The furore generated by two female boxers in the Olympics has illustrated two things: false information spreads very rapidly, and there is a considerable lack of understanding about the diversity of sexual expression. All too readily these two become conflated into a dubious and dangerous recipe for misinformation and hurt.
A history of contention
The names of the two boxers are by now well known: Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting, from Algeria and Taiwan respectively. The trouble commenced in 2023 when they were both deemed to have failed to meet eligibility rules for female boxing, by the International Boxing Association (IBA), on the grounds that they had XY chromosomes. This occurred during the world boxing championships when they were actually competing. The test results were never published, and no convincing proof was provided by the IBA to justify their diagnoses.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed them to compete as females, on the ground that the IBA was embroiled in governance and finance issues, and the dubious integrity of its officials extending back as far as the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. Additionally, the IOC had no grounds to question that they are females, and they had competed as females in top-level competition for many years. The boxers themselves insisted that they were female and had always been regarded as females. In the end both won gold medals in their respective divisions at the 2024 Paris Olympics.
It is deeply unfortunate that this background of claims and counterclaims set the scene for a welter of misinformation at the Olympics. The people who suffered most were the two boxers, who were subject to condemnation and aggression. To make matters worse some claimed they were transgender, even though there is not a shred of evidence to justify this.
A non-binary reality
Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the IBA’s claims, some individuals demonstrate what are referred to as differences in sex development (DSD). These cover a host of well recognized rare conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs, including genitals. It is possible for a person to have a womb plus testicles inside their body. In other words, the sex development of these individuals does not fit into a neat binary male-female classification, hence the designation that they are ‘intersex’.
These are biological conditions where the individual was born with ambiguous gonads or genitalia. One such example is androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) where the individuals have XY chromosomes but cannot process male hormones and develop female external genitalia. A second example is congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an inherited enzyme deficiency leading to an overproduction of fetal male hormone. This results in XX individuals with androgen levels like those of typical males. Well known examples are female athletes with very high levels of testosterone.
There are also chromosomal aberrations. In Turner syndrome, all or part of one sex chromosome is missing. Most Turner patients present as female, albeit as an undeveloped female. In Klinefelter’s syndrome, the chromosome pattern is XXY or XXYY. The individual has external male genitalia, small testes, infertility, and breast growth.
One message to emerge from these conditions is that determining what someone’s sex is, can on occasion be very complicated. This is usually of concern when, for example, a female cannot get pregnant, and it emerges she does not have a womb and has testes instead of ovaries. It is not known what genetic variations the two Olympic boxers may or may not have, although there are indications that Khelif has been treated to regulate her testosterone levels. Nevertheless, the two have always competed as women.
The challenge of sports
These issues rise to the surface in high level competitive sports where individuals are competing against one another on what are meant to be an equal footing. In practice, this is far from easy to attain in any sport. The IOC has had a mottled history in determining boxers’ gender eligibility, even when sex testing including invasive physical examination was undertaken. This is no longer required since it was deemed humiliating and failed to respect the individuals as people. One procedure that has tended to remain in women’s competitions is testing for (high) testosterone levels, yet this is far from a perfect predictor of an individual’s performance.
The IOC’s current guidelines prioritize the basic human rights of privacy, inclusion, and participation. However, sportswomen who are very successful, powerful, and have a masculine appearance to some spectators, are still liable to be targeted, especially if they are not white. This was tragically demonstrated in the 2024 Olympics by the levels of online abuse directed at Khelif and Lin.
A Christian response
In view of the responses to the two boxers and also the information about DSD, there are a number of things we can say from a Christian angle.
First, those who do not fit neatly into a sexual binary appear in the pages of Scripture where they appear as eunuchs. In the cultures of the time these were looked down upon and were considered to be foreigners, pagans, morally suspect, sexually illicit, because they were neither male nor female. There was little room for them in society. It is interesting though that Isaiah predicted a time when they would be included with God’s people (Isaiah 56:3-7). And then that revolution actually came, with Jesus’ positive evaluation of them in the context of teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:12). There, three types are mentioned: eunuchs at birth, castrated males, and a third category that is difficult to determine from the evidence in Scripture and open to theological debate. Later, Philip in his encounter with the eunuch on the road from Jerusalem welcomed the eunuch into the church (Acts 8:26-38).
What emerges here is that, in calling his disciples to learn from eunuchs, Jesus was calling them to learn from those whose sexual identity was not secure, and to learn that sexual identity is not the central value in the kingdom of heaven. For Jesus, we are to make room for these people, we are to appreciate them with all their differences, and we are to realize that sex may not be as simple as we sometimes make it out to be.
Second, Christian psychologist Mark Yarhouse suggests three approaches by which Christians can come to terms with various forms of sexual malfunctioning. These are integrity, disability, diversity.
- Integrity follows the creation mandate approach accepting the division into male and female as the order of creation and as essential building blocks for human life. This aims for a picture of ideal maleness and femaleness. But as we have seen this may not be achievable for those with DSD, even if it is the ideal for most of the Christian community.
- Disability has much to commend it since it recognizes that things go wrong and there are deficiencies or differences that should be rectified if possible. This recognizes that aberrant development may result from what Christians call "the fall" and is not a personal moral choice. The individual concerned is not responsible for their DSD. The degree to which developmental disorders can be corrected is a judgement to be made by the individual concerned and their health professionals.
- Diversity would probably be less interventionist and more accepting of the naturalness of DSD. This view accepts that there is major diversity within the kingdom of God and is less wedded to a male-female binary model. It expects a great deal of the surrounding community and its welcoming and acceptance of broken people.
In summary, all are made in the image of God, even if those with DSD are aberrant of most norm standards. This is the way in which they have developed from their earliest stages. They are what they are because this is the body that has been bestowed upon them. In my opinion as a Jesus-following professor of anatomy:
- This is their gift from God and it is the body they are to make the most of.
- They are to be respected and treated with compassion and tenderness when subject to ridicule and rejection by those who look down on them because they do not fit the image or expectations of others.
- They are to be given opportunities in life to express themselves and fulfill their potential.
- They are also to be treated appropriately if there are ways in which their functioning can be improved. Because this is what we do in many other circumstances.
Gareth Jones is Emeritus Professor of Anatomy at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. He writes on ethical issues in the reproductive technologies, and at the border between anatomy and ethics. His most recent book is D Gareth Jones, At the Margins: A Life in Biomedical Science, Faith, and Ethical Dilemmas.
