NPR reporter Rachel Treisman relied on politicized "science" to muddy the waters on Thursday’s Morning Edition in a story headlined “The Olympic committee bans trans athletes from women's events, raising many questions.” She questioned the common-sense decision of the Olympics to not allow biological men to unfairly compete against women in the 2028 games, and announcing sex testing via the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome, found only in biological males.
Treisman got it wrong right off the bat, referring to biological men as “transgender athletes.”
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will ban transgender athletes from competing in women's events, based on the results of mandatory genetic screening.
Transgender athletes are not “banned” from the Olympics -- they would just have to compete against those of their own sex.
"At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat," said IOC President Kirsty Coventry in a video statement. "So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category."
….
Nevertheless, controversy ballooned in Paris 2024 when right-wing politicians and commentators called into question the sexes of two female boxers who had been previously disqualified from boxing world championships after failing eligibility tests. One of them was cleared for competition after approval last week, while the other — who has repeatedly identified herself as a cisgender woman — is challenging the World Boxing testing requirement in court.
While the accusations were not proven true, they sparked a global debate over gender eligibility and prompted the IOC to begin the review that led to this policy. The IOC says the new rule is based on scientific evidence and "protects fairness, safety and integrity in the female category."
But experts say the testing raises a multitude of concerns.
Treisman threw up a lot of unconvincing roadblocks as if hoping some would stick.
There are questions about the reliability and cost of testing [for the male-coded SRY gene], as well as the interpretation and finality of its results. Critics of the policy say it invades the privacy of all women, and that it discriminates against intersex people whose reproductive or sexual anatomy do not fit binary definitions of male or female.
And even though the IOC says its policy does not apply to "grassroots or recreational" sports programs, some experts told NPR they fear it could affect more than just Olympic hopefuls.
Suddenly, when it muddies the waters on SRY, NPR can define a man:
But there are plenty of intervening variables, Schultz cautions. A male lab tech could potentially contaminate the sample, she said, leading to a false positive. And just because a woman tests positive for the gene doesn't mean she benefits from the hormones it produces.
….
And while the IOC says the SRY gene "represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development," there is a lack of consensus about that in the scientific community.
The complaints got really lame, involving “privacy concerns” and petty expenses. Is $250 per athlete really going to be the deciding factor, giving all the other costs associated with traveling and preparing for international competition?
The screening alone can cost $250, she says, adding a financial burden to athletes and federations — and it's not clear who will bear the cost, or whether that might vary by country or sport. Schultz worries that cash-strapped countries could decide to send fewer women to competitions, or potentially none at all.
There was an instance of mean-spirited conservatives "seizing" on the trans issue, while the unlabeled “proponents” just wanted "inclusion." As if world-class athletic competition like The Olympics must be “inclusive” even to those who clearly don’t qualify as elite in their biological sex category.
President Trump and other conservatives seized on the idea of transgender women and girls competing in sports that align with their gender identity, opposed to what they describe as an unfair competitive advantage and potential safety risk. But proponents want sports to be inclusive — and worry transgender athletes will be cut out of participating.
