As far as I can tell, that reliable information isn't out there other than the fact that a Russian judge said she tested as XY and that she's tested for high testosterone. I'd say XY is a pretty good starting place to call someone male or at least not traditionally female, if that test can be trusted.

But I think a lot of the controversy here comes from a lack of trustable info.

You mean the Russian judge who said that after she beat her Russian opponent? Cool. Let's see the evidence.

You aren't believing a Russian judge, of all people, without evidence, are you?

Also, does that mean anyone with XY gonadal dysgenesis needs to be genetically tested before they're allowed to compete? If so, at what age should they be tested? The youngest Olympian this year is a 12-year-old skateboarder from China. The youngest Olympican ever was an 11-year-old figure skater from China.

Now... bear in mind that many women who have that particular condition are not even aware that they have it.

Would you be willing to support either genetic testing or genital examination of 11 or 12-year-old girls? Do you think that might make girls and women less likely to aspire to be athletes than they might occasionally have to compete against a "man?" Because I sure do.

gonadal dysgenesis that is characterized by a normal 46,XY karyotype along with a progressive loss of germ cells on the developing gonads of an embryo

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

No, I'm not saying I believe him, and yes I would like to see the evidence. It's pretty hard to draw conclusions without it.

And no I don't support genital inspections of 12 year old girls, and frankly don't think genital inspections are probably the best way to decide this. I think chromosomes and hormone levels are probably the best we have, and maybe there's just a class for athletes that fall outside the norms for their sex, similar to weight classes, because it's pretty clear that it does give a huge advantage.

But it's worth considering that maybe 12 year olds just shouldn't be in the Olympics in the first place.

Why not, if they're the best athletes in their country?

Also, it is far more complicated than you have any idea about. This person can explain it better than me:

Fair enough. But why not handle these exceptions in the rules then? If they don't confer a major competitive advantage then let them compete as the sex they feel like.

But I don't think we can draw this out to a full blown man who identifies as a woman so gets to compete against women. As usual, there is a sensible middle ground, and you have to get into the weeds a bit to sort it out.

Its like people who say only "pure capitalism" or "pure communism" is the best system, when in fact they are both garbage options, and the best is actually capitalism constrained by socialist policies like in Scandinavia. Yes, it's messy and complicated and hard to figure out, but that's pretty much always the case for coming to the best result.

The extremes on either side are almost always wrong.

What is a "full blown man" in your definition based on what I pasted above?

Also, who gets to decide that and what is the test?

The governing sport body in this case being the IOC. Who did decide. You just don't seem to care for their decision.

So make up your mind.

I don’t think any of this matters until you get to college level or olympic level sports

The youngest Olympian this year was 12. The youngest Olympian ever was 11.

at which point I highly doubt it would dissuade any would be competitor.

Why? Why would any woman want to not only prove their biological sex, but allow that private medical information to be public?

For example, if you just let men compete openly and without scrutiny in any women’s athletics competition

How about letting women compete openly and without scrutiny in any men's athletics competition? Shouldn't men be tested too?

All of this I've covered in this thread except the last point.

I don't have any problem with women competing openly and without scrutiny in men's athletics competition because I can't think of any sport where it would confer an advantage. If there were one, I would be against it in that sport. Though safety would still need to be a consideration in any contact sport.

Also worth mentioning, I am not against the idea of getting away from the idea of having sports separated by sex completely, and somehow tiering them by ability. But I think that would be exceedingly difficult to do in a way where it was safe and fair for everyone, especially when it comes to boxing and martial arts. But for other non contact sports, I don't see any reason to have a division by sex at all, just have tiers from best to worst.

Which other threads? I'm supposed to find everything you wrote in conversations with other people in the hopes that I can find out why you think an 11-year-old Olympian shouldn't have their gender tested but an 18-year-old Olympian should?

Also, how do you define a gender-based advantage in a sport? Can you define it?