2024 Paris Olympics General (non-Basketball/Track & Field) Discussion Thread

[DOT]

Federations in many sports over the years have faked birth dates to circumvent minimum age requirements, often with the assistance of the local government itself, and obviously doping abuse has been rampant in the history of the Olympics so it's quite naive to say "the passport says so, end of story".

Yes, that makes sense

Algeria, a country where being gay is a crime and legally they don't recognize trans people exist, is faking a passport to send a male participant into women's leagues in order to win medals, and they're so diabolically brilliant that they make sure said male doesn't win medals in order to avoid suspicion

I do agree with your original statement now. There are a lot of idiotic claims being made.

[G R E Y]

This is about fairness and safety on clearly defined equal playing fields/categories. It's easily testable.

No, it really isn't

I know it isn't because it was being pushed by transphobes

You may think it is, but then again some people thought Gamergate was about ethics in journalism

If we're worried about fairness, why aren't there calls for Simone Biles or Katie Ledecky to be banned? Clearly their sports are significantly more unfair to their opponents because of them than boxing is because of Imane

I think it's rather misogynistic to say that women aren't allowed to have outliers. To say we need to keep some women out because it's not fair to the rest of them is paternalistic

Imane is a woman. So is Brittney Griner. So are all the other outliers. When there are calls for them to be banned from play, I will believe you when you say it's about fairness, but even then you would still be wrong. But until then, at best you're being used by transphobes/misogynists in their culture war without realizing it.

You are once again ignoring the biology and the competitive advantage, skipping the real implications, going straight to transphobe. The science disagrees with you with respect to, for instance, Semenya. And it may well do so with Imane should the IBA tests be shown or IOC does cheek swabs for sex testing again. I'm fine with the results of those tests, and so are the female Olympic athletes competing who are affected directly. Are you?

Leave the culture war talk for the CA board.

[The Sebastian Express]

Nope. And this is why there's been a lot of back and forth. It's not 'just' testosterone. It's chromosomes and the male or female puberty that comes with it, and with that, biological advantage, which for the purpose of sports competition cannot be overcome with more training.

Lots of us have tried hard to separate coming down on a group of people so dismissing these efforts as just bias is not constructive. Having failed T and XX tests and withdrawing appeal does no one any good. IOC removing cheek swab sex tests does not either.

For the purpose of comparison, Semenya was brought up as also being brought as a girl but without a uterus and with testes the male puberty that CS's body went through and the DSD being one that only males can have should be a case for a third competing category, not one which smokes XX competitors regardless of how great they are.

This is about fairness and safety on clearly defined equal playing fields/categories. It's easily testable.

Grey you posted tweets and liked gavran's post calling Khelif a man.

Ok

Well don't try to say you're not being biased or aren't trying to come down hard on a group of people while you're liking posts calling a woman a man.

You're posting some straight up transphobic 101 **** and passing it off as women's safety. You've spoken before you're a big fan of JK Rowling and I cannot help but think that may play some part in this particular line of thinking from you.

You could disavow the transphobia, not repost the transphobic stuff and could acknowledge the way Khelif is being endangered by this type of rhetoric very easily and just straight up refuse to espouse the same language, ideology. But you aren't. You're weaving that into your other points and putting it up as part of the same tapestry. And have been for at least five pages now.

Nuntius has an incredibly measured take on this and speaks on how it's a complicated topic. How we don't know everything. How it's something that we need measured scientific understanding and studies on (by people who aren't diving into transphobia). You could've taken that same stance while advocating for cheek swab tests. But you undercut your claims of safety of women and about protecting women sports when you toss up stuff spewing transphobia and pick that hill to die on when it's pointed out to you.

[dockingsched]

being italian I feel involved in this Carini vs Imane gate (it basically split a nation and the entire world)

My take is that until IOC sees kariotyping as not beneficial (thus avoiding it), every discussion on the topic will lead to a dead end. there's simply not enough info available.

But IOC is completely complicit in the lack of clarity. They tested for sex categories up until 2000. It is a One Time Non-Invasive Cheek Swab. That's it. Many experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology, over 80% of female Olympian athletes last polled, former Olympians and pros and coaches in various sports call for clarity and fair categories that this one test provides. Sports governing body organizations test for doping routinely. This should not be such an issue but is made one by the IOC's utter silence on it and refusal to re-implement it.

