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

She doesn’t have to answer to her critics and their unfounded accusations either, the onus is on them to prove their claims.

Kinda hard when the only way to prove it is being denied them...

Even Amy Broadhurst acknowledges it above, "she hasn't done anything to cheat" (she played by the rules, as they were) "it's the way she was born and it's out of her control" (she was 'assigned' female at birth, but has a genetic disorder meaning she would fail these tests)

I’d say it was impossible for them to prove their claims in those circumstances. The onus is still on them to prove their claims, not on Khelif to prove them wrong.

I don’t think how she’s treated by her coaches in boxing is a reflection of how women are treated in a conservative Muslim country, the idea of women participating in boxing would be an outlier in most countries, never mind predominantly conservative Muslim countries. Attitudes to women’s participation in sports isn’t limited to predominantly conservative Muslim countries either, so her treatment by her coaches, etc wouldn’t indicate anything -

Khelif, who is a Unicef ambassador, has previously spoken, external about growing up in rural village and not being allowed to take part in sport initially by her father as "he did not approve of boxing for girls".

https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/crgmyv9my0do

That’s apart from the idea that it would be unusual for a predominantly conservative Muslim country to allow Khelif to represent them as a woman if they didn’t consider her a woman. It’d be a national embarrassment, and they just wouldn’t allow it. Instead they believe there are other motives at play in attempting to suggest Khelif is not a woman -

The Algerian Olympic Committee (COA) has criticized the "ongoing and baseless attacks" on Imane Khelif, after an unverified leaked medical assessment allegedly showed the Paris Olympic boxing gold medalist as having internal testes and no uterus.

"These attacks, often based on unsubstantiated allegations, aim to tarnish the image of an athlete who has brought honor to our nation on the international stage," the COA told DW in a statement. "We firmly condemn these attempts at destabilization, which have no place in the world of sports." 

https://www.dw.com/en/algeria-condemns-baseless-imane-khelif-medical-leak/a-70692314

By that logic no drug tests would be possible - particularly no new drug tests - and in the absence of proof of cheating, Lance Armstrong would still be considered a sporting hero.

There’s quite a difference between the purposes of drug testing, and the purposes of sex testing in women’s competitions. By your logic it would mean that unless women could prove they are women, they would be treated as men… only that wouldn’t work because it would require that women are given equal resources in sports as men, and that’s about as likely to happen as Armstrong stepping out in an LBD (wouldn’t cross that off the list just yet either, Jenner who was considered a sporting hero was long retired from competition when they appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine 😒).

FYI Muslim friends and colleagues have told me that the prophet approved of boxing as a sport and so it is in fact one of the few sports that can be considered suitable for women.

FYI I think your friends are blowing smoke up your tailpipe.

Moreover, whatever about boxing per se, there is an Algerian women's team, and the other women do not behave the way Imane Khelif does.

Because they don’t have to. Hasn’t been a thing in Algeria since the French fcuked off - women wear it because they want to, because they are no longer forced not to wear it -

https://theconversation.com/from-colonial-algeria-to-modern-day-europe-the-muslim-veil-remains-an-ideological-battleground-70242

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/28/australia-boxer-tina-rahimi-hits-out-at-paris-olympic-hijab-ban

LOL Never heard of the fact that elite female sportswomen did indeed used to have to prove they were not men? And that test was removed despite the fact that the elite women athletes were massively in favour of it remaining in place. Martine Navratilova and Sharron Davies have both talked about this extensively.

That's because the female sports category is a protected category, like disabled or age categories. So yes, there's nothing shocking about having to prove that someone does indeed fulfill the requirements of one of these categories, and if you want to consider that this means that the male category is de facto an "open" one - and in fact that is sometimes the case - then that's fine.

I've certainly heard of it, and it was removed because it was expensive, unreliable, and caused more problems than it was worth. It's removal didn't prompt anyone to object to it's removal, in spite of claims of elite women athletes being massively in favour of it remaining in place. Both female and male are protected categories in sports, there's just more emphasis in the media on protecting the female category, which has historically been the case, in spite of there being little evidence to support the belief that it needs protecting from men wishing to enter in competition where they would be at a significant disadvantage given they are not women.

