The latest study on female athletes' views regarding the eligibility of athletes with a difference in sex development (DSD) offers insights challenging existing policies in sports. More female athletes perceive the inclusion of DSD individuals in competitions as fair rather than unfair, according to research led by Dr. Shane Heffernan at the Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM) at Swansea University. The study found that a majority of athletes consider it unethical to require athletes with a DSD to medicate for eligibility.
Dr. Heffernan expressed, “Athletes with a DSD have one of several complex genetic conditions that lead to varied and individual physiology traits. To date, DSD athletes have not been shown empirically to have an athletic advantage in elite sport. Regardless, their eligibility has been questioned for many years because of a few successful individual athletes. This has sparked many iterations of eligibility criteria, created with little peer-reviewed evidence to support policy choices.”
The research, published in the European Journal of Sport Science, polled 147 female athletes from different sports, including 21 World champions and 15 Olympians. It revealed that 67% of respondents oppose medicating DSD athletes for eligibility. Moreover, only 8.2% believed these athletes are treated fairly. Furthermore, 70% were against creating a separate category for DSD athletes, especially in precision sports.
Contributing to the research were principal collaborators Prof. Alun Williams and Dr. Georgina Stebbings from Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport, and Dr. Marie Chollier of the University of Chester. Professor Williams pointed out, “Athletes with a DSD have rare genetic conditions that affect their biology including their reproductive systems and hormone levels, and their eligibility to compete in the women’s category in sport has been controversial for decades. Different sports have varied eligibility criteria based on very little evidence. One type of evidence missing, until now, is the opinion of women athletes.”
Reflecting on the study's implications, Dr. Heffernan stated, “World Athletics and other sport governing bodies have previously used our data on female athlete views of Transgender athlete inclusion when consulting/reevaluating their eligibility policies. They should now also use these new data on athletes with a DSD in the same way and recognise that DSD and Transgender athletes are distinct, viewed as such by current high-level female athletes, and should not be treated identically or collectively when creating new eligibility policies.”
The study is seen as a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about fair competition, emphasizing the "voice of female athletes" often unconsidered in policy-making.
###