Sex vs. Gender

The bout between Angela Carini, of Italy, and Imane Khelif of Algeria only lasted 46 seconds. The online fight that followed promises to continue well past the end of the Olympic games. The contenders in the welterweight division ended up as protagonists in the larger culture war between starkly different conceptions of... what exactly?

Already we’re at the heart of the problem. Are we talking about sex or gender? The one we choose determines the lens through which we view things. This is a battle between two ways of understanding reality, a contest between two very different frames.

In one corner are those for whom gender must dominate decision making. In the other, the biological essentialists who think policy should be based on sex.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is fully on team gender. They helpfully included a glossary of terms in a document titled Portrayal Guidelines: Gender-equal, Fair and Inclusive Representation in Sport, which includes many dos and don’ts regarding how we’re meant to talk, including pronoun usage.

SEX: a category assigned at birth and refers to the biological
characteristics that define a person as female, male or intersex
(World Health Organization).

GENDER: refers to both one’s sense of self and to the system of
socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes
that a given society considers appropriate for people of different
genders (UN Women).

Aside from the idea that sex is something that can be assigned, those are serviceable definitions. Sex refers to the biological characteristics that define a person as female, male or intersex. Gender is a social construct and “sense of self.”

The IOC guidelines are very gender-centric. Gender is mentioned 205 times, sex only 39. Even when sex is mentioned, it is mostly referencing “sex variations” (intersex conditions). Here’s a sample.

Use of phrases like [biologically male/female] can be dehumanising and
inaccurate when used to describe transgender sportspeople
and athletes with sex variations. A person’s sex category is not
assigned based on genetics alone and aspects of a person’s
biology can be altered when they pursue gender-affirming
medical care.

The IOC has taken a stance that proposes “gender identity” as the dispositive consideration in determining eligibility. Reading from the eye-opening IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations,

3.2 Provided they meet eligibility criteria that are consistent with principle 4, athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with their self-determined gender identity.

Gender is, per their own definition, a social construct, which makes it malleable. It’s relative, open to interpretation, idiosyncratic... and “self-determined.” This vagueness allows people employing the gender frame to insert arbitrary ideological objectives into the discussion. In that domain it is acts of “identification” that determine your gender, and there is the possibility to “transition” from one gender to another. Such notions do not align with reality or biological sex. No act of identification can transform you from a biological woman to a biological man, or vice versa.

Whatever you say about gender, the fact that you’re using the word means you’re adopting the gender ideology framing—and you’ve lost half the battle.

Gender, because of its interpretive nature, lends itself to arguments. Sex, being based on biology, doesn’t. Things are what they are, not what you would like them to be. In other words, it’s easy to have differences of opinion regarding whether someone is masculine or feminine; but whether they’re male, female or intersex is a matter of provable fact, and not easily denied.

The IOC could have come up with common-sense eligibility requirements based on sex that fulfilled their stated goal of fairness. The exact details can be left to endocrinologists and geneticists. What’s important is that it be based on objective, scientific criteria. The choice is pretty simple:

Don’t consider genetic tests, and accept a higher rate of intersex athletes dominating competitions in women’s sports. This is what the IOC policy did.

— or —

Do consider genetic tests and do something to mitigate the advantage intersex confers.

Unfortunately, the result of the IOC policy was to put Imane Khelif on the front lines. Personal attacks against her have been repugnant, and should be condemned. However, it was inevitable that she would be the target of criticism that should have been reserved for the IOC. Nonetheless, despite the personal attacks, there has been a surprising amount of commentary that rightfully excoriates the IOC. Perhaps more importantly, there’s been thoughtful and reasonable debate between people who sincerely want to create a system that’s fair for women and intersex individuals. Maybe the controversy will lead to a more careful examination of gender ideology, and how it came to exert such influence within the IOC.

Imane Khelif gets the gold!

Imane Khelif’s victory will be a Pyrrhic one. Her gold medal will always require an annotation. Yes, winning under the IOC’s gender-based policy is a win for team gender, but the battle was always going to be over the policy itself. And the battle over one organization’s policy is part of a much larger culture war.

If we want to engage in that fight it pays to sharpen the distinction between sex and gender, to be personally consistent in how we use them, and to force our interlocutors to define how they’re using them. It matters, and not just in Olympic boxing.