The London Review of Books has weighed in on this issue now, with the view that sex screening is racist.
It is no surprise, and certainly not a coincidence, that non-Western athletes have been unfairly and disproportionately targeted by eligibility rules. Compulsory gender testing was instituted as a result of Western European and US athletes being outperformed by their Eastern bloc competitors during the Cold War. Western media accused Eastern athletes of not being true women and threatening the integrity of their sports. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the athletes who have been banned or restricted from competing internationally as women (that we know about; it’s supposed to be confidential) have been from the Global South.
Approvingly quotes Thomas Bach's 'they have female passports so are women' stance.
Opines that:
We should ask what being a woman means, how womanhood is defined, and against what (and whom) womanhood is ‘defended’. [...] We should interrogate the colonial roots of medical accounts of female and male embodiment, and the construction of femininity through (and conflation with) whiteness. We should listen to athletes whose womanhood is doubted not only because of their outstanding athletic performance, but because their bodies are at odds with Western notions of femininity. In 2009, when Semenya was banned from competing for eleven months after winning the 800m at the World Championships in Berlin, the head of South African athletics asked: ‘Who are white people to question the make-up of an African girl?’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2024/august/fair-competition?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20240814Blog&utm_content=20240814Blog+CID_80150067404a38bf3b491f1e8a3ae4f7&utm_source=LRB%20email&utm_term=Read%20more]]