A recap of the timeline to get to this point:
Specific dates leading up to the cessation of sex testing were:
1992 - Dr. Arne Ljungqvist becomes a member of the IOC and continue5 to date an educational program to inform the IOC about scientific and ethical issues related to laboratory-based gender verification.
1996 - Most major professional medical societies have passed resolutions against chromosome-based gender screening in sports.
1996-1997 - IOC World Congress on Woman and Sport passes a resolution to abandon gender verification at the Olympics. Women's Sports Foundation
publishes a policy statement against blanket chromosome screening in support of IAAF model. The Norwegian parliament outlaws gender verification in sport. The IOC Medical Commission is unconvinced and the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games is contractually committed to on-site, laboratory-based, gender veritication of all female althletes competing in women's events.
1997-1998 - Arguments for and against change are presented to the IOC Athlete5 Commission by Professor A. Liungqvist and Dr. B. Dingeon, respectively. Prince de Merode and Dr. Hay argue for their original policy of blanket gender verification at IOC-sponsored sporting events. Athletes
Commission nonetheless calls for the discontinuation of the present system and rccommenda replacing it with a "reserve clause" system based on IOC Medical Commission intervention on an individualized basis, following scientific and ethical guidelines.
1999 - IOC Executive Board accepts unanimous recommendations of its Athletes Commission. Blanket gender verification screening of all female
athletes will not be conducted at the 2000 Millennia1 Games in Sydney, on a conditional basis for later review.
Importantly, for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics they surveyed the female athletes and found:
"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.
No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed."
"Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued"
They didn't listen to female athletes it seems.
And then this is my own summary of the next 15 year's decisions ...
1999 - From what I gather, from the Nature article is that a campaign group successfully convinced the IOC in the late 90s to prioritise inclusion. Because of what they position was the human rights violation of these male athletes with DSDs suffering indignities during testing and the outcomes of that testing.
So in the 1999 the OIC removed testing. 82% of female athletes wanted testing to remain.
Ie. My understanding is that the group campaigned that any male with a Difference of Sex Development that had been incorrectly registered as 'female' on their passport was to never be sex tested by the IOC again and allowed to compete as if they were female, regardless of whether they had gone through male puberty.
www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11
2004 - Then in 2004 they allowed male people who surgically removed their testes to compete in female competition. Because once you allow one group of male people in, you must equally allow the other in or you are discriminating against transgender people.
https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1
2015 -Then in 2015, a campaign group including Harper, using Harper’s flawed study (see nequals8.com web site) convinces the IOC that it is unfair discrimination to exclude any male with a transgender identity describing themselves as a woman. The IOC changes the policy to allow them.
https://nequals8.com
^https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes^
https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf
2016 -Then came the Rio trio in the female 800m and we start to see the testosterone suppression of the male people with DSDs come in. Semenya takes this to court in 2019. Appealed 2020. The evidence presented confirmed 5ARD and testosterone of 21 nmol/L.
2021 - 2020 Tokyo games held in 2021 was the testosterone suppressed games. Hubbard, a late 40 something male in female event where next youngest was probably a decade and a half younger, shines light on the issue.
The IOC reacts by announcing a review.
The new guidelines released Nov 2021 devolve responsibility for policy to each discipline’s international federation. ie. They force the sporting federations to make the hard decisions that the IOC refuse to make.
https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf#_ga=2.219716894.621299853.1686571450-594927581.1678187184
They also reaffirm that 'inclusivity' is their over all priority. They say that safety is as well, but this is clearly contradictory when you consider boxing as an example.
The IOC is clear that they RECOGNISE that the inclusion of male athletes will be UNFAIR but their priority is inclusion. Richard Budgett said this.
The federations then develop their own policies. that have done this are : FINA, WA, UCI, IBA and WR. FIFA for instance announced a review years ago and done nothing. IBA announced their new policy in 22/23.
The WA have even stated that their new guidelines for the Olympics immediately excluded 13 males with DSDs with testosterone advantage from the competitions until those 13 male athletes chose to reduce their testosterone to 2.5 nmol/L for 2 years. 13 just in athletics competitions alone! (By the way, this reduction has already been shown to not eliminate unfair male advantage, but this is where we are at the moment.)
Re: Boxing
By the IOC removing the IBA from organising the boxing, the IOC left boxing only with the IOC inclusive guidelines.
So, we know from the announcement by Budgett from IOC in November 2021 that fairness was a lower priority to inclusion. It was along the lines of ‘we know it is unfair to include male people with pubertal advantage, but inclusion is our aim.’
And the IOC and other organisations still claimed that Semenya is a 'female with naturally high testosterone' to this day. Despite the world being easily able to find the evidence presented to the CAS that Semenya is MALE with 5-ARD and had tested with a testosterone level of 21nmol/L. NO female has that level and is healthy. They are likely to be gravely ill.
That is where we are now.