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.

And they are STILL linking to the WPATH Standards of Care, v 8, which promote 'Eunuch' as a gender identity.

https://ncth.nhs.uk/other-gp-guidance

Guidelines set by medical experts are key. There will be cut off points for eligibility (as there usually are when diagnosing medical conditions).

“Is this anything other than “be kind and acquiesce?””

No. It isn’t different.

This is where the philosophical aspect enters. It is where the argument that people are what they say they are even when it is not based on their body’s material reality comes in to emotionally manipulate the situation.

Removing the clarity of the language is creating doubt and preventing clarity.

It then leaves the public open to this type of information :

https://archive.is/pRTka

“The ignorance aimed at Caster Semenya flies in the face of the Olympic spirit”

“The image that will stay with me long after the last competitor leaves Rio this week is a decidedly un-Olympic one. Caster Semenya, the women’s 800m gold medallist, extends her arms to fellow competitors Melissa Bishop of Canada and Lynsey Sharp of Great Britain. Sharp, who came in sixth, holds a tearful Bishop, who took fourth, in a tight embrace. Rather than respond to Semenya they remain in their embrace ignoring her. The photo was a sad endnote to one of the most vitriolic media and social media uproars I can recall, one in which the athletes were the casualties. And the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) did nothing to quell it.”

“In the month leading up the to the race, a cacophonous and spurious alarm sounded unfairly on Semenya’s right to compete. She endured relentless hostility and a deluge of cruel harassment from both the traditional and online media, something she has been withstanding for the seven years since the IAAF confirmed it was investigating her. It was reported she was even provided with a security team in Rio due to concerns the hostility might turn violent.”

And we saw similar articles when Khelif competed and women lost and expressed fear but were jeered and portrayed as ignorant just like Lynsey Sharp. In the media and the public.

It only becomes clear when accurate language is used.

When these athletes are described as ‘male’ and pronouns relating to their sex are used, then those stories become completely different.

There is a fucking huge difference between :

She punched her in the face.

to

He punched her in the face.

But we’re not talking about the facts behind the decision. We are talking about the language to make the decision acceptable.

Your proposal can be returned back with the argument you’re just excluding natural advantage in women, as I demonstrated.

So how can you convince people of the guidelines set by medical experts without using language to clearly state the athletes in question are male?

I’ll save you the bother. You can’t. If you don’t make it clear you’re talking about males, you will always face pushback from people who are adamant they are women, nay females, with natural advantage. Every discussion thread has to end with the point they’re male. Otherwise you’re just trying to convince people you’re looking to exclude a group of women without foundation. It’s a weak legal and moral argument.

Stomp?

^ Emotional blackmail by evoking the images of anger and violence and childish petulance.

One group of "people" is women the other group are men with medical conditions.

Maybe this is a source you can trust?

I’ve only scanned but it appears both Turners and Jacobs are listed as examples of sex chromosome DSDs.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X25000351

And this was the exact basis that was used in the late 1990’s to remove sex testing to allow those athletes in.

They argued that it was direct discrimination against a group of female athletes with medical conditions. And the IOC agreed. And much of the public supported that change because the language for female people was used for people who are male.

So, we change the language back to female language again and the public who are not informed on this topic will be confused again as to why this group is being excluded and will stop support those campaigning for protecting female sports. Those sports still allowing these male people will continue to allow them, and eventually we will be back where we started. Prioritising philosophical discussion over sports science supported again by the public opinion of the majority who don’t understand and then feel free to abuse the women and girls who have been harmed by male inclusion.

The problem is that pointing out "he's a man" tends to work against convincing people who've been told repeatedly in the news and on social media that Khelif is a woman.

Better to avoid that and just point to the less reported on facts, like "lab testing showed that Khelif has XY chromosomes" and "a leaked medical report revealed Khelif has a disorder of sex development that only affects males", which lets people draw their own logical conclusions.

Being registered at birth as female doesn’t prove anything. IK could have ambiguous external genitalia that were assumed to be more female than male. There were a number of children in the family so I assume the parents knew what infant genitalia look like and agreed that IK did not have what could be described as a penis so agreed to register him as female. In a more advanced country , or in an urban environment where hospital facilities are more available than those available to poor rural Algerian families, further examination could have been made.As of course could further investigation be instigated when IK failed to develop breasts, did not menstruate but instead began to show signs of male pubertal development, height, arm reach, muscle development etc.

“Better to avoid that and just point to the less reported on facts, like "lab testing showed that Khelif has XY chromosomes" and "a leaked medical report revealed Khelif has a disorder of sex development that only affects males", which lets people draw their own logical conclusions.”

Except some athletes who are chromosomally male are still allowed to participate in female sports at the moment due to lack of male puberty. So I am not sure that these options are going to be that successful. It will require further discussion which I don’t believe people will take the time to have or read.

Here is a tweet with screen shots of Semenya’s words about the women who Semenya and two other male athletes beat in Rio.

https://x.com/runthinkwrite/status/1969511580024127738?s=46

Consider just how quickly these words by Semenya can be countered by a single statement. “Caster Semenya is a male athlete and should not have been included in the female sports category.”

