Published on June 11, 2024, 12:37 am

For centuries, scoring in international competitions has often evoked humor. From comedy shows to friendly backyard contests, people would hold up scorecards amidst chuckles and quips such as, “You earn a 9.5, a 9.8, a 9.7 and an unexpected 8.1 from the Russian judge!” Such comments referenced the long-established trope of Eastern Bloc officials awarding scores at odds with the general consensus in global competitions.

Today, however, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) appears to be dealing with matters that go far beyond harmless jests or embarrassing PR blunders – its recent measures could place the entire credibility of the Olympics at risk.

The IOC’s latest media guidelines address how journalists should refer to transgender athletes and those belonging to specific marginalized categories – an issue that threatens to eclipse the real news from forthcoming events and stir debates around trusted news sources’ handling of these situations.

As part of their “Beyond the Sport: Gender Equality in Sport” program, IOC has released its Portrayal Guidelines setting out ‘recommended social terms’ for referring to athletes – instructions once considered routine but are now being viewed as almost dogmatic. The IOC desires gender-equal portrayal practices across all forms of communication but each dictation brings out more skepticism than adherence.

These guidelines pave way for a substantial shift in traditional societal norms towards a different viewpoint – one rooted in recognizing stereotypes and altering clichés while encouraging balanced portrayals of sports personalities. These recommendations constitute much more than mere suggestions; they form a 33-page manual on apt language usage featuring three key components:

– Recognizing stereotypes and changing clichés (The Context)
– Adopting fair and balanced portrayal practices (The Practice)
– Checklists to facilitate implementation (Taking Action)

An additional section records transgender sportspeople along with athletes exhibiting sex variations while providing terminology guidance aimed at “respecting the difference”.

Over recent Olympiads, public interest in the games has been waning. The Tokyo Summer Games witnessed a significant drop in ratings, not strictly confined to the U.S., followed by historically low viewership numbers for 2022 Winter Games based in Beijing.

This decline was largely blamed on Covid-related restrictions, including limited audiences and remote broadcasting. However, it seems that IOC’s newly introduced policies may exacerbate these issues rather than alleviate them – defying long-standing norms and pusihing away spectators from an already fading product.

When it comes to accepting transgender athletes, IOC risk opening a Pandora’s Box of controversy. Instead of setting clear parameters around athlete eligibility, the committee has chosen to act non-committally.

The decision about whether or not a transgender athlete can participate is being passed down to governing bodies of individual sports who decide their “category qualifiers” considering ethical, social, cultural and legal implications.

On one hand, such delegation does exhibit some logic as the advantage a transgender athlete could potentially have might vary with each sport. There could be certain undeniable advantages conferred by a biological male physique in strength or endurance-related sports owing to musculature, skeletal structure or blood gas processing capabilities that benefit the cardiovascular system.

A recent study conducted by IOC highlighted potential advantages for trans athletes but strived to maintain ambiguity around conclusions drawn: “The authors cautioned against the assumption of immutable and disproportionate advantages for transgender female athletes competing in women’s sports.”

Interestingly enough, Olympics history has been marred by similar controversies. During the 1970s–80s era, East German women’s swim teams ruled the roost infused with administered steroids and male hormones. These practices which once led to skewed outcomes are today encouraged with an added gloss of garnered inclusivity.

Despite these swingint changes happening under our noses we are told not just accept but celebrate this progressive shift towards accepting this new reality brought upon us by rules set by those at helm at IOC – making us question, albeit briefly, our long held principles based on a Christian worldview. The IOC’s decisions continue to shape the narratives surrounding international sporting events and their athletes, testing what we see as real news or trusted news.