World Boxing’s decision to introduce Y-chromosome testing for female fighters at the Liverpool Championships has opened up another storm. Some are calling it overdue. Others see it as a step backwards for women’s boxing. Either way, it’s lit a fire under the boxing sex testing debate that has been bubbling for years.
This isn’t new territory. Earlier this year, Imane Khelif’s case put the sport in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, dragging questions about eligibility, biology, and identity into the headlines. But here we are again — no closer to real answers, and with fighters caught in the crossfire.
Why It’s Back in the Headlines
The Liverpool Championships were meant to showcase the best amateur boxing talent from around the world. Instead, much of the conversation has been hijacked by the new rules. Fighters in the women’s divisions were told they had to prove their biological sex via Y-chromosome testing.
For governing bodies, this is about fair play. The logic is simple: boxing is a sport where weight, strength, and endurance make a huge difference. If one fighter has a natural advantage because of their biology, the other is at risk. Unlike football or athletics, where unfair advantage might mean faster times or more stamina, in boxing it can literally mean someone getting badly hurt.
But for critics, it’s about stigma. They argue women are once again being singled out for extra scrutiny, forced to prove who they are before being allowed to fight.
The Biology vs Identity Argument
This is where it gets messy. We live in a world where identity is personal, fluid, and often politicised. Pronouns, gender identity, and self-definition are part of modern life. And I’ve got no problem with that. Identify however you like — it’s your choice.
But in the ring? It’s different. You can’t fight biology. If you’re born male, you’ll generally have more muscle mass, higher bone density, and more explosive strength than a female born fighter. That doesn’t mean women can’t be elite athletes — they absolutely can, and women’s boxing has come on leaps and bounds in the past decade. But it does mean that biology matters in combat sports.
That’s not being sexist. That’s just science. And if boxing ignores that, it risks putting fighters in dangerous situations.
Why It Shouldn’t Just Be Women
Here’s where I think World Boxing has gone wrong. If you’re going to introduce testing, you can’t only apply it to women. That immediately makes it look like a witch hunt. It feeds the narrative that women’s boxing is being policed more heavily than men’s.
If the rule is about fairness, then it should apply across the board. Men, women, amateurs, pros — everyone should be tested the same way. That way, there’s no finger-pointing, no stigma, and no one can argue that women are being treated as second-class athletes.
It might be unpopular, but I’d say test every boxer. Not because everyone’s cheating, but because it’s the only way the sport can be transparent and fair.
The Damage of Mixed Messages
Boxing has a habit of lurching from one controversy to another. One week it’s drugs. The next it’s judging. Now it’s sex testing. And every time a new case pops up, the sport looks unprepared.
Take the Khelif case again. Leaks, speculation, and partial reporting turned it into a circus. And now, with Liverpool, World Boxing still hasn’t managed to get ahead of the story. Instead of clear, universal rules, we’ve got piecemeal policies and fighters caught in the headlines.
The real shame is that this overshadows the growth of women’s boxing itself. Fighters who’ve trained for years aren’t being talked about for their skills or their wins — they’re being asked to justify who they are. That’s a damaging look for a sport that needs more visibility and respect for its female athletes, not less.