Semanya’s big mistake was challenging the original ban. By challenging it his test results, which until then had been kept confidential, were allowed to be used in evidence and subsequently published as part of the judgement. A huge tactical error, and one which IK learned from, since his team decided not to challenge his original judgement , knowing that if they did so the International sports body responsible for dealing with challenges would have access to the results and would publish them. The very fact of not challenging speaks volumes.

If someone is registered female and believes themselves to be female, then why would they resort to cosmetic surgery to change how they look? I’m female and can’t have a breast reduction because it’s considered cosmetic, yet a man can have implants for “gender affirming” reasons

“This man is ineligible to play in women’s sport” says it all.

But the DSD isn't what makes them ineligible for women's sports. It's what caused the mistake that meant they were accepted into it. It's the excuse many people use to say that they should be eligible.

Why are you so wedded to dishonest, mealy mouthed, weasel words that try to rely on implication and aren't even true? You know what the issue is, we know what the issue is. It's not the DSD. It's because they're men. The DSD is a male DSD and actually irrelevant because they're men.

What's your objection to clear, honest, correct language? What are you prioritising?

The treatments aren't cosmetic, don't involve implants, and primarily have medical aims such as improving reproductive potential, enabling intercourse, and mitigating the risks of cancer and osteoporosis.

Sorry, I realised now you were asking about the PAIS individual and Van der Wouden. The last three items would still apply, but their reproductive potential would not be improved! If they had decided to have masculinising treatment instead, they might have become able to father children.

Yep. 'This person is male' is clear and unambiguous.

The only reason to use less precise language is based on an assumption that a person will be upset or offended if their sex is stated.

It's saying the same thing, anyway, just with extra obfuscatory steps.

We just seem to have fundamentally different opinions on this.

What about people with 46XX/46XY mosaic conditions? Or someone with Swyers? Does an XY chromosome automatically mean man? Many say yes. I’d say no when it comes to DSDs.

DSDs can be very complicated and I think we need to treat people who have them with respect and that includes issues around their identity.

Athletes with DSDs and sporting organisations need to treat women with respect too of course, and clearly that hasn’t always happened and that needs to change. Ultimately I think it’s up to medical experts to judge whether is a person is eligible for women’s competition according to strict guidelines. These need to be put in place if the ones currently in place aren’t adequate to protect women. It seems to vary from sport to sport at the moment?

It mightn’t be the case that his parents agreed to register IK as female due to ambiguity.
5-ARD is a spectrum condition. The appearance of external genitalia at birth can be a typically female presentation. There may not be a presentation of ambiguous genitalia.

More obfuscation and dishonesty. More blah blah blah deflection. I don't see why, if you think men don't belong in women's sports, you will talk at length about anything else rather than just say it. Why don't you want honesty and clarity?

It's nothing to do with DSDs. What you said earlier about DSDs making men ineligible was incorrect and inaccurate because, for reasons you won't give, you refuse to articulate the issue. Khelif, Semenya et al are not ineligible for women's sports because of a long, irrelevant list of DSDs. They are ineligible because they're male, men. Their DSDs are entirely beside the point.

Nobody bangs on about them any more unless there's some water they are trying to muddy. If you're pissed off that DSDs got dragged into it, take it up with the TRAs.

@ThatCyanCat
I don’t think men belong in women’s sport.

I also don’t think it’s up to me to classify complicated DSDs. If someone with a DSD identifies as a woman because they were raised as such etc, I think that’s up to them and I generally don’t think it’s okay to refer to them as a man. If they have gone through a male puberty then I think they should be excluded from women’s sports.

What you said earlier about DSDs making men ineligible was incorrect and inaccurate

Except that’s not what I said.

Everyone with a DSD is male or female. The DSD is irrelevant. If Semenya et al just competed with men, we'd never know they had DSDs, and we'd probably never hear of them at all because they're not that great when competing as men.

The endless yammering about DSDs is just a massive derail. You say you hate how they've been co-opted in transgenderism as if that's anything to do with us.

And that absolutely is what you said. I quote: "This person has a DSD condition that means they’re ineligible for the women’s competition’ or words to that effect?"

THE DSD IS NOT WHAT MAKES THEM INELIGIBLE FOR THE WOMEN'S COMPETITION. Your refusal to use honest language meant you said this, and it simply isn't true, and now you're denying you said it!

I didn’t say ‘DSDs make men ineligible’ as you said I did.

The correct quote is given in your post above.

The word ‘means’ does not have the same meaning as ‘makes’ for a start.

Hang on, I thought you were pouring scorn on poster who disagreed with you, because they were not up to date with medical and scientific opinion ( unlike you). You’ve been banging on endlessly about how complex these DSD’s can be, and how many of us dumbos just didn’t grasp the complexities and so (presumably ) should just STFU.

Okayay 🧚🏼‍♀️🐝🦋

In the scientific paper I linked later on Jacobs is included as a sex chromosome DSD.

I haven’t poured scorn and I definitely don’t think anyone is dumb (which is why I listened to what pp had to say and doubted what I thought until I checked it out).

I never said people weren’t up to date. You can be up to date and simply disagree with the current orthodoxy. I think discussion is essential.