Kirsty Coventry is not progress

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has elected a new president, Kirsty Coventry. Coventry is the first woman to earn the position. While this appointment has generated celebration among those who see it as progress in an organization with a history of male leadership, it raises important questions about representation, policy direction, and the true meaning of progress.

Why do people continue to peddle the idea that women in leadership equals progress. That gender essentialism--especially regarding women's "nature"--is still so prevalent despite soooo many examples to the contrary astounds me. But this is about Coventry so let's go there. 

She is a former Olympian (not unlike past presidents). She swam in five Olympic Games and won seven medals. This makes her the most decorated African athlete. Coventry is from Zimbabwe and has served on various IOC committees and on the Zimbabwean Olympic Committee. She is the youngest person to serve as IOC president as well. 

Coventry's stated policy positions raise significant questions about her leadership direction. Her support for a total ban on transgender women in sports represents a shift from previous Olympic policy, which delegated gender eligibility decisions to individual sport governing bodies. This was not a good policy, but it was not an outright ban. Will Coventry pursue a ban that comes from the IOC itself? 

Reminder: these bans are sexist. They rely on a discourse of protecting white women and maintaining standards of white Western femininity. They reinforce a belief that women are inferior--the very same belief that has kept women out of leadership positions. 

But Coventry is African, no? Yes, she is a white woman with a British last name in a country that is a former British colony. In what ways does she represent Africa? How is she positioned—or expected—to represent an entire continent? The failure to examine leadership through an imperialist lens misses crucial context, particularly regarding how her policies might affect athletes from the Global South. 

Of particular concern is how Coventry's stance on transgender athletes might affect policies regarding intersex and DSD athletes. With World Athletics recently announcing a return to chromosome testing of women athletes—a practice that has disproportionately targeted women from the Global South—will the IOC under Coventry follow suit? Her proclaimed commitment to "maintaining neutrality" raises questions about whether she will advocate for athletes' rights, particularly regarding protest and human rights issues, or address geopolitical concerns for examples those involving Russia, Israel, or U.S. policies. 

Despite claims that the IOC presidency is "the most powerful position in sport," the Olympics face declining relevance amid recurring scandals, excessive costs, and hosting interest largely limited to countries with questionable human rights records. Coventry's most enduring legacy may ultimately be securing the first Olympic Games on African soil, should she accomplish this goal.