No they weren't, because this was years before Imane Khelif, and was about woman's boxing generally. I expected them to disapprove, but they didn't. And that was the explanation given. TBF they're fairly relaxed anyway, but they do mostly fast during ramadan and so on, and consider themselve to be Muslim, albeit progressive ones. But the explanation was religion-based all the same.

It wouldn't matter that it was years before Khelif, and I understand that the explanation was religion based, because they claimed that boxing was one of the sports for women that the Prophet would approve of. The Prophet is known to have encouraged three sports - swimming, archery and horse riding. His opinions on other sports are a matter of interpretation - boxing as an exercise would be halal in the sense that it improves the body, but competitive boxing would be haram as it causes injury to the body; applies to both men and women. Your friends aren't so much progressive, as simply interpreting the texts of their religion to suit themselves. Either way, they were still blowing smoke up your tailpipe. Khelif offers no such explanation even though she also considers herself a devout Muslim (by your friends' standards, she must be even more progressive than they are!) -

Khelif is a devout Muslim and is a strong believer in her faith.

She has often spoken about the importance of her faith in her life and career. She sees boxing not just as a sport but as a way to honor God by using the talents and opportunities she has been given. Throughout her career, Khelif has remained steadfast in her faith, often attributing her successes to divine guidance and strength.

What religion is Imane Khelif? - Beliefnet

You think? Sure they do. 🙄

I do, and a couple of clips on social media, or articles by French tv producers, isn't going to change that view. It's the one thing I agreed with ceadaoin on earlier - that Algeria is a predominantly conservative country (the fact that it's predominantly Muslim wouldn't be as influential as it's conservatism), and so it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that there are sections of Algerian society that would seek to impose their views on other people who do not share their views -

World Report 2025: Algeria | Human Rights Watch

Though if I were in ceadaoin's position, I wouldn't be throwing stones about how conservative other countries are! Having said that too, I'd equally be wary of falling for 'the single story':

Rather than tormenting yourself reading into what isn’t there and suggesting I should go back and read my own post, it would’ve been infinitely more helpful to your cause of gobbledygook reduction if you hadn’t read what I said and decided it was a good idea to try and put words in my mouth. There’s nothing wrong with what I actually said, it’s your interpretation of it that amounts to gobbledygook as I said nothing about any performance advantage or anything else. It was simply based upon the fact that there is little evidence to support the belief that women’s sports need protecting from men wishing to enter in competition where they would be at a significant disadvantage, because they’re not women. That’s a very straightforward statement, no need for your exercised interpretation.

Try again

No need to, I’m satisfied with what I said the first time.

You claimed men were at a disadvantage competing in women's sport by virtue of the fact they were not women, thats the twisted type of logic we have had to contend with for the last 5 years but no more thankfully.

The women not trying hard enough never washed and this gobbledegook wont either, you have consistently tried over the years to input absolute crap in your very long winded posts presented as fact when its is no more than a trans activists wet dreams you are posting.

Well said Greyday, totally agree .. "clarifying rules to stop biological males taking advantage of competitions that are for biological females …"

Personally I'd drop the word biological, as it only plays into their word book and their demands that we believe in their ideology, and adapt to their language.

Let's call a spade a spade, this battle is about keeping men out of women's sport. Doesn't matter how they identify, (men of any identity) should not compete against women & girls - obviously.

… or at least it used to be, obviously.

Simply by virtue of being men. They'd be hounded mercilessly and subject to public humiliation and ridicule.

You are clearly and obviously wrong. 

…

No amount of waffle will change that perception.

Khelif isn't an example of the new rules doing their job for the simple reason that she refuses to take the test. The goading I was referring to in your previous post is your suggestion that she should want to take the test to show that she was right all along, that taking the test would vindicate her. She clearly doesn't need either the vindication, nor the validation that she is indeed a woman.

its is no more than a trans activists wet dreams you are posting.

I'll take your word for that, I wouldn't know what trans activists dream of.

Personally I'd drop the word biological, as it only plays into their word book and their demands that we believe in their ideology, and adapt to their language.