This article by a Yale professor was pretty informative on why these tests were removed in the first place. Worth the read to help move beyond the idea it’s as simple as just re-implementing the process and that this test was such a clear answer to the issue.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/

[DOT]

This is about fairness and safety on clearly defined equal playing fields/categories. It's easily testable.

No, it really isn't

I know it isn't because it was being pushed by transphobes

You may think it is, but then again some people thought Gamergate was about ethics in journalism

If we're worried about fairness, why aren't there calls for Simone Biles or Katie Ledecky to be banned? Clearly their sports are significantly more unfair to their opponents because of them than boxing is because of Imane

I think it's rather misogynistic to say that women aren't allowed to have outliers. To say we need to keep some women out because it's not fair to the rest of them is paternalistic

Imane is a woman. So is Brittney Griner. So are all the other outliers. When there are calls for them to be banned from play, I will believe you when you say it's about fairness, but even then you would still be wrong. But until then, at best you're being used by transphobes/misogynists in their culture war without realizing it.

You are once again ignoring the biology and the competitive advantage, skipping the real implications, going straight to transphobe. The science disagrees with you with respect to, for instance, Semenya. And it may well do so with Imane should the IBA tests be shown or IOC does cheek swabs for sex testing again. I'm fine with the results of those tests, and so are the female Olympic athletes competing who are affected directly. Are you?

Leave the culture war talk for the CA board.

Okay so it isn't at best then lol

[AdagioPace]

being italian I feel involved in this Carini vs Imane gate (it basically split a nation and the entire world)

My take is that until IOC sees kariotyping as not beneficial (thus avoiding it), every discussion on the topic will lead to a dead end. there's simply not enough info available.

But IOC is completely complicit in the lack of clarity. They tested for sex categories up until 2000. It is a One Time Non-Invasive Cheek Swab. That's it. Many experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology, over 80% of female Olympian athletes last polled, former Olympians and pros and coaches in various sports call for clarity and fair categories that this one test provides. Sports governing body organizations test for doping routinely. This should not be such an issue but is made one by the IOC's utter silence on it and refusal to re-implement it.

This article by a Yale professor was pretty informative on why these tests were removed in the first place. Worth the read to help move beyond the idea it’s as simple as just re-implementing the process and that this test was such a clear answer to the issue.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/

testing was removed to allow fair treatment of certain cases where chromosome anomalies were not relevant. Now, I don't think people here are advocating for using only chromosome testing as a determining factor for participation. Unfortunately federations seem stuck in a grey zone where they're trying to marry the need for clarity (which people and other athletes want) and the need to avoid unnecessary testing.

[G R E Y]

Grey you posted tweets and liked gavran's post calling Khelif a man.

Ok

Well don't try to say you're not being biased or aren't trying to come down hard on a group of people while you're liking posts calling a woman a man.

You're posting some straight up transphobic 101 **** and passing it off as women's safety. You've spoken before you're a big fan of JK Rowling and I cannot help but think that may play some part in this particular line of thinking from you.

You could disavow the transphobia, not repost the transphobic stuff and could acknowledge the way Khelif is being endangered by this type of rhetoric very easily and just straight up refuse to espouse the same language, ideology. But you aren't. You're weaving that into your other points and putting it up as part of the same tapestry. And have been for at least five pages now.

Nuntius has an incredibly measured take on this and speaks on how it's a complicated topic. How we don't know everything. How it's something that we need measured scientific understanding and studies on (by people who aren't diving into transphobia). You could've taken that same stance while advocating for cheek swab tests. But you undercut your claims of safety of women and about protecting women sports when you toss up stuff spewing transphobia and pick that hill to die on when it's pointed out to you.

I will not disavow what I've written (I don't even recall Garvin's tweet) and if you're referring to tweets by Dawkins then the word choice is secondary to me to the point at the time of sources.

I love JKR AND can think for myself, thanks. And seeing as how she hasn't been tweeted here it's a weird introduction.

