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.

We know they're Rohypnol, but would you insist on he/himming a woman with CAIS or Swyer Syndrome, just because they're gonadally/karyotypically male? A bit harsh.

For people with a gonad/genital mismatch, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I choose to draw it at gender identity. (Of course I also expect people who've been through male puberty to keep out of women's sports and not to whinge if they get accidentally 'misgendered'.)

The same does not apply to people born without a DSD. There is case law that says this:

No DSD - your gender identity is irrelevant to your legal sex.

Have a DSD? - the court can take your GI into account, on grounds of pragmatism.

Sure. Your position is clear. I have not said in the post you are quoting that your ‘position’ is unclear.

I have also said previously that the person can identify how they wish. However, they cannot control how others refer to them particularly when they are male people who insist on using female language for themselves.

You draw the line at using male language for Khelif because of the DSD condition. That is clear from your posts. I and others choose not to use the language you choose to in the full expectation that this person has a DSD.

You can post all you like about how you have emotionally rationalised why you have made the choice and how you, personally, feel others are disrespectful to not follow your example. It is good to show others how this emotional reasoning works.

And how this results in ambiguity in the discussion.

But sure. Your position in itself is clear.

We know they're Rohypnol, but would you insist on he/himming a woman with CAIS or Swyer Syndrome, just because they're gonadally/karyotypically male? A bit harsh.

No I wouldn’t, but that’s me deciding how I talk, not having it dictated to me.

I don’t think bringing in DSDs where someone is genetically male but lacks any receptivity to the testosterone they produce or where they don’t have testes is useful in the discussion about a male athlete who is likely to have 5ARD.

Yes it matters now for things like sporting eligibility, or at least it should have mattered!! I’m upset it didn’t. It was unfair and unsafe.

It doesn’t matter legally for people with DSDs.
Medical experts are likely to take a far more considered approach too, because they are aware of the impact of years of social conditioning, the importance of psychological and behavioural factors that you think are okay to simply ignore.

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

Not me

I hope that’s clear too.

I would generally agree in the scenario presented. If someone and the people around them have spent years referring to someone as she it is usually the easiest thing to do to carry on doing so.

Where i disagree is when they start using their male physical advantage to elevate themselves whilst still expecting everyone to treat them as a woman.

Khelif is no victim. He knew what he was at the point he started hitting women and decided to carry on anyway.

Medical experts are likely to take a far more considered approach too, because they are aware of the impact of years of social conditioning, the importance of psychological and behavioural factors that you think are okay to simply ignore.

I don’t think they are ok simply to ignore in a medical management setting. Doctors can consider all they want.

I just would like to know why you think it’s ok for the rest of us in the world outside of that setting to pretend a man is a woman when we’re talking about him. We all know he is male. So why should we have to take the same considerations as doctors in how we refer to him?

I actually don’t know how IK thinks of or refers to him or herself in private now. So I’m not sure how to refer to them.

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.

Anyone saying they should refer to Khelif as "he" or "she" - well we don't know what they really prefer. Many with 5-ARD live as men from puberty and can even father children. Khelif is no doubt under a lot of influence to stay female.

However, Khelif clearly knew at least before the Paris Olympics that they are biologically male and still chose to compete and assault women. Because those women did not consent to box against men.

Khelif also lied claiming they were "a woman like any other woman" knowing at this point they are not. Making millions in the process. And threatened to sue those pointing out otherwise.

I might say otherwise if someone with a DSD didn't know and stopped competing when they knew. But when a man is assaulting women they lose any right to preferred pronouns imho.

It's a tactical issue. We can win by saying that this person has been through male puberty and the contest is unsafe and unfair. We can't win by saying this person is male. Because she is registered female. She is not wholly male anatomically. She has a DSD and so she gets the choice. If she was British she would be legally biologically female until such time as she corrects her registration - from which point on he will be deemed always to have been male.

It's not about emotions or respect, it's the law. By arguing on male vs female grounds we lose, by giving the other side lots to say.

Male puberty. That's the key

Hopefully s/he'll get banned anyway.

We can't win by saying this person is male

That isn’t true. We did “win” (after the damage was done, but still) because everyone stopped pretending the Emperor was wearing clothes and called Khelif a male. Everyone, people like JKR. World Boxing took notice. When they took over boxing for the Olympics they introduced sex screening. He IS now banned.

Honest and truthful language did this. Everyone could see a man beating up women and everyone was no longer afraid to say so.

He is wholly male anatomically. He has a DSD that affects the development of his gonads but they are male gonads. It's precisely because he's male that we recognise the DSD. He's a man whose penis is micro and testes internal. If he were a woman there would not be a micropenis and testes at all. He is an atypical male, that's the D part, but he's unquestionably male. If he had been born with hands not fully formed, he would still be human, not a cat or dog, and humans would still have hands.