I'd say it depends more on what a person means when they use the word 'biological' in the context in which they're using it. If the person is attempting to adopt the language of science to bolster their argument, they're bound to run into trouble fairly quickly -

https://theconversation.com/world-athletics-mandatory-genetic-test-for-women-athletes-is-misguided-i-should-know-i-discovered-the-relevant-gene-in-1990-262367

Let's call a spade a spade, this battle is about keeping men out of women's sport. Doesn't matter how they identify, (men of any identity) should not compete against women & girls - obviously.

… or at least it used to be, obviously.

Obviously.

Me personally I'm fairly easy-going on the whole language thing. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I have to speak it, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I refer to women and men as 'biological females' and 'biological males' when it's predicated upon such a piss poor understanding of the fundamentals of biology, mixed up with a hefty dose of their own political ideology. It's kinda like when people refer to themselves as 'centrists' and 'conservatives' because they espouse a particular opinion that they imagine carries more weight because of how they choose to label themselves. I figure 'fair enough', because I'm interested in their opinion, I don't particularly care for their self-identification.

Interesting article you linked.

An opinion piece by an author who says in 2005 (20 years ago!).

“With the elimination of genetic-based testing to verify gender there remains no controversy with respect to athletic competition by phenotypic females with Y chromosomal material, or by individuals who have undergone prepubertal gender reassignment. The former are generally individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome, whereas the latter comprise cases of sexual ambiguity caused by various rare genetic defects”

Really? Gender reassignment caused by various rare genetic defects? No room for gender reassignment for people without genetic defects, and just ‘identify as biologically female’?

Meanwhile, these days, you don’t need genetic defects for gender reassignment.

He does seem to be advocating for those who present as women biologically to the observer, but who may have a genetic anomaly. Nature is wonderful and loves anomalies!

Also interesting is the fact that he makes a point to include Renee Richards (after transitioning at 41 from an amateur tennis player to then compete in the US Open) in his opinion piece. Renee Richard’s later said according to Wikipedia;

“Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors,

[26]

 saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."

[27][28]”

So it seems that even if biology can produce all sorts of exceptions to the rule, there will eventually be a test that can sort the men fre boys? Or even biological men from biological women?

An opinion piece by an author who says in 2005 (20 years ago!).

“With the elimination of genetic-based testing to verify gender there remains no controversy with respect to athletic competition by phenotypic females with Y chromosomal material, or by individuals who have undergone prepubertal gender reassignment. The former are generally individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome, whereas the latter comprise cases of sexual ambiguity caused by various rare genetic defects”

Really? Gender reassignment caused by various rare genetic defects? No room for gender reassignment for people without genetic defects, and just ‘identify as biologically female’?

Meanwhile, these days, you don’t need genetic defects for gender reassignment.

I couldn't remember Andrew Sinclair ever saying that, but I wanted to take you at your word too, so just to double check that I wasn't imagining things, I looked up the quote you posted, and it comes from this article in The Lancet published in 2005, but there's no mention of Andrew Sinclair as one of the contributing authors?

With the elimination of genetic-based testing to verify gender there remains no controversy with respect to athletic competition by phenotypic females with Y chromosomal material, or by individuals who have undergone prepubertal gender reassignment. The former are generally individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome, whereas the latter comprise cases of sexual ambiguity caused by various rare genetic defects. In neither group can exposure to male sex hormones be argued to have any competitive advantage. Sports authorities are now attempting to establish when and if individuals who have undergone postpubertal gender reassignment, predominantly male-to-female transsexuals and often with legal recognition, can compete in their reassigned gender.

Essay: Transsexual athletes—when is competition fair? - The Lancet

'Did the authors of that article plagarise one of Sinclairs publications that I'm not familiar with and try to pass it off as their own?' is the next question I'm asking myself 🤔

But anyway, to address your question - what they're referring to there as 'gender reassignment', is the corrective surgeries for the anomalies caused by rare genetic defects. It would've been considered unethical at the time to perform surgeries on children where there was no medical necessity to do so. Meanwhile, these days, 20 years later, gender reassignment surgeries on children for non-medical reasons are still as controversial as they were then, which is why some of the new rules and regulations in sports are considered inherently unethical, as they would require children to undergo surgery for non-medical reasons in order to participate and compete in competitions organised by governing bodies which have those rules in place.

