Does Imane Khelif even have a DSD?

[BeLemonNow]

Giving the widespread reporting of a previous test showing Imane Khelif is biologically male / XY is there actually any evidence as to whether or not they even have a Disorder of Sexual Development (DSD). Or is this straightforward fraud? I know there was speculation before...

By DSD, going by NHS information, in this case I mean XY chromosomes with an abnormality causing a baby's genitals to look female (but not a DSD where there's XY and some sort of penis even if smaller than normal). To be clear, I am aware that these differences are usually apparent by puberty. It looks likely Imane went through male puberty.

Apologies if this has been covered in a different thread, but I cannot see it anywhere. I am aware that the only IOC criteria to compete at the Olympics was a female passport - ridiculous really - but that Imane has been claiming to be living as a woman since birth.

Are you sure about that @AnSolas? It seems different to what the pp before you said. DSD is not the same as transgender.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person
• is proposing to undergo,
• is undergoing or
• has undergone a process (or part of a process)
for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

The male is male
Issued a State document which mis-sexed him
Wants to be recognised as female
So meets the criteria under the legislation if he chooses to.

Can wear "female" stuff, introduce himself as female etc etc but legaly a biological male

EA2010 does not have any specific provisions to protect people with DSDs. If IK was British, she would not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, because she would have the protected characteristic of (female) sex, which she does not intend to change. And if she did decide to change it, she would not need to invoke gender reassignment, or get a GRC, because she could alter her original birth registration as the correction of an error, following which she would be treated as having, and having always had, the protected characteristic of (male) sex.

Irrespective of her actual sex, the Act would protect her from unjustified discrimination if:

someone thinks she's trans, or

someone thinks she's male, or

someone thinks she's female

(perceptive discrimination)

And, under the Schedule 3 exemption from the ban on perceptive discrimination, she could be legally excluded from women-only spaces (just like a man, or a transwoman, or a bearded transman) purely because she looks like a bloke.

And she can be excluded from female competition on any grounds you like (she's a man, or she's a woman with a DSD - take your pick, because having a DSD isn't a protected characteristic).

Pronouns are the speakers choice.

Something plenty of people forget. I will decide how I refer to people, I will not have it imposed on me. It doesn’t matter what the law says about legal recognition, it doesn’t matter what someone requests of me, it doesn’t matter how nice or horrible the individual making the request is, I am the only one who gets to decide whether I speak the truth about a person’s sex, or comply with a falsehood about a person’s sex, or apply a qualifier about a person’s sex. I will not be forced or coerced or bullied or persuaded or emotionally blackmailed into language that is false.

If he is a male at conception/birth his biology is fixed.

The fact that the sex was misrecorded and not corrected will not change biology and the SC ruled its biology not State issued paperwork which matter.

He wants to be recognised as a female while he is male.

If he was not a male he could not be excluded from female spaces unless he being female having modified his body to look male looked male.

You neatly demo why pronouns are important:

EA2010 does not have any specific provisions to protect people with DSDs.

6Disability
(1)A person (P) has a disability if—
(a)P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b)the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Agreed the physical elements are there but the long term negitive impact is not.

If IK was British, she he would not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, because she he would does not have the protected characteristic of (female) sex, which she he does not intend would like to change but can not post SC. And if she he did decide to change it, she he would not need to invoke gender reassignment, or could get a GRC, because she he could alter her his original birth registration as the correction of an error but is very unlikely to do that, following which she his documents would correctly reflect he would be treated as having, and having always had, the protected characteristic of (male) sex.

Irrespective of her his actual sex, the Act would protect her him from unjustified discrimination if:

someone thinks she's he's trans, or

someone thinks she's he's male, or

someone thinks she's he's female

(perceptive discrimination)

And, under the Schedule 3 exemption from the ban on perceptive discrimination, she he could can be legally excluded from women-only spaces (just like a man, or a transwoman, or a bearded transman) purely because she he looks like is a bloke.

And she he can be excluded from female competition on any grounds you like (she's he's a man, or she's he's not a woman with a DSD - take your pick, because having a DSD isn't a protected characteristic).

If he is a male at conception/birth his biology is fixed.

@AnSolas
It’s not always so clear-cut. It usually is, even in the case of DSDs, but not always.

Under uk law, a person's legal biological sex is what was registered at birth, and gender reassignment is a separate concept, linked to the (potential) issuance of a GRC and creation of an entry in the GRR. Its not a matter of opinion. It's just how the law works.

The pronouns/compelled speech issue is not so relevant to DSDs, for two reasons:

Having a DSD is not a protected characteristic as such. So, whilst it might be possible to get fired for persistently arguing with a DSD colleague about what sex they are (although, what kind of dickhead would you have to be?), it couldn't be framed as harassment, victimisation or discrimination towards an oppressed minority, and

DSDs are real. Whereas the idea that anyone can have a gender identity that's incongruent with their sex, and that this requires the endorsement and protection of the law, is a metaphysical construct that has been forced on us in contravention of Art 9 ECHR (freedom of belief).