We can't win by saying this person is male. Because she is registered female.

We are winning on exactly that ground, the absolute truth that he is male and that his registered sex is wrong/a legal fiction. You cannot ban males from female sports on any grounds other than the fact that they are male,w whatever the paperwork says, because the paperwork can be wrong but the biological fact remains.

You may not realise it, but your argument isn't a case for lying about reality to make men feel better. It's an argument for cheek swab sex tests in athletics, whatever the papers say, and potentially for repealing GRCs.

Indeed if you use "female" then it is harder to make the argument for exclusion as you end up arguing they are the wrong sort of woman.

Also we just don't know if Khelif was assigned female at birth or not. Suspiciously the birth record has never been verified.

Bear in mind sport scouts actively seek out boys/men with DSDs, or did up until recently.

I'm in favour of cheek swab sex tests in sport, and the repeal of the GRA, and I think that 5-ARD individuals should ideally be identified early and registered and raised as boys. And I forgot how this argument started.

But I do think that arguments around male vs female can backfire because everyone is using them in different ways, whereas male puberty is a solid concept. And we haven't won everyone over yet...

There is no law dictating that someone has to use the preferred language of someone.

But great that we have everything so clear.

You can choose to use the language you wish to and so am I. If you wish to attempt to shame others about their language usage, that is just you doing you.

Crack on in doing so. I and others will just continue to use clear, precise and accurate language to discuss the needs of female people to have their sporting opportunities protected.

This is why I tend not to use any pronouns for Khelif when discussing this outside of MN. It distracts the conversation away from the actual problem: athletes with testosterone-driven male physiological advantage being permitted to compete in and effectively undermine the purpose of the female category.

Because they’re men.

The problem with making that argument is if you don’t say it’s because they’re men, people say, and have convinced the world that women can have “testosterone-driven male physiological advantage“. And if they’re women, why can’t they be in the women’s category? It’s just a natural advantage isn’t it? Like PCOS, or Michael Phelps being a lactate tolerant dolphin or any other fallacious argument.

Failure to point out the very simple reason why these athletes have this advantage - because they’re men - means you have to counter that sort of nonsense.

True there is that, but I've found that people are more open to discussing this if there's no "misgendering" to get upset about.

Also I think it sets the conversation up for a better discussion of the difficult edge cases like CAIS.

He is imo a bloke choosing to hit women.
There is no way he got to the level he is without the medical understanding of his body.

He is some one who will track his foods and meds by brand to make sure he is not in breach of doping rules so will (as will the training team) understand his biology.

Society has no obligation to "respect" medical conditions. We should not disadvantage people by discrimination such that they are nor in par with someone without the condition.

You’re absolutely misrepresenting what I’ve said, if that matters to you at all.

As for trying to ‘shame’ people, in fact I think the reverse is true — you have consistently implied that those who respect pronoun choice in people with DSDs don’t care about women, even when they have made it clear that’s not the case.

I have said, repeatedly now, that anyone who’s gone through male puberty should not be competing in women’s sports.

We're not talking about all people with DSDs. We are talking about 1 particular person who used his DSD to harm women. I don't have to respect anything about him

I was speaking in general as the thread moved on.
My point was a general one about all people with DSDs, and I made sure to highlight that it was not IK in particular I was speaking about in most posts (one or two did reference him specifically).

It used to be a thing on MN that misgendering a TW would see the post deleted unless the TW was a bad'un. So IW and RMW would have to be she/her'd, they/them', or (more usually) we'd avoid pronouns altogether. Rapists, paedophiles, flashers we were allowed to merrily misgender away. I think things are a bit freer since the SC clarification.

I feel that way about Khelif. I'm prepared to believe that until his early teens he may has genuinely believed he was female. He may have plausible deniability for a few years after that. I'm even prepared to forgive him participating in the Olympics. It's possible it was a chance, a last chance, to escape grinding poverty for him and his family. He would have had a whole team of people round him, possibly closer than family, whose livelihoods he'd be told depended on him. He'd have been in a bubble, being gaslit, constantly reassured he had a right to be there. I can't imagine the strength it would have taken to do the right thing, the honourable thing. Ffs even the IOC told him he should be there. If he spared any thought for the women he cheated it may have been anger because they made him feel bad.

His behaviour during the competition and subsequent to it have completely extinguished any spark of sympathy I might have kindled for him. The lawsuits, the attempts to continue fighting, to continue to be a man beating women, the sneering.

In my books he's a bad'un, not the worst but not good. I'm not going to she/her or they/them him. I'm not even giving him the courtesy of avoiding pronouns.