Can a new IOC president bring biological reality back to the Olympics?

I’m torn here—yes, I want you to have a holiday reset, a break from the internet and busting your brain trying to divine truth out of a glut of media, social and antisocial, but I also want you to read my drivel. Here’s a solution: If you’re reading this, stop. Close out the 37 dang tabs, put the laptop in the sock drawer, and go outside. Now, I live in a climate where such an act without careful wardrobe considerations can be life-threatening—I do not make this suggestion lightly. Ten deep breaths, as many toe touches, and a dozen squats (hips back! chest up!) ought to do it. Come back in and power up. The thing about outrage is, it will keeps well. I find that comforting.

As promised, Thomas Bach, soon-to-be ex-president of the International Olympic Committee, who shamelessly went before the world and claimed there was no way to determine whether an athlete was male or female other than to look at his passport, is stepping down in March 2025. Aside from awarding two male boxers Olympic gold medals in women’s boxing in 2024, presiding over 43-year-old trans-identified man Laurel Hubbard’s competition in women’s weightlifting in 2021, and a completely male podium in the women’s 800-meter run in 2016, Bach leaves a legacy of unmatched misogyny through policy. When it became apparent that testosterone suppression did not make a man into a woman, Bach boldly scrapped all science and several centuries of empirical data by declaring that trans-identified male athletes should have no presumption of advantage based on their sex variations. I.e., that they’re male. He leaves big shoes to fill, obviously.

Seven candidates have thrown their hat in the ring. They recently posted their manifestos online. The entire membership of the IOC will vote on the new president during their March 19-21 meeting in Greece. That person will serve for eight years. Much like the recent presidential election in the U.S., protecting women’s sports has become a critical topic for some of the candidates, anyway. I say “has become” because it has not been in the past. The IOC has a proud tradition of treating women’s sports as an afterthought, and it’s clear from their manifestos that quite a few of the candidates are still operating on that basis. In sharp contrast, and unique in the history of IOC leadership, candidates Seb Coe and Johan Eliasch have made protection of the female category the centerpiece of their campaigns. This election is about more than simply filling a chair—it signals the direction the IOC will take on women’s right to their own category. To fairness. And by default, about whether the IOC will start on the long road back to realism or double down on it’s embrace of an anti-reality destructive ideology. That two candidates have bet the farm on a return to biological reality is hopeful, and a reflection of reality-leaning global attitudes.

Though the IOC doesn’t have authority to mandate policy at the national or local level, they have massive influence on sports policy at all levels. That’s why their 20-plus year experiment allowing males into female sports has been so damaging—few males have competed at the Olympics, but at national, local, high school and collegiate levels women and girls have lost out on nearly 900 medals and awards to men. Now that their misogynistic policies have so thoroughly infiltrated women’s sports, it’s going to be hard to claw back the female category, but the results of this IOC election will send a strong message of intent. We mere peasants are not among the voters but a look at the candidates’ manifestos will give you an idea what direction the IOC will take on women’s sports, which will eventually trickle down to policies at your cycling club and high school volleyball team. Below are the candidates, a link to their platform, and my assessment of their plans for women’s sports. They may have marvelous, out-of-the-box visions for the Olympic brand—I don’t care. I’m a single-issue voter. We’re only talking women’s sports here.

• HRH Prince Feisal AL HUSSEIN. As Vice-Chair of the Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Commission, Al Hussein refers to their mission as “the participation of women in all their diversity.” The Jordanian prince lists Developing Inclusion as one of his three strategic goals. He also talks about gender equity and sports as a human right. All of these are talking points of trans rights activists. Al Hussein, of course, plasters his candidacy statement with images of women and girls (not a single photo of Laurel Hubbard or Imane Khelif as examples of “diverse women” though), mouths some platitudes about how far women’s sports have come, and then goes on to emphasize inclusivity in the women’s category (not men’s), as if the women’s category itself was not an inclusivity measure for women. As if there was some other way to achieve inclusivity for women, such as including men who identify as women. Al Hussein promises more of the same, Thomas Bach 2.0.

• Lord Sebastian COE. Current president of World Athletics, one of four International Federations to decisively ring fence the female category in 2023, Coe is the only candidate who has made protecting the female category the centerpiece of his campaign. To wit: “Protect and promote the integrity of women’s sport. I will advocate for clear, science-based policies that safeguard the female category. We will work closely with world-leading medical and educational institutions to increase research into female health, performance and exercise physiology. Women’s sport is at a critical juncture. We must navigate this with sensitivity and resolve to ensure current and future generations of women choose sport.” Coe also talks about maintaining trust in sport by strengthening anti-doping programs, and putting the welfare of athletes at the forefront. Clearly, he’s a strong candidate from a women’s sports perspective, but the willingness Coe has shown to lead in ways that run counter to IOC groupthink bodes well for an organization that is struggling with issues of corruption and irrelevance.

• Mrs Kirsty COVENTRY. As a five-time Olympian (swimming) and the only female candidate, it’s supremely disappointing that Coventry NEVER mentions women’s sports in her manifesto. Her five main pillars are to: Harness the Power of Sport, Maximize Collaboration and Engagement, Strengthen Partnerships for Mutual Growth, Champion Sustainable Development, and Advance Credibility and Trust. Under that last heading, which really suffered a knockout blow in the Paris Olympics, she espouses zero tolerance for corruption, doping and unethical behavior, as if maybe there was some tolerance for those activities in the past. Certainly, in her role on the committee that evaluated the Paris Olympics, Coventry and her peers must have discussed the ethics of allowing boxers with “passport sex” of female to compete in the female category. Apparently they found that instance of corruption, sex doping and unethical behavior was tolerable.

