dispin

It's a case study in the challenges of maintaining this category in the face of attempts to bypass the spirit of eligibility rules by looking for loopholes, and how to guard against this - so in that sense it's related to the hacker mindset.

Perhaps try reading the article with an open and curious mind. The most interesting part is the second half where the impact on female athletes and the biomedical aspect of testing is discussed.

When you look past the "culture war" presumption and let your curiosity explore the details, there's quite some depth to this case, and to the more general issue.

Only if there is an anomaly might further investigation be done, with the athlete's permission. No dissection is needed - at most some imaging to determine internal anatomy may be done by medical experts.

This is already the policy adopted by some sporting bodies, and was essentially the process used with the athletes I mentioned in my earlier comments to observe that the sex of each is male.

Ideally this would be done as early on in an athlete's career as is practical. It only needs to be done once, as a person's sex cannot change, and for most will be a straightforward confirmation of what is already known. Otherwise, it's better for the athlete too, to know sooner rather than later if there has been any anomalous development.

I would suggest you examine the public information on the aforementioned male athletes more closely. In particular, 5-ARD is an indisputably male condition; the mutations in the SRD5A2 gene that cause this have no effect on female sexual development. This is fact, not opinion.

With that in mind, it should be obvious why exclusion of male athletes from the female category is necessary: for fairness, and in contact sports like boxing, also safety.

The reason that males with 5-ARD have testosterone levels in the normal male range is that they have testes which produce it. They go through male puberty and thus have bodies which, in a competitive sports context, have the physical advantages conferred by male development.

These males have no female organs. Some develop a perineal pouch which may be mistaken for a vagina, but it isn't a vagina in the female sense - not anatomically nor histologically - and certainly isn't functional, given that the function of an actual female vagina is copulation and childbirth.

Whether they're raised as if they're female or believe themselves to be women isn't relevant in the context of competitive sport. The reason they should be excluded from the female category is the same as any other male: the categorical advantage from male development.

This is why it's so controversial that every medal winner in the women's 800m at the 2016 Olympics was male, and that two males took gold in women's boxing in the 2024 Olympics.

Keeping in mind that we know for a fact Semenya has 5-ARD, because this was revealed in a ruling published by the CAS.

This isn't about "how they get to live". For instance, if a male wants to dress in clothing designed for female wearers and adopt a name more commonly used by women and girls then the vast majority of people will live and let live, and happily co-exist. It's not a problem.

However it becomes a problem when encroaching on the rights of others. The female category in sports is a great example because exclusion of males is the entire rationale, as this provides women and girls with a competitive space that is fairer and safer than if it is mixed-sex. Allowing males into the category - which effectively destroys it - has a negative impact on female athletes. So of course there is going to be opposition to this.

"This moral outrage has now led to invasive 'tests' women have to go through before they participate in multiple sports at an international level. This outrage has caused a proliferation of false claims lodged against women who just, simply do well in sports and don't fall within the very subjectively defined 'gender identity'."

Screening for sex can be done with a cheek swab. This is vastly less invasive than the anti-doping tests athletes must take, which involves having blood taken and urinating in a cup while someone watches.

"For example, what Imane Khelif went through is a damned outrage. Has this author taken responsibility of what their rhetoric might mean to so called 'real women' that he's claiming to be so supportive of?"

There's a significant amount of evidence that indicates Imane Khelif is actually male, with the athletic advantage that brings.

"Language is a living and breathing thing. The meanings of words change over time."

Right, but going back to the above point, if we can't use words like "man", "boy" or "male" to describe the category of people who are definitionally excluded from the female category of sports without being shut down and complained at, then how can anyone make the case for women's sports to those who disagree? Or indeed any aspect of anything relating to women.

Perhaps that's the point - attempting to make it "bigoted" and "transphobic" to argue in favor of women's and girls' sex-based rights, rather than presenting any rational argument for taking them away.

Anyway I think this shows quite clearly that your analogy doesn't fit when one digs into the detail. None of the above is anything like the struggle for racial equality.