised and shortened suggestion on Sunday. I also intend to break the new suggestion into 3 parts that will go into different parts of the article as already recommended by @Thisischarlesarthur. Vegan416 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Khelif is absolutely undue here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the proposed text is too long, but the article should probably mention testing for the SRY and DYZ1 genes, right?  Tewdar  11:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do so we should make sure to do so in a way that does not imply that people who fail these tests are not at all women. Frankly, when I have spoken on WP:GENSEX topics elsewhere about how “biological sex” is just as socially constructed as gender, the claims that certain editors have made that these tests validate whether someone is a woman is a perfect example of that social construction in action. And in this case it’s not a social construction supported by any science. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM Vegan416 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not WP:NOTFORUM. Adding material which speculates about someone being male, when that person is on the record as stating that they are female, without exceptional sourcing would constitute a BLP violation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no material here that speculates about anyone being a male. Vegan416 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying WP:NOTAFORUM to someone who was explicitly and obviously discussing the article is an extremely bad-faith tactic. I would remind you that assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you’re engaging in bad-faith rhetoric, there is no requirement that anyone take you seriously or continue to engage with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing if biological sex is a social construct or not, as Simonm223 did here, is definitely NOT relevant to the discussion here about SRY testing in sport. I would be very happy to reply and counter Sinonm223 contentious claim on this controversial topic, but this is simply not the place for discussing this issue. So I put WP:NOTAFORUM to remind him of that. Vegan416 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t tag me like this. I don’t have any intention of arguing with you about whether my statement was sufficiently on-topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument that “biological sex is a social construct” is relevant to the discussion here then I should be allowed to counter it with an argument why “biological sex is not just a social construct”. Do you think that would help the discussion here? Do the other editors want this to happen? Vegan416 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, drop it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you take Simon’s comment and mine to ANI and see which way that discussion goes? I bet you won’t. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I won’t take this to the ANI, for the same reason that you didn’t do that: ANI is the last resort, to be used only for extreme problems. We are not supposed to bother the ANI with minor issues that have already been dealt with locally. Vegan416 (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic sex (not ‘biological sex’) is determined by the combination of sex chromosomes present in cell nuclei. It does not determine a person’s gender identity, which may or may not align with their genetic sex. I see no material here suggesting that any particular person is male, and in any case I suggest that Khelif should not be mentioned in any added text.  Tewdar  12:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we don’t mention Khelif that will resolve my principal BLP concern. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems undue and news-y to me 🙂. There are other problems with the proposed text other than that. I’ll try and come up with something later.  Tewdar  13:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we get into the finer details of SRY screening, we could point out that people who might be classified by biologists as “male” on the basis of having a functional SRY gene but who have CAIS are eligible for the F category. The test is not “are you female”. It is “have you not benefited from male androgenisation”. (See the World Athletics regulations, for example.)

Concerns about “is it deciding biological sex” are misplaced. But SRY screening has been, and is being, used. Thus, to repeat, it would be useful to include because presently readers who wonder what World Boxing, World Athletics, the FIS, and World Aquatics are doing are not informed. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that it is undue to mention Khelif’s appeal here? We speak here about the reintroducing of the SRY tests, and now there is an appeal to CAS against this reintroduction. Why should we omit the name of the person who submitted the appeal? Also she is the only sportswoman who appealed this reintroduction to date. Vegan416 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisischarlesarthur, please refer to WP:CANVASSING and take care not to do it again. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is noted. Let’s all be careful out there. Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly shortened and broke the proposed edit into 3 parts to enable independent discussion of each part.

Change 1:
I propose to change this sentence in the Chromosome testing section:

As well, in 1992, the IOC continued compulsory sex verification, but switched from the Barr body test to a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test to look for “male-related genetic material” through DNA samples collected from a buccal swab.

Into this:

As well, in 1992, the IOC continued compulsory sex verification, but switched from the Barr body test to a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test to look for the Sex-determining gene in chromosome Y (SRY) through DNA samples collected from a buccal swab. At the Barcelona games five participants tested positive for the SRY gene, but no names were released.[1] SRY testing continued at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, where 3,387 athletes were tested, with eight testing positive. A poll of the female athletes received 928 responses, with 82% in favor of continuing it and 94% saying it did not make them nervous.[1]

Change 2:
I propose to add the following short paragraph at the end of the Chromosome testing section:

In 2025, three international sports governing bodies, World Athletics, World Boxing and International Ski and Snowboard Federation reintroduced compulsory SRY screening in their sporting events.[3][4][6] The reasons given by these organizations were that athletes who were identified as female at birth, and have XY chromosomes and internal male testes, are significantly “over-represented” in major female competition finals and that it “compromises the integrity of the female competitions”;[3] and “to ensure safety and competitive fairness to all athletes”.[4]

Change 3:
Add the following sentence after change 3:

The decision to reintroduce the SRY testing was formally challenged in an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports that was submitted by Imane Khelif, a gold medalist in female boxing in the 2024 Olympic games. The court has not reached a decision yet.[5]

Vegan416 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know who wrote it, but it’s incoherent. The first sentence especially. There’s grammar mistakes throughout the first paragraph. It desperately needs a complete re-write. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot.  Tewdar  16:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence, anyway.  Tewdar  17:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your changes made it easier for me to parse it, and make a minor change of my own. I’m at work, so I can’t really take the time to sit down and think up a clearer way of defining the subject, so I appreciate this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I’ll take another look at it later… i just basically rewrote what was already there to make it intelligible…  Tewdar  18:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]