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.

People disagreeing with you, or doing things differently from you, is not compulsion.

People saying “you should call her she because she was raised a girl” is an attempt at compulsion. Just because there’s no legislation that might back it up doesn’t make it less of an attempt. As I said, there’s no actual law about “misgendering” trans people but there have been pretty strong efforts made to compel people to do it anyway. Just because there’s no law vaguely backing people with DSDs on such a thing doesn’t change the principle of asking, or compelling people to comply with social laws that require people to lie.

And the example of why this has been important has been pointed out to you: as soon as people openly referred to Khelif as the man that he is, sporting organisations like boxing changed their approach. If everyone had insisted Khelif be referred to as a woman it would have made that change more difficult. That was important, and wasn’t of lesser importance because there was no veiled threat of being taken to court for “harassment”.

It’s a pity when you’re not allowed state facts in a public discussion without being accused of shaming someone.

Why on earth would you be ashamed if you’re sure you’re right?

Other than first person pronouns nobody "chooses" their pronouns when they arev the words others use to describe who they are speaking to or about.

The actual idea that people get to request the speaker modify their speech is all about compelling speech.

You said it’s up to them and no one else what pronouns they use. But that was in the context of discussing what pronouns others can use for him.

So you’re now saying Khelif can choose whatever pronouns he wants for himself and others aren’t required to use them. That’s what everyone thinks though, isn’t it? I don’t care what Khelif wants, I’ll call him what choose. His choice is insignificant to me. Is that what you’re now saying?

Posting the below is not an attempt to shame someone by making a judgement specifically about them?

“You are the one out of step with the legal and medical position.

Not me

I hope that’s clear too”

Good to know.

Yes, I mean for DSDs. The ones where there is a mismatch between genotype/phenotype, or ambiguous genitalia that lead to confusion regarding upbringing.
So not most instances of DSDs.

“The actual idea that people get to request the speaker modify their speech is all about compelling speech.”

I think this sentence holds quite a lot of truth.

Someone requesting specific sexed language for themselves that does not follow established English language conventions can be seen as compelling someone to use that specified language. There is quite a few sources of power to comply, even if it is not intentional or explicit. Social pressure, emotional pressure, regulatory pressure just to name a few.

There are a couple of good examples. One is the case law which says that someone with PAIS can effectively choose their sex (and birth registration) based on what medical treatment they elect to have, despite the fact that they are unequivocally gonadally male.

The other is the example of Yael Van der Wouden which I posted upthread. She's clearly registered female but gonadally male, and has had feminising treatment. She won a women's book prize. Should we object, on the grounds that she's a man? (She's Dutch, so I don't know her legal situation.)

Why are they good examples? What about them means it’s clear cut we should use female pronouns for these people? Why does case law means we have to?

Just because there’s no law vaguely backing people with DSDs on such a thing doesn’t change the principle of asking, or compelling people to comply with social laws that require people to lie.

@NotBadConsidering

There’s a big difference between asking and compelling. I really disagree that someone saying here on MN ‘I think people should do x,y,z’ can be seen as an attempt to force or compel them to do anything —
I understand about cancel culture etc, and what’s happened around trans, but in the context of this particular discussion I think you’re overstating massively.

I just meant they were good examples of the sort of DSD PP was asking for.

But the context was the types of DSDs where it might be more relevant to comply with a request for the pronouns that person wants. What makes PAIS a DSD that means we should call a man “she”?

But as @Helleofabore said, there’s asking then asking.

Is someone asking and expecting? Are they asking expecting people to say “yes, I’ll use the pronouns you want” or expecting people to say no? If someone says no, what is the default reaction? Because even with Khelif it’s been anger.

I really disagree that someone saying here on MN ‘I think people should do x,y,z’ can be seen as an attempt to force or compel them to do anything

I don’t think you are trying to force or compel me. But you support a social structure that would see others force or compel me because you support the idea behind it.