All of these side swipes are now coming hard and fast can be eliminated with one simple cheek swab. A central point, along with male puberty advantage with DSDs that ONLY MALES HAVE, that for instance Semenya presents with, is ignored infavour of oh who are your influences and you don't see what you're saying. I do.

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

[G R E Y]

being italian I feel involved in this Carini vs Imane gate (it basically split a nation and the entire world)

My take is that until IOC sees kariotyping as not beneficial (thus avoiding it), every discussion on the topic will lead to a dead end. there's simply not enough info available.

But IOC is completely complicit in the lack of clarity. They tested for sex categories up until 2000. It is a One Time Non-Invasive Cheek Swab. That's it. Many experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology, over 80% of female Olympian athletes last polled, former Olympians and pros and coaches in various sports call for clarity and fair categories that this one test provides. Sports governing body organizations test for doping routinely. This should not be such an issue but is made one by the IOC's utter silence on it and refusal to re-implement it.

This article by a Yale professor was pretty informative on why these tests were removed in the first place. Worth the read to help move beyond the idea it’s as simple as just re-implementing the process and that this test was such a clear answer to the issue.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/

Thanks I'll give it a read when I can.

[Sofia]

I feel like crap today and thought about trying to power through but instead I decided to lean into it haha. So I played hooky and I'm having an old school sick day on the couch with the Olympics on. Kinda nice.

I spent a week in hospital during the Beijing Olympics waiting for surgery. It was great!

[Sofia]

The whole Olympics will be for nothing if Daft Punk reunion doesn’t happen at the closing ceremony

[dockingsched]

But IOC is completely complicit in the lack of clarity. They tested for sex categories up until 2000. It is a One Time Non-Invasive Cheek Swab. That's it. Many experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology, over 80% of female Olympian athletes last polled, former Olympians and pros and coaches in various sports call for clarity and fair categories that this one test provides. Sports governing body organizations test for doping routinely. This should not be such an issue but is made one by the IOC's utter silence on it and refusal to re-implement it.

This article by a Yale professor was pretty informative on why these tests were removed in the first place. Worth the read to help move beyond the idea it’s as simple as just re-implementing the process and that this test was such a clear answer to the issue.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/

testing was removed to allow fair treatment of certain cases where chromosome anomalies were not relevant. Now, I don't think people here are advocating for using only chromosome testing as a determining factor for participation. Unfortunately federations seem stuck in a grey zone where they're trying to marry the need for clarity (which people and other athletes want) and the need to avoid unnecessary testing.

I get you, my concern was to when I see advocating for the use of these tests as a simple solution to this topic and to me that’s it’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

May be I’m misinterpreting some posts here, but it seems like the argument is basically, even if someone is a woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other women due to biological advantages. But where’s the line? Whats the threshold where a woman can’t compete against other women anymore? I don’t see any consensus on that, so what good does a test do if that hasn’t been established?

[G R E Y]

This article by a Yale professor was pretty informative on why these tests were removed in the first place. Worth the read to help move beyond the idea it’s as simple as just re-implementing the process and that this test was such a clear answer to the issue.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/

testing was removed to allow fair treatment of certain cases where chromosome anomalies were not relevant. Now, I don't think people here are advocating for using only chromosome testing as a determining factor for participation. Unfortunately federations seem stuck in a grey zone where they're trying to marry the need for clarity (which people and other athletes want) and the need to avoid unnecessary testing.

I get you, my concern was to when I see advocating for the use of these tests as a simple solution to this topic and to me that’s it’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

May be I’m misinterpreting some posts here, but it seems like the argument is basically, even if someone is a woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other women due to biological advantages. But where’s the line? Whats the threshold where a woman can’t compete against other women anymore? I don’t see any consensus on that, so what good does a test do if that hasn’t been established?

But the line is clear among the athletes this directly affects - XY and any accompanying DSDs should not compete with XX due to biological advantages that XX cannot overcome, rarer instances of XX defeating XY + DSDs notwithstanding.

[dockingsched]

testing was removed to allow fair treatment of certain cases where chromosome anomalies were not relevant. Now, I don't think people here are advocating for using only chromosome testing as a determining factor for participation. Unfortunately federations seem stuck in a grey zone where they're trying to marry the need for clarity (which people and other athletes want) and the need to avoid unnecessary testing.

