Hacker News Reader

Comment by themgt | Hacker News Reader

The IOC policy is specifically that athletes need to test negative for the SRY gene to be eligible to compete in the female category. Imane Khelif won gold in the 2024 Summer Olympics women's boxing event, and has since admitted to having the SRY gene. So it isn't a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026

View on HN

So it's the headline that's inaccurate. It should read "bars women with the SRY gene" rather than "transgender."

It should read "bars male athletes".

The ruling itself is much more nuanced and covers a lot of situations, including extremely rare disorders of sexual development (DSD) and their variations. The most recent controversies on this topic did not involve transgender athletes, but that's largely unknown or misunderstood by people who only know this topic by headlines and sound bites.

The headline