Also interesting is the fact that he makes a point to include Renee Richards (after transitioning at 41 from an amateur tennis player to then compete in the US Open) in his opinion piece. Renee Richard’s later said according to Wikipedia;

“Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."

Again, not sure whether it actually is Sinclair's opinion piece, article, whichever, but the point about Renee Richards is this -

Ultimately, the number of transsexual athletes who can successfully compete in open international events is likely to be small, in accord with the estimated incidence of gender dysphoria of one in about every 12 000 men and one in about every 30 000 women. Furthermore, the recommended process for gender reassignment as described is rather arduous. Finally, individuals who fulfil these criteria will likely be at a relatively advanced age athletically, at least in many sports, though there are notable exceptions—eg, in golf, such as Mianne Bagger who recently qualified and has been competing on the Ladies European Tour after competing in the Swedish Telia Tour in 2004. Inevitably there will be transgendered athletes, such as Renee Richards, who will be competitive at a high level, but most will probably wish to compete only at a masters level or at local and regional events. The recommendations of the International Olympic Committee are being adopted by various sports governing bodies, such as the US Golf Association and Great Britain's Ladies Golf Union. We believe that they provide a fair and equitable standard.

The US ATF didn't initially permit Richards to play in the US Open; Richards had to pursue a case up to the New York Supreme Court, for a decision in their favour which was based upon Human Rights Law, not medicine (more interesting than the fact Richards won their case is the fact that it was the world's foremost expert in sexology at the time who presented an affidavit that Richards is female, while at the same time overseeing corrective surgeries on children, with devastating effects on them and their families, in order to promote his own bullshít theories!) -

In 1975, a former Yale University tennis star named Richard Raskind had a sex-change operation and became a woman, establishing a new identity as Renee Richards. Raskind had been captain of the Yale men’s team in 1954 and a successful player in senior competition. He reached the semifinals of the US Men’s 35 Championships in 1975.

Richards, an ophthalmologist, won a women’s local championship in La Jolla, Calif., in July of 1976. She wanted to play the US Open that year, but refused to take a chromosome test and could not play. But she played a number of other tournaments, including one in South Orange, N.J., run by Gene Scott.

Eventually she went to court to gain admission into the US Open and Dr. Richards was allowed to compete at Forest Hills in 1977. The 43-year-old left-hander had an awfully tough draw, meeting No. 3 seed and 1968 US Open champion Virginia Wade in the opening round. Wade had won Wimbledon earlier in the summer. This was the kind of match that might have made others entirely apprehensive, but not the Englishwoman. Wade was self assured from the start. She went to the net as often as possible, used her sliced backhand to make Richards dig out low balls uncomfortably, and confidently controlled the tempo for the most part in a 6-1, 6-4 victory.

This Day in US Open History: Sept. 1, 1977 | Official Site of the 2025 US Open Tennis Championships - A USTA Event

(That last sentence, Shakespeare couldn't have written it 😂)

The authors of the article weren't concerned with Human Rights Law in assuming that people who are transgender should only wish to compete at the egg and spoon race level, and that the sports governing bodies shouldn't have to concern themselves with the idea of transgender athletes competing at world level, but then again as you point out - that was 20 years ago and circumstances have changed a lot since then. It's one reason why sports organisations are reintroducing measures which were considered unreliable and unethical 20 years ago, which have since been deemed illegal for non-medical purposes in several countries, precisely because genetic testing for non-medical purposes is considered a violation of human rights standards -

“They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport”: Human Rights Violations in Sex Testing of Elite Women Athletes | HRW

The mistake that Andrew Sinclair does make though, IMO, is that he assumes sports governing bodies are remotely interested in upholding human rights standards, or that they are remotely interested in science. Their sole interest is in preserving their dominant position in sports in which they are recognised as a governing body, which is why they're ploughing ahead with sex testing again, which is going about as well as expected, depending upon whom you ask:

New gene tests system in disarray ahead of World Athletics Championships | CBC Sports

Canadian Runners Whine: Genetic Sex Testing For Women's Sports Is Too ‘Invasive’ | OutKick

Haven’t the time to read this wall of text not to mention reading the various links but would I be right in saying the TDLR is that men declaring they are women should be able to compete in women’s sports no matter what the sport is?