Bottom Line
The only purported evidence for the claim that Khelif is trans comes from an undisclosed test performed by an allegedly corrupt sports governing body that may have shown she has a DSD condition. The IOC has said Khelif meets its requirements for participation, with Adams, the IOC spokesman, specifically clarifying, “This is not a transgender issue.”
Because Khelif is not transgender, claims attempting to make her victory against Carini an issue about transgender rights or “woke” politics are without basis.
You seriously posted that as your proof of conspiracy? None of that speaks of conspiracy.
No need for homework, I have read all the you shared a few times before. Thank you.
you’re the one calling it a conspiracy from the beginning, I was just trying not to get mired in a semantic debate. And you have done an excellent job of absolving yourself of any responsibility to do anything other than deny anything presented to you. you’re a Denier.
The fact is IBA unfairly DSQed them for being XY. Use whatever term you want to describe that.
except for those parts where you were blatantly wrong, like the IBA not saying the women were trans.
Calling me strange names won’t make your argument any better.
Saying they found xy genes is not the same as calling them trans.
They might disqualified them fairly as well. We don’t know what tests they did and what results they got.
You are claiming unproven things and asking me to disprove them.
I’m not calling you names, I’m saying you are displaying repeated behavior of denying literally everything presented in front of you.
jfc, now we’re splitting hairs huh? what would you call it then?
are you denying what the IOC, who have way more information on the issue than you or I, said?
I am claiming nothing other than the IBA has proven to be less trustworthy than the IOC.
You are calling me names. A rather strange one, since I could also call you one. Everybody in every debate could do it.
We are absolutely not splitting hairs. That’s a whole other ball game. It means they have a condition they are unaware of that gives them unfair advantage. I think it was phrased that way. This condition absolutely exists and there would be no surprise if that was the case.
Of course I’m not denying what they said, but they are not the alpha and omega of sport organizations. They went with their previous decision, choosing not to do any tests that might degrade the situation even more. Absolutely the correct decision.
If an organisation is considered less trustworthy, it doesn’t mean it’s always wrong with everything. That would be a logical phalacy.