I get you, my concern was to when I see advocating for the use of these tests as a simple solution to this topic and to me that’s it’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

May be I’m misinterpreting some posts here, but it seems like the argument is basically, even if someone is a woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other women due to biological advantages. But where’s the line? Whats the threshold where a woman can’t compete against other women anymore? I don’t see any consensus on that, so what good does a test do if that hasn’t been established?

But the line is clear among the athletes this directly affects - XY and any accompanying DSDs should not compete with XX due to biological advantages that XX cannot overcome, rarer instances of XX defeating XY + DSDs notwithstanding.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s that clear based on experts and definitely would be way more nuanced than how you state it. Even your statement “biological advantages that xx cannot overcome” is so vague and subjective. Imane I saw was 9-5, so obviously any advantageous she has have been easily overcome, so this is a non issue for Imane?

[The Sebastian Express]

I will not disavow what I've written (I don't even recall Garvin's tweet) and if you're referring to tweets by Dawkins then the word choice is secondary to me to the point at the time of sources.

I love JKR AND can think for myself, thanks. And seeing as how she hasn't been tweeted here it's a weird introduction.

All of these side swipes are now coming hard and fast can be eliminated with one simple cheek swab. A central point, along with male puberty advantage with DSDs that ONLY MALES HAVE, that for instance Semenya presents with, is ignored infavour of oh who are your influences and you don't see what you're saying. I do.

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Oh, I think you know what you're saying. I think you firmly stand by what you're posting. No argument from me. I just wanted to point out you claimed you were not trying to come down on a group of people while actively coming down on a group of people with transphobic talking points and helping spread false information about Khelif.

It was an opportunity for you to step back and perhaps see the conflict in your claim. To see how you could go about your point and your stance without actively spreading ideology steeped in hatred from others. And actively harmful, endangering to women like Khelif.

I hope dockingsched's link enlightens you about the inconsistencies of tests and why they were discontinued. And I hope in time you broaden your viewpoint beyond the links you're posting, the ones who's transphobia you refuse to disavow.

[DOT]

I get you, my concern was to when I see advocating for the use of these tests as a simple solution to this topic and to me that’s it’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

May be I’m misinterpreting some posts here, but it seems like the argument is basically, even if someone is a woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other women due to biological advantages. But where’s the line? Whats the threshold where a woman can’t compete against other women anymore? I don’t see any consensus on that, so what good does a test do if that hasn’t been established?

But the line is clear among the athletes this directly affects - XY and any accompanying DSDs should not compete with XX due to biological advantages that XX cannot overcome, rarer instances of XX defeating XY + DSDs notwithstanding.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s that clear based on experts and definitely would be way more nuanced than how you state it. Even your statement “biological advantages that xx cannot overcome” is so vague and subjective. Imane I saw was 9-5, so obviously any advantageous she has have been easily overcome, so this is a non issue for Imane?

You can tell it's a disingenuous argument because when Imane wins, it's "SHE HAS A BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE, THIS IS UNFAIR!!!!", but when Imane loses (like how 4 years ago she didn't medal), it's just a sputtering "well, uh, um, actually, uh, IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S RARE!!"

It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" of arguments, even if Imane doesn't medal (again, she was in the 2020 Olympics, did not medal), it's still not proof they're wrong.

[G R E Y]

I get you, my concern was to when I see advocating for the use of these tests as a simple solution to this topic and to me that’s it’s kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

May be I’m misinterpreting some posts here, but it seems like the argument is basically, even if someone is a woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other women due to biological advantages. But where’s the line? Whats the threshold where a woman can’t compete against other women anymore? I don’t see any consensus on that, so what good does a test do if that hasn’t been established?

But the line is clear among the athletes this directly affects - XY and any accompanying DSDs should not compete with XX due to biological advantages that XX cannot overcome, rarer instances of XX defeating XY + DSDs notwithstanding.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s that clear based on experts and definitely would be way more nuanced than how you state it. Even your statement “biological advantages that xx cannot overcome” is so vague and subjective. Imane I saw was 9-5, so obviously any advantageous she has have been easily overcome, so this is a non issue for Imane?

