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

change or be changed.

This mantra also applies to me

He’s overseen numerous positive changes to the games, and overseen far more controversial decisions than any decisions made about competitors in the Paris Olympics, and his hope is for those ideas to carry on under new leadership.

'those ideas', or different ideas? Sounds to me like the latter

I'd very much be reading that statement the way plodder is

No I’m highlighting exactly what I wanted to highlight. Nature doesn’t have the capacity to have any consideration whatsoever for human socially constructed structures and systems like the rules of any sporting event. It’s why Team Ireland’s success at the ETSC stands on its own merits, and it would take a special sort to point out something like they’d never win a medal at this more prestigious event. That’s Coe’s argument for why women’s events are separate from men’s events, but when it comes to events like the proposed Enhanced Games, well, I agree with his assessment, not that it matters to the organisers:

Organisers of the Enhanced Games, which has been backed by venture capitalists including the billionaire Peter Thiel, have called their event “the Olympics of the future”. It will include athletics, swimming, weightlifting, gymnastics and combat sports.

However, at a press conference for the world indoor championships in Glasgow, Lord Coe was withering when asked for his thoughts.

“It’s bollocks isn’t it?” he said. “I can’t really get excited about it. There’s only one message, and that is if anybody is moronic enough to officially take part in it, and they are in the traditional part of our sport, they’ll get banned for a long time. But I really don’t get sleepless nights about it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/29/world-athletics-sebastian-coe-moronic-enhanced-games

I was of the same mind about MMA when I first heard of it, now it’s a multi-billion dollar business. That hasn’t changed my opinion. MMA is still a load of bollocks.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/09/27/the-booming-billion-dollar-business-of-combat-sports

Ahh plodder all the “enhanced games” thing shows is that there’s an opportunity that was always there but for ethical and social reasons, it was never seized upon, until now, in much the same manner as the opportunity to create what has become of the MMA was always there - it began in the ‘90s with no rules, and that’s why I wasn’t interested in becoming involved in it. I wouldn’t call it a sport, it’s only ever been a different form of entertainment, same as will become of the enhanced games - it’ll work because there are some truly sick fcuks out there for whom it is a form of entertainment. A veneer of calling it a sports event won’t mean it has any more legitimacy than it doesn’t already (not to mention the numerous legal obstacles it will have to overcome).

It’s not the sort of change that Bach would have been at all referring to. He was referring to the Olympic Games as a movement, which represented positive change in society. It wasn’t the sort of ideals Pierre Coubertin had in mind when he revived the modern Olympics, and under Bach’s leadership he created a legacy that he wanted everyone involved in the movement to be proud of. He started it, he wants the people he leaves behind to continue the work they started. He hasn’t found himself at a dead end at all, he’d done his 12 years, he knew well in advance of the Paris Olympics that they would be his last, because that’s in accordance with the Olympic Charter which he helped draft:

Bach, a German lawyer in charge since 2013, surprised members at the end of their session in Paris. 

The Olympic charter limits the president to a maximum of 12 years — a first eight-year term and a second four-year term. Bach helped draft the charter.

"As a result of deep deliberations and extensive discussions ... I have come to the conclusion that I should not have my mandate extended beyond the limits stipulated in the Olympic Charter," Bach told the session as the Paris Olympics draw to a close.

https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/ioc-president-thomas-bach-will-not-seek-stay-beyond-2025

A good leader knows when to step down, and Bach could have done another four years if he’d wanted, because he was popular enough that there would have been no objections to him staying on. But he was more interested in doing what was best for the organisation, not just what was best for himself.

I’m more concerned that Coe has expressed an interest tbh, because I don’t think he’ll make a good President of the IOC. He too recognises that the WA needs to adapt to remain relevant and competitive in the modern world (that’s where change or be changed comes into play), but I’m not sure attempting to commercialise medals at the Olympics was one of his better ideas, and I don’t think I’d want to see it become a part of the Olympic philosophy:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/15/coes-50000-prize-money-move-for-athletes-will-damage-the-olympics

The partnership with Netflix to produce Sprint was a solid choice though, as was the idea to increase women’s representation in leadership roles within the organisation:

For example, a big focus – even prior to this campaign – were reforms introduced by President Sebastian Coe in 2016, where some clear structures were put in place to help us move towards gender equality at the leadership level. 

https://redtorch.sport/insights/world-athletics-on-the-importance-of-gender-equality-in-sport/

It’s about 50/50 now, which leaves the IOC with some catching up to do:

The IOC knows the importance of visibility, accessibility and leadership opportunities. Its messaging about parity in Paris highlights glaring gender gaps off the field. For example, women filled only 13% of coaching positions at the 2020 Tokyo Games. That number was 10% at the 2022 Beijing Games. The IOC also has been highlighting the programs and planning that’s generating forward momentum. Women now fill 33% of the seats on the IOC’s executive board, up from 27% a decade ago. Overall, female IOC membership stands at 40%, an increase from 21% a decade ago. 

https://archive.ph/LoKpI

Can you point out any evidence that the lab is accredited by CAS, for sports testing for for drug testing?

Drug testing labs are accredited by WADA. They are listed here (Link). The lab that tested the athletes at the World Championship is not on it. Maybe CAS has a separate list. But it's pretty dishonest to try and drug testing to bolster their credibility, when they are unqualified to do drug testing.

So yes, this lab doing drug testing would also be flimsy. It was already pointed out that the equipment they used to test was for testing unborn babies in the womb. Can it still detect chromosome of an adult, probably. Is it the accredited process to use probably not.

No I can't because I managed to get confused and screw up my acronyms. So it's fair enough to criticise my post on that point. For reference, the two labs were "Sistem Tip Lab" in Turkey and "Dr Lal PathLabs" in India, not that it matters much anyway at this stage if the IOC has decided to do drop screening tests in favour of taking people at their word, even in a dangerous combat sport like boxing. For which the blame lies at the feet of the IOC.

That study was looking into 'men' and how strong they are. There has been virtually nothing carried out on people who have female bodies but who possess the XY chromosome - it is a totally uncharted area in science.

It's completely unproven that Men are more powerful that women? LOL, what? Part from the fact it's always been clearly apparent. We literally have centuries of sports performance showing men are more powerful in all areas.

If you think I've gone circles then you haven't understood something.

IOW, the question of androgen sensitivity would be irrelevant outside of a doping context.

That's obviously incorrect given it's literally called out in the FINA rules that we were discussing.

• A gonadectomy means there no testosterone. So they do not experience puberty as you said.
• A person with CAIS produces testosterone, but does not respond to it. They do not experience male puberty and are also in "the same position as any woman".

My point was that, while the end results are the same, they are two entirely separate and unrelated situations.
CAIS does not require a gonadectomy to be validated or proven. In that case it doesn't actually change anything, other then the serum levels of a benign hormone.
A person with CIAS would also be unable to doping with androgen injections.

What matters is whether or not they have gone through male puberty. Regardless of their chromosomes. Chromosomes are only shorthand for this, given that in the vast majority of cases, the type of puberty will correspond to the relevant chromosomes.

And which puberty is easily identifiable to an endocrinologist or various other doctors using the Tanner evaluation system, along with blood tests etc if external genitals are not present.

But TBF even the presence/absence of secondary sex characteristics like facial hair vs breast development would most likely be clear enough that even a non expert could be pretty sure which puberty someone had gone through, even without hormone tests.