Coco Gauff said Wednesday that she broadly understands the reasoning behind the WTA Tour’s new gene-testing policy but objects to what she described as the politicization of the discussion, which she said has generated animosity toward the transgender community in ways she does not support.
Speaking to reporters in Toronto following an opening-round victory at the Canadian Open, the two-time Grand Slam champion offered what she called a nuanced position on a topic she acknowledged requires more careful handling than it typically receives. Gauff said she can see the argument for protecting fairness in women’s sports, while also taking issue with people who use the conversation as an opportunity to attack rather than a genuine engagement with a complex question.
World No. 2 Elena Rybakina also addressed the policy after her own first-round win, taking a more matter-of-fact tone. She said that if the testing is required, players will do it, while also expressing the view that things had been fine without it.
What the WTA policy involves
The Women’s Tennis Association announced last month that it will require mandatory one-off gene testing for all players as a condition for competing at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. The test screens for the SRY gene, a segment of DNA typically found on the Y chromosome that initiates male sex development in the body and indicates the presence of testes.
The WTA said the policy draws a distinction between biological sex and gender identity and emphasized that it is not intended to disrespect or question the gender identity or dignity of any person. The organization positioned the policy as consistent with approaches already taken by governing bodies in track and field, skiing and boxing.
Human rights experts and advocacy groups have criticized the mandatory gender screening. It remained unclear at the time of the announcement how many, if any, transgender women are competing at the Olympic level or on the WTA Tour.
Gauff’s specific concerns
Gauff’s criticism focused less on the scientific or competitive rationale and more on the tone and transparency of how the policy was introduced and discussed. Gauff noted that some players were not informed about the new policy until it was publicly announced, and Gauff suggested the process could have been more transparent.
Gauff also drew a distinction between people who engage with the question of competitive fairness in good faith and those who she believes are using the debate as a vehicle for expressing hostility toward the transgender community. Gauff said she does not want to be associated with the latter group even when she expresses some agreement with the underlying policy goal.
The position reflects a tension that has emerged across professional sports as governing bodies implement eligibility policies related to gender. Athletes like Gauff who express support for competitive fairness principles while objecting to how the debate is conducted in public often find themselves holding a position that resists easy characterization.
The broader context of gender eligibility in sport
Gene testing as a tool for establishing eligibility in women’s sports has a complicated history. World Athletics, the governing body for track and field, has faced extensive legal and ethical challenges to its regulations requiring testosterone suppression for athletes with differences of sex development to compete in certain female events. Those cases drew global attention and established the contested terrain that organizations like the WTA are now navigating.
The specific use of the SRY gene test represents a different approach than testosterone-based regulation, focusing on a genetic marker rather than a hormone level. The WTA‘s framing of the test as one-time and universal, applying to all players rather than targeting specific individuals, is designed in part to address concerns about singling out or stigmatizing any particular competitor.
Whether that framing satisfies the critics of gender eligibility policies broadly or merely changes the terms of the debate is a question that has not been settled, and Gauff’s comments suggest that the conversation within the women’s tour has not reached consensus on how the policy should be understood or discussed.