Just because XX defeats XY+DSD (or just XY) has nothing to do with the actual XX vs. XY disparity. This has been written about and I've provided info from Hilton and Hooven which are scientifically sound. Some opponents have defeated Imane; some have said it's the hardest they'd ever been hit ie/ Italian opponent Carini who stopped for fear of injury.

There are all sorts of categories for fair competition even if there are outliers who defy them, even within the sexes ie/ weights in boxing. The athletes in question (around 80% of female Olympians last polled - I have to find the tweet) wanted the XX verifying cheek swab to continue.

[G R E Y]

But the line is clear among the athletes this directly affects - XY and any accompanying DSDs should not compete with XX due to biological advantages that XX cannot overcome, rarer instances of XX defeating XY + DSDs notwithstanding.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s that clear based on experts and definitely would be way more nuanced than how you state it. Even your statement “biological advantages that xx cannot overcome” is so vague and subjective. Imane I saw was 9-5, so obviously any advantageous she has have been easily overcome, so this is a non issue for Imane?

You can tell it's a disingenuous argument because when Imane wins, it's "SHE HAS A BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE, THIS IS UNFAIR!!!!", but when Imane loses (like how 4 years ago she didn't medal), it's just a sputtering "well, uh, um, actually, uh, IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S RARE!!"

It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" of arguments, even if Imane doesn't medal (again, she was in the 2020 Olympics, did not medal), it's still not proof they're wrong.

Nope. Just clarify the XX and XY as the overwhelming majority of female athletes would welcome. Why would anyone want to debate against it?

[Black star]

Ok

Well don't try to say you're not being biased or aren't trying to come down hard on a group of people while you're liking posts calling a woman a man.

You're posting some straight up transphobic 101 **** and passing it off as women's safety. You've spoken before you're a big fan of JK Rowling and I cannot help but think that may play some part in this particular line of thinking from you.

You could disavow the transphobia, not repost the transphobic stuff and could acknowledge the way Khelif is being endangered by this type of rhetoric very easily and just straight up refuse to espouse the same language, ideology. But you aren't. You're weaving that into your other points and putting it up as part of the same tapestry. And have been for at least five pages now.

Nuntius has an incredibly measured take on this and speaks on how it's a complicated topic. How we don't know everything. How it's something that we need measured scientific understanding and studies on (by people who aren't diving into transphobia). You could've taken that same stance while advocating for cheek swab tests. But you undercut your claims of safety of women and about protecting women sports when you toss up stuff spewing transphobia and pick that hill to die on when it's pointed out to you.

I will not disavow what I've written (I don't even recall Garvin's tweet) and if you're referring to tweets by Dawkins then the word choice is secondary to me to the point at the time of sources.

I love JKR AND can think for myself, thanks. And seeing as how she hasn't been tweeted here it's a weird introduction.

All of these side swipes are now coming hard and fast can be eliminated with one simple cheek swab. A central point, along with male puberty advantage with DSDs that ONLY MALES HAVE, that for instance Semenya presents with, is ignored infavour of oh who are your influences and you don't see what you're saying. I do.

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Hopefully we get to a place where one day we can once again force all the high performing women to prove their womanhood to a scientific board, especially those man-ish looking ones.

Katie Ledecky has been absolutely annihilating her female competition. Someone needs to think of the women and make sure she isn't smuggling one of those Y chromosomes inside of her.
Simone Biles has been dominating gymnastics but could that actually be because she was a man all along? We don't have her bloodwork so real women could possibly be getting robbed.

All I'm saying is just because you were born a woman and present as a woman and lived your whole life as a woman and competed with women for your entire life that doesn't mean that Grey isn't going to call you a man if you have a freak medical condition.

[DOT]

Well don't try to say you're not being biased or aren't trying to come down hard on a group of people while you're liking posts calling a woman a man.

You're posting some straight up transphobic 101 **** and passing it off as women's safety. You've spoken before you're a big fan of JK Rowling and I cannot help but think that may play some part in this particular line of thinking from you.

You could disavow the transphobia, not repost the transphobic stuff and could acknowledge the way Khelif is being endangered by this type of rhetoric very easily and just straight up refuse to espouse the same language, ideology. But you aren't. You're weaving that into your other points and putting it up as part of the same tapestry. And have been for at least five pages now.