Yes, and trans people have had a lot of that sort of power, backed up by the law. I doubt that most people with DSDs are wielding that kind of power: they're probably just bumbling along below the radar and accepting whatever (mis)gendering people choose to dish out to them, based on perceptions. The situation in sport is a bit sui generis

I just think there’s a difference between DSDs and trans and, in general, it would be good to support people with complex medical conditions.
(Not referring to IK here, the boxing should not have happened.)

I think if it weren’t for what’s happened with trans, people with DSDs would be supported more. They asked not to caught up in the mess, but they have been. I think it’s unfair.

People can do what they like (obviously).
I am allowed to say on here that I think they are wrong to treat people with DSDs the same as trans regarding their identity.

However, you haven’t left it as ‘I think people should do x,y,z’.

You have also said :

“I think the fact that IK was raised female should be taken into consideration and in the case of DSDs people should be able to choose the identity that fits them best (from pov of pronouns, dress…not sport). I think society should respect that choice in the case of DSDs just as we show respect for other medical conditions.”

Particularly the last sentence.

“I think society should respect that choice in the case of DSDs just as we show respect for other medical conditions.”

The implication being that it is disrespectful to not use the language that specific person wants. You also used Khelif as a direct example at the start of that paragraph.

There is also judgement in other posts.

Maybe your intention is just saying “I think people should do x,y,z’ however, I don’t read your posts as just saying this at all.

What makes PAIS a DSD that means we should call a man “she”?

Nothing at all. If you want to call her a man then that's your prerogative.

The court found that she was a correctly registered legally biological female and refused her husband an annulment based on her really being a man. You can disagree if you want to: it's a free world.

Thank you for confirming that you weren’t just saying “I think people should do x,y,z’ and that you are making judgement with your posts.

it would be good to support people with complex medical conditions.

And we agreed on that. In a medical setting, people should be supported. But we’re talking about other things.

I think if it weren’t for what’s happened with trans, people with DSDs would be supported more. They asked not to caught up in the mess, but they have been. I think it’s unfair.

I think the opposite. The trans issue brought the DSD issue in sport into sharper focus. Bear in mind that 50-60 male athletes competed in major athletics competitions from 2000-2023. Of course, those athletes asked not to be “caught up” in anything, or identified, and weren’t even kicked out of competitions in many instances. The anonymity and failure to treat them and call them male led to women being significantly disadvantaged: medals lost, prize money lost.

What’s unfair is that we didn’t get to talking about the truth about males with DSDs sooner. It took the CAS ruling on Semenya to wake everybody up. And being emboldened to speak the truth meant their unfair participation in women’s sport could be accurately discussed.

You can say we are wrong to “treat people with DSDs the same as trans” but that isn’t what’s happening. We are treating males the same regardless of anything else. Failure to do so led to Khelif punching women in the face. You say you don’t agree with what happened but want to facilitate a situation where males are given dispensation in some ways, which just backs up the process that allowed him into the ring in the first place.

Sorry, that doesn’t make sense. So in the context of that discussion, you don’t think PAIS is an example of a DSD that means people should consider using wrong sex pronouns? So you think it’s an example of how people might call that person “she” but doesn’t matter if that happens or not. So not an example of what was asked for, then. Correct?

Yes, in general, I personally think it is disrespectful not to use the language that a person with DSD chooses. I think I’ve been clear about that.

I’m less sympathetic re IK’s public persona at least, because of the boxing. Male puberty should clearly have meant an exclusion from women’s sports.

I am against compelled speech.
I hope that’s clear now.

That seems fair, but one has to consider that people lie. All the time. For a variety of reasons.

A fair number of people claim a DSD when the signs suggest its very unlikely (men who have fathered children, for example).

I’ve been very clear in my posts that a male puberty should mean exclusion from women’s sports so we agree there.

But, in other ways in society, I think support for those with DSDs should extend beyond medical settings.

I don't know if they're still doing it, but for a long time, Stonewall and its idiot army was trying to claim that conditions such as PCOS and low sperm count were DSDs. Part of the "soooo many people have DSDs and we don't know what woman is except when it's a man" twattery.