The pronouns/compelled speech issue is not so relevant to DSDs, for two reasons:

Yes it is, because there are people on this thread and multiple people in the world who insist we should call Khelif “she” despite the fact he’s a man. So it’s relevant because people still want to compel others to lie.

The legal situation doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter about whether it’s a protected characteristic or not. I don’t care about whether I’ll be charged with harassment for a protected characteristic. I care about being asked, required, demanded to tell a lie.

It also doesn’t matter that DSDs are real, in comparison to the nebulous concept and definition of “trans”. How does the fact DSDs are real mean the pronouns/compelled speech issue is not so relevant?

Yes exactly.

It's your name that belongs to you (generic you). The pronouns used about you don't belong to you, but to the speaker.

The way to look at it is, if I were introducing myself in another country, I can say "My name is Kucinghitam" but I can't say "My pronouns are gender/is/bollocks." Because those people speaking another language would obviously still call me Kucinghitam, but their language may not even have the structure to use gendered pronouns or personal pronouns or whatever. I could reasonably expect those people to use my name, but how could I expect them to use "my" pronouns? The pronouns belong to the speaker of the language, not to the subject being spoken about.

Even my somewhat BeKind teenagers get it.

(A much broader discussion than this thread about one individual's DSD).

This is about the medical information available for one individual.

Clearly under UK law biological sex is first established otherwise the law would not aĺlow any correction of the data provided in the initial entry.

https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply

People can agree to disagree about the 'real sex' of a person with a DSD, or what pronouns to use. But if they argue about the sex of a trans person, or 'misgender' them, they can fall foul of the law - a law which is based on a made-up thing which is incapable of proof.

Nobody can apply to correct someone else's registration, other than by going to court. I think it's unlikely there'll be more court cases now, because previous cases were about marriage annulment at a time when same-sex marriage did not exist, and because the law provides other routes to redress.

The State accepts that the document it issues can be wrong.

there are many clues out there suggesting that Khelif probably identifies as male.

a decade from now I suspect he'll be 'living as a man' one way or another, like this former 'female' athlete in India. the same has been true of Caster Semenya for years and years.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-17/where-is-santhi-soundarajan-now-asian-games-medal-stripped/101737534

…because there are people on this thread and multiple people in the world who insist we should call Khelif “she” despite the fact he’s a man. So it’s relevant because people still want to compel others to lie.

I don’t agree with this.

Yes, I believe that, in general, people with DSDs should be the ones to choose the identity they’re comfortable with. Even in cases when it becomes clear that they match with one sex post puberty, the fact that they have been raised as the other sex until then must have a profound impact and I think it’s right that others respect that. I don’t think social conditioning can be lightly discarded.

I have less sympathy for Khelif, in particular the public Khelif iyswim, as the boxing should not have happened.

To say I want to compel others to think the same way, or, worse, to act against their own judgement, is not true. I don’t.
I can think they’re completely wrong, but I have no wish to force others to do anything, even if I could.

Trying to explain how you see a situation on MN, in the hope that others might see your point, doesn’t turn you into some kind of dictator.

Firstly, misgendering someone is not harassment in itself.

Second, just because there’s the potential for legal action with correctly sexing a trans person, doesn’t mean the enforced language problem is more or less relevant for trans people or people with DSDs. Regardless of underlying reason, no one should be compelled to speak in a certain way.

I don’t really get what you’re arguing. You seem to be saying it’s only important to complain of compelled speech as a pushback against trans because it’s more nebulous and you can be punished for it, ergo it’s more important?

That’s a very sad story. It doesn’t say how the athlete identifies. She/her pronouns are used throughout — was this the athlete’s choice? Either way, it’s very clear that dressing/presenting as a man is a conscious choice, made with the aim of avoiding censure.

Interesting race phooto in that article, nearly half way down. 3 women wearing teeny tiny knickers, and Soundarajan in shorts...

You said:

I think if someone with male chromosomes has been raised as a girl because of a DSD it should be up to them and no-one else as to how they identify and what pronouns they use.

You think no one else should have a say on what pronouns to use to describe a man. So yes, even though your opinion won’t be enforceable, you think no one else should get a say in speaking the truth about someone. Like I said, you’re insisting we lie.

You seem to be saying it’s only important to complain of compelled speech as a pushback against trans because it’s more nebulous and you can be punished for it, ergo it’s more important?

That's pretty well it, yes. People disagreeing with you, or doing things differently from you, is not compulsion. Compulsion is passing a law based on a belief system, then using the law to punish people for failing to pretend to believe in it.

Maybe read my sentence again. I said it’s up to the person themselves (and not society) to choose their own identity/pronouns imo. I didn’t say anything about compelling speech in others. Request, not force.

Don’t forget there was the appeal to legal and medical authority not so many pages back too. The post we are not supposed to associate with being shamed to comply with someone else’s language expectations apparently.

For certain DSDs, is that what you mean? Which ones?