• Mr Johan ELIASCH is the International Ski Federation president, is very concerned about sustainability and climate change, and has held several positions in the conservative party in the UK, so he may be more able than a Labour Party member to define woman in biological terms. But most importantly, Eliasch has gone even farther than Coe, saying the female category should be for those born female, not leaving the door open for males who undertook hormonal treatment before puberty as World Athletics does. When he talks about returning to biological fact, it’s clear he’s taking a swing at the IOC’s current “science.” Here he addresses gender ideology head on: “Women’s sports must be ring-fenced: no ifs, no buts. There can be no grey areas. The integrity of women’s sport must be protected whatever the cultural pressures. In the face of these pressures, fairness and clarity can be achieved if we come back to biological facts….We owe it to female athletes to protect their competitive future through objective, science-informed frameworks, not policies shaped by subjective opinions or ideologies.” Eliasch has not gotten as much press as Coe on the topic of women’s sports, but he does not mince words as to his intentions.

• Mr David LAPPARTIENT Although Lappartient is president of the Union Cycliste International (UCI) that also moved to restrict the female category to those who have not gone through male puberty, he does not mention women’s sports at all in his manifesto. The “mega” issues as he sees them are global instability, climate issues, technology and AI, promoting universal Olympic values of unity and diversity, and the future of the Olympic Games. Reading between the lines, it seems protecting women’s sports does not rise to the level of these other issues. The only place Lappartient mentions women’s sports is under the subheading of Boosting Inclusion and Diversity (which is telling): “As for transgender athletes, it is a complex matter that must be dealt with rationally to strike the right balance between the need to respect human rights and the obligation to ensure fair competition. We cannot ignore what female athletes are saying, but our decisions must also be grounded on solid scientific evidence.” Complex matter, striking a balance, cannot ignore female athletes BUT decisions must be grounded in science AS IF THOSE ARE TWO OPPOSING IDEAS. This line of thinking, and the IOC’s stubborn insistence on listening to only discredited science (recall the IOC’s science says men should not be presumed to have any advantage over women) is exactly what allowed Laurel Hubbard to compete in women’s weightlifting in 2021, and Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting in women’s boxing in 2024.

• Mr Juan Antonio SAMARANCH. He is Spanish, and Spain recently banned trans-identified males from women’s sports, though Samaranch may personally have had nothing to do with that decision. He largely focuses on economic viability and technology in maintaining the relevance of the Olympic Games, Samaranch does devote one short paragraph to protecting women’s sports: “The IOC has a fundamental duty to safeguard women's sport by adopting a policy to maintain unambiguous distinctions between men's and women's categories. The IOC must lead on this issue by setting clear guidelines for competition.” A little bit vague. Okay, a lot bit vague. Will men who identify as women be eligible for women’s sports? What about males with DSDs who have Female on their birth certificate? What would those clear guidelines for competition be? Because in Paris, the IOC used a “clear guideline” of whatever sex marker was on one’s passport for eligibility. The guideline was clear but it didn’t protect women’s sports. Seems like Samaranch has a concept of a plan.

• Mr Morinari WATANABE is president of International Gymnastics Federation, and a host of other IOC groups that really make me say, hmmmmm. For example, he’s been a member of the Working Group Gender Equality Review Project (2017-), Women in Sport (2018-2021), Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (2022), a member of the Coordination Commission for the Games of the XXXIV Olympiad Los Angeles 2028 (2019-), and the kicker, the Chair of the Boxing Task Force (2019-). You wonder what he and his co-committee members were talking about in all those meetings, particularly the Boxing Task Force, but it surely was not protecting women’s sports. Watanabe’s manifesto was devoid of the word woman. His platform read like a CEO’s address to board members—the future viability of the Olympic Games as a business. Marketing. Logistics. Technology. Revenue streams. Other than some platitudes about world peace as a good thing, Watanabe comes off as remarkably detached from humanity, which does not portend commitment to fairness for women. Unless doing so boosts the Olympics’ bottom line.

I, personally, would cast my vote for Seb Coe because he has already walked the walk at World Athletics, and has, at significant risk, taken a strong public stance on protecting the female category. The risk? As we know, there is tremendous money and power behind gender ideology. Many many people who have stood up for women’s rights have suffered cancellation, loss of jobs, slander, ostracization, threats of violence. The IOC’s own fall to this shadowy force—from 2002 when their view was that allowing transsexual men into women’s sports would be unfair, dangerous, and would undermine women’s sports, to 2003 when they made a pathway (gonadectomy) for men to compete in the female category—is a testament to the determination and resources behind trans ideology. Those individuals and organizations—possibly billionaires like the Pritzkers, Gill, Arcus Foundation, Martine Rothblatt—are still there, pulling strings. It takes a lot of money and influence to make Thomas Bach go on TV to humiliate himself and besmirch his vaunted organization, insisting men are women. Those individuals will do everything in their considerable power to trip up Coe’s presidential run. The IOC presidential election is about much more than a title or an office, it’s an international referendum on women’s sports.