Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Asking for people not to be hateful is absolutely fine - but she did NOT say that Khelif was a woman and that she has no problem with having been put in the ring with a man. Quite the opposite. She is simply giving Khelif and the IOC the benefit of the doubt, for now.

And she also said this, which is on the actual topic of fighting a biological male:

So I would say that Amy Broadhurst is very much on the fence for the moment.

I can think of someone, Carini is the most recent person who has fought the best version of Khelif so far and we saw what she felt she had to do to protect herself.

"she did NOT say that Khelif was a woman and that she has no problem with having been put in the ring with a man."

I don’t think she has done anything to ‘cheat’. I thinks it’s the way she was born.

Then Broadhurst is posting pictures of Khelif as a young girl to strengthen her point.

Holy cow, that ain't no woman 😳

It's nothing to do with Kellie Harrington - despite the lies being spread about her on social media.

It's down to bad reporting, people arguing and acting in bad faith and willfully misrepresenting the issue after the Russian controlled IBA, who have already been thrown out of the Olympics for being corrupt, stirred the shite at the perfect moment with their opaque statement about 'failed gender tests' which they refuse to provide evidence or further information .

Perhaps you missed the discussions around the gender self identification laws for the Tokyo Olympics, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. There were a lot of objections. It seems many people did not know specifically about Khelif who was an unknown at the time, compared to some of the more high profile athletes like Caster Semenya.

But male DSD athletes competing in women's sports has been controversial for years if not decades.

JKR has her finger on the pulse…..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13701313/JK-Rowling-Olympic-boxing-match-biologically-male-opponent.html

Who, JK?

On the history of sex testing in sport, I found the article linked at the end of the post, and which was written in 2010.

It does a good job of deconstructing some aspects of the history. For example, a lot of the Cold War fears in the West that the Russians were deliberately putting male competitors forward as females, turned out not to be true. In some cases at least, there was genuine confusion over the person’s sex. Also, the depictions of the “naked parades” and “groping” physical examinations are fairly gruesome. Nobody wants to bring those back.

Also it’s interesting to learn that the IAAF (forerunner to World Athletics) stopped sex testing as far back as 1992, for reasons including “that modern sportswear was now so revealing that it seemed unfeasible that a man could masquerade as a woman”. I guess the concerns have developed a bit from that… Also that the IOC was initially resistant to change and persisted with genetic testing for 8 years longer.

The article goes astray in a few places though imo. Look at this passage.

Sex testing, after all, is a tautological (or at least circular) process: the activities which we recognise as sports are overwhelmingly those which favour a physiology which we consider ‘masculine’.

Hmm. Where are we going with this?

As a general rule, the competitor who is taller, has a higher muscle-to-fat ratio, and the larger heart and lungs (plus some other cardio-respiratory factors) will have the sporting advantage. It is therefore inevitable that any woman who is good at sport will tend to demonstrate a more ‘masculine’ physique than women who are not good at sport.

That might be partly true in some (maybe most) sports. But, it doesn’t diminish their essential femininity, unless of course you don’t believe that there is a biological essence of femininity. Like, who is saying that women runners with narrow hips and low fat to muscle ratios are “less” women because of it? Literally nobody. Who even decreed that characteristics like height are intrinsically male? Surely, there are just tall men, and tall women? The average height of a centre in the WNBA is 6’4”. Does that make them more male than the average Irish man?

What the sex test effectively does, therefore, is provide an upper limit for women's sporting performance; there is a point at which your masculine-style body is declared ‘too masculine’, and you are disqualified, regardless of your personal gender identity. For men there is no equivalent upper physiological limit – no kind of genetic, or hormonal, or physiological advantage is tested for, even if these would give a ‘super masculine’ athlete a distinct advantage over the merely very athletic ‘normal’ male.

This is completely mad. But, it’s where the logic leads you when you downplay the biological differences between male and female. The lack of an objective sex test is the cause of hurtful speculation around the sex of female competitors, not the other way around. An objective test would sweep all that away.

There’s more then about the significance of DSDs where the person has chromosome patterns other than XX and XY. This is what probably launched the sex as a spectrum mytgh, which only recently has been put to bed. Most unusual DSD chromosome “abnormalities” are still unambiguous in terms of sex/gender.

This paragraph is really what comes closest to the nub of the issue imo.

In the mid-1980s the high profile case of Spanish hurdler Maria Martinez-Patino, who fought a three-year campaign for reinstatement after being disqualified, was used to pressure the IOC and other organisations into changing (or eliminating) their sex tests. Patino failed a Barr Body test at the World University Games held in Kobe, Japan, in 1985, and was instructed by her coach to retire from sport with an ‘injury’; she refused to do so, and when she started competing in Spain again she was formally disqualified and had her medals and records revoked.25 Patino eventually succeeded in overturning the ruling, based on the principle that a specific medical condition (androgen insensitivity syndrome) meant that she ‘failed’ a Barr body test, while gaining no physiological sporting advantage – so the argument was not that testing for sex was problematic in and of itself, but rather than this specific test, using chromosomes as a proxy for sporting ability, was inappropriate. This successful appeal was almost certainly due to the fact that human rights activists and geneticists who did not believe the test was fair took up her cause as a test case through which they could make their points about equality, scientific objectivity, and the complexity of human gender identity

“using chromosomes as a proxy for sporting ability”

See how “sporting ability” was switched in there in place of “sex”. Women aren’t a category of their own who don't have to justify themselves. They are basically regarded as lower performing men.

Maria Martinez-Patino is probably one of the hardest of the hard cases, but I wonder how they determined that she had no "physiological sporting advantage", as opposed to just a quite small one that was enough to propel her into international level athletics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3007680/

Also, amateur female boxers wear lightweight gloves, wear helmets and box for only nine minutes. The idea that one of them is going to be stretchered out of the ring covered in blood and unconscious after boxing a 'biological male' is really stretching things.

it has flared up now because the IBA did a gender test which hadn’t been done previously. The IOC hasn’t done them since 1996.

The IBA have never stated they did a gender test.