The Women’s Tennis Association has updated its eligibility rules to require biological sex screening for all players, a policy change effective this week that aligns the organization with requirements tied to participation at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
Under the new policy, players will undergo a one-time test for the SRY gene, a segment of DNA typically located on the Y chromosome that initiates male sex development before birth and indicates the presence of testes. The WTA stated that the policy defines biological male as any individual who carries the SRY gene and therefore has or previously had testes, and biological female as any individual without the gene who has or previously had ovaries. Those definitions apply regardless of legal sex or gender identity.
The organization framed the change as a measure to preserve the integrity of women’s professional tennis and maintain fair competition for all players. It also emphasized that the policy is intended to address biological sex and is separate from gender identity, stating that there is no intent to disrespect or question anyone’s gender identity or dignity.
Alignment with the IOC and US policy
The WTA’s updated eligibility framework follows a broader shift across Olympic sports. The International Olympic Committee introduced its own gender eligibility policy in March, structured to align with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump ahead of the 2028 Games. The WTA’s move brings the organization into compliance with those requirements, which apply to sports bodies seeking participation in the Los Angeles Olympics.
The IOC had already moved to restrict transgender women from competing at the Olympic level earlier this year. The WTA policy is effectively a downstream response to those directives, though the organization has not explicitly framed it as such. Governing bodies for track and field, skiing and boxing had already implemented similar biological sex screening before the WTA introduced it this week.
It remains unclear how many, if any, transgender women are currently competing at the level that would be affected by these policies. Neither the WTA nor the IOC identified specific athletes in their announcements.
Criticism from rights groups
The mandatory screening protocol has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and advocacy groups, who have raised concerns about the dignity, privacy and inclusion of transgender and intersex athletes. Critics argue that gene-based eligibility tests reduce human identity to a single biological marker and that the policies risk excluding athletes whose situations may not fit neatly into the binary categories the tests are designed to enforce.
The SRY gene test is not without complexity. Variations in sex characteristics exist across a spectrum, and some individuals may carry genetic or hormonal profiles that do not align with the standard biological categories the policies describe. Critics contend that implementing rigid gene-based screening without broader consideration of those variations creates a framework that is both medically reductive and potentially discriminatory.
Proponents of the policies, including many elite female athletes and sports governing bodies, argue that biological differences between individuals who developed male reproductive physiology and those who did not create competitive advantages that cannot be fully reversed by hormone therapy or surgical transition. They maintain that preserving the women’s category in competitive sport requires a clear and consistently applied eligibility standard.
What the policy means in practice
Under the WTA’s updated rules, all players will be required to complete the gene test once. The result will determine their eligibility to compete in the women’s draw going forward. The testing requirement is a condition not only of WTA tour participation but of qualification pathways for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
The shift represents one of the more significant policy changes in the history of women’s professional tennis. The WTA has not indicated how it will handle cases where players decline to be tested or where results fall outside the clear parameters the policy describes. Those procedural questions are likely to draw attention as the policy moves from announcement to implementation in the weeks ahead.
