The Caster Semenya Case and the Legal Problem of Sex-Based Categorization in Sport: A Narrative Review of Sports Law, Medical Law and Human Rights

Karina Król^1,*, Nikola Król^2,3

J. Sport. Res. and Innov., vol. 3, August 2026

¹ Independent Researcher, Rzeszów, Poland
² Saint Queen Jadwiga Clinical Regional Hospital in Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland
³ Faculty of Physical Culture Sciences, Medical College, University of Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland
*Correspondence: karina.krol@onet.pl

Abstract

Background: Sex-based classification is a fundamental feature of elite sport and is intended to ensure fair and meaningful competition in the female category. However, eligibility rules based on natural biological characteristics raise important legal, medical and human-rights concerns. This narrative review examines the Caster Semenya case as an example of the tension between fairness in sport and the protection of dignity, privacy, bodily integrity and non-discrimination. Methods: The article is based on a narrative and legal-dogmatic analysis of scientific literature, legal scholar-ship, international sports regulations and selected case law. Particular attention was paid to World Athletics eligibility regulations, decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, as well as proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights in Semenya v. Switzerland. Results: The analysis indicates that sex-based eligibility rules are not only technical criteria of sporting competition, but also legal and institutional mechanisms that determine access to competition and may affect athletes’ fundamental rights. Testosterone-based regulations are par-ticularly controversial when eligibility in the female category depends on lowering naturally occur-ring hormone levels through pharmacological intervention without therapeutic necessity. The Se-menya case also shows that the regulatory autonomy of sports organisations is not unlimited and that rules affecting bodily integrity, private life and professional careers require proportionate, transparent and effective external review. Conclusions: The Semenya case highlights the need to balance the protection of women’s sport with respect for biological diversity and fundamental rights. Future eligibility frameworks should be scientifically justified, proportionate, transparent and subject to effective judicial scrutiny.

Keywords: sex-based classification; Caster Semenya; differences of sex development; sports law; human rights

References

1. Jakubowska H. Płciowe porządki – granice płci w sporcie według koncepcji Mary Do-uglas. Człowiek i Społeczeństwo. 2013;36(1):113–127.

2. Pieper LP. Sex Testing: Gender Policing in Women’s Sports. Urbana, Illinois: Univer-sity of Illinois Press; 2016.

3. Douglas M. Czystość i zmaza. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy; 2007.

4. Bourdieu P. Męska dominacja. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa; 2004.

5. Ferris EAE. Gender verification testing in sport. British Medical Bulletin. 1992;48(3):683–697.

6. Erikainen S. Gender Verification and the Making of the Female Body in Sport: A His-tory of the Present. London: Routledge; 2019.

7. Myśliwy D. Kobiety na igrzyskach olimpijskich. In: Slany K, Kowalska B, Ślusarczyk M, editors. Kalejdoskop genderowy: w drodze do poznania płci społeczno-kulturowej w Polsce. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; 2011. p. 369–382.

8. International Association of Athletics Federations. Eligibility Regulations for the Fe-male Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development). Version 1.1. Mon-aco: International Association of Athletics Federations; 2018. Published 23 April 2018; effective from 1 November 2018.

9. Court of Arbitration for Sport. Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics Federations; Athletics South Africa v. International Association of Athlet-ics Federations. CAS 2018/O/5794 and CAS 2018/O/5798. Award of 30 April 2019.

10. Takemura M. Gender Verification Issues in Women’s Competitive Sports: An Ethical Critique of the IAAF DSD Regulation. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy. 2020;14(4):449–460.

11. Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Judgment 4A_248/2019 and 4A_398/2019 of 25 August 2020.

12. European Court of Human Rights. Semenya v. Switzerland. Application no: 10934/21. Judgment of 11 July 2023.

13. European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. Semenya v. Switzerland. Appli-cation no: 10934/21. Judgment of 10 July 2025.

14. Stępień-Załucka B. Glosa do wyroku Federalnego Sądu Najwyższego Szwajcarii z 8 września 2020 r. (sprawa Caster Semenyi). Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego. 2021;(5):587–597.

15. Midro AT. Tożsamość płci od poczęcia – spojrzenie genetyka. Family Forum. 2016;6:19–29.

16. McCullough SR. Body Like a Rocket: Performing Technologies of Naturalization. Third Space. 2010;9(2):1–14.

17. Young IM. Abjection and Oppression: Dynamics of Unconscious Racism, Sexism and Homophobia. Lecture presented at: Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philos-ophy Meetings; 1988; Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

18. Butler J. Uwikłani w płeć. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej; 2008.

19. Sloop JM. “This is Not Natural”: Caster Semenya’s Gender Threats. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 2012;29(2):81–96.

20. Court of Arbitration for Sport. Dutee Chand v. Athletics Federation of India and In-ternational Association of Athletics Federations. CAS 2014/A/3759.

21. Antonów W. Sprawa Semenyi. Kwartalnik Przekrój [Internet]. 2019 Jun 11 [cited 2026 May 31]. Available from: https://przekroj.pl/spoleczenstwo/sprawa-semenyi-wojtek-antonow

22. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome; 4 November 1950.

23. Ulasiewicz M. Prywatność jednostki w kontekście dostępu do informacji publicznej. Przegląd Prawa Publicznego. 2016;(11):41–53.

24. European Court of Human Rights. Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom. Ap-plication no: 4158/05. Judgment of 12 January 2010.

25. Caster Semenya wygrała apelację w Europejskim Trybunale Praw Człowieka. Trybu-nał dopatrzył się dyskryminacji .PolskieRadio24.pl [Internet]. 2023 Jul 11 [cited 2026 May 31]. Available from: https://polskieradio24.pl/5/4147/artykul/3206077,caster-se-menya-wygrala-apelacje-w-etpctrybunal-dopatrzyl-sie-dyskryminacji

26. Semenya przeciwko Szwajcarii – nakaz obniżenia poziomu naturalnego testosteronu we krwi u lekkoatletki. Wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Prawo.pl [Internet]. 2023 Jul 28 [cited 2026 May 31]. Available from: https://www.prawo.pl/

27. European Court of Human Rights. Pretty v. the United Kingdom. Application no: 2346/02. Judgment of 29 April 2002.

28. European Court of Human Rights. Iwańczuk v. Poland. Application no: 25196/94. Judgment of 15 November 2001.

29. European Court of Human Rights. Tyrer v. the United Kingdom. Application no: 5856/72. Judgment of 25 April 1978.

30. European Court of Human Rights. O’Keeffe v. Ireland. Application no: 35810/09. Judgment of 26 July 2011.

31. Domańska M. Zakaz dyskryminacji ze względu na więcej niż jedno zabronione kry-terium. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer; 2019.

32. Pogodzińska P. Metody interpretacji zasady równości przez trybunały europejskie i ich zastosowanie w sprawach dyskryminacji osób LGBT. Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego. 2009;7(2):49–75.

33. Besson S. Gender Discrimination under European Union and European Convention on Human Rights Law: Never Shall the Twain Meet? Human Rights Law Review. 2008;8(4):647–682.

34. Court of Arbitration for Sport. CAS Bulletin [Internet]. Lausanne: Court of Arbitration for Sport [cited 2026 May 31]. Available from: https://www.tas-cas.org/en/bulle-tin/cas-bulletin.html

35. Court of Arbitration for Sport. Press release concerning Caster Semenya, Athletics South Africa and International Association of Athletics Federations [Internet]. 2019 May 1 [cited 2026 May 31]. Available from: https://www.tas-cas.org/

36. World Athletics. Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences in Sex Development). Book C – C3.6. Version 3.1. Approved 31 July 2024.