Nuntius has an incredibly measured take on this and speaks on how it's a complicated topic. How we don't know everything. How it's something that we need measured scientific understanding and studies on (by people who aren't diving into transphobia). You could've taken that same stance while advocating for cheek swab tests. But you undercut your claims of safety of women and about protecting women sports when you toss up stuff spewing transphobia and pick that hill to die on when it's pointed out to you.

I will not disavow what I've written (I don't even recall Garvin's tweet) and if you're referring to tweets by Dawkins then the word choice is secondary to me to the point at the time of sources.

I love JKR AND can think for myself, thanks. And seeing as how she hasn't been tweeted here it's a weird introduction.

All of these side swipes are now coming hard and fast can be eliminated with one simple cheek swab. A central point, along with male puberty advantage with DSDs that ONLY MALES HAVE, that for instance Semenya presents with, is ignored infavour of oh who are your influences and you don't see what you're saying. I do.

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Hopefully we get to a place where one day we can once again force all the high performing women to prove their womanhood to a scientific board, especially those man-ish looking ones.

Katie Ledecky has been absolutely annihilating her female competition. Someone needs to think of the women and make sure she isn't smuggling one of those Y chromosomes inside of her.
Simone Biles has been dominating gymnastics but could that actually be because she was a man all along? We don't have her bloodwork so real women could possibly be getting robbed.

All I'm saying is just because you were born a woman and present as a woman and lived your whole life as a woman and competed with women for your entire life that doesn't mean that Grey isn't going to call you a man if you have a freak medical condition.

Grey's gonna be so mad in 2028 when Zhang Ziyu gets on the Chinese Olympics team.

[G R E Y]

I will not disavow what I've written (I don't even recall Garvin's tweet) and if you're referring to tweets by Dawkins then the word choice is secondary to me to the point at the time of sources.

I love JKR AND can think for myself, thanks. And seeing as how she hasn't been tweeted here it's a weird introduction.

All of these side swipes are now coming hard and fast can be eliminated with one simple cheek swab. A central point, along with male puberty advantage with DSDs that ONLY MALES HAVE, that for instance Semenya presents with, is ignored infavour of oh who are your influences and you don't see what you're saying. I do.

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Oh, I think you know what you're saying. I think you firmly stand by what you're posting. No argument from me. I just wanted to point out you claimed you were not trying to come down on a group of people while actively coming down on a group of people with transphobic talking points and helping spread false information about Khelif.

It was an opportunity for you to step back and perhaps see the conflict in your claim. To see how you could go about your point and your stance without actively spreading ideology steeped in hatred from others. And actively harmful, endangering to women like Khelif.

I hope dockingsched's link enlightens you about the inconsistencies of tests and why they were discontinued. And I hope in time you broaden your viewpoint beyond the links you're posting, the ones who's transphobia you refuse to disavow.

Yeah your original response was imputing motives about how my concern for women's safety was a **** cover for coming down on a group of people and I'm not **** having it.

Women deserve fair competition and ignoring science-based info also provided for testing is a tell of knowing that tests may have some uncomfortable results. There's murkiness around Khelif's test results. That is not spreading false information. It could be further clarified by IBA releasing the test results (EDIT: IBA can't, it would be a privacy violation, but the boxers could agree to make the results public which they haven't as is their right), it could be further clarified by Khelif stating why appeal was dropped, it could be further clarified by IOC not lamely going by sex stated on passport. Whatever tests need doing, however they need improving, IOC needs to address it. And I'm fine with what the results will show (haven't read it doc's link yet). But there ISN'T murkiness around Semenya's DSD and I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE transphobe accusation throwing supporter say, yes Semenya should not compete with XX. Because there is clear XY-based DSD that IS an advantage which, while no fault of those born with DSDs, it should nevertheless be the case that they should not compete with XX. The advantages are real and unfair and sometimes dangerous.

I support the protection of and fair play for female (XX) athletes, support fair play categories for athletes who want to compete (XX, XY, XY-DSD; and it should go without saying but for clarity no XY in XX) and support testing that clarifies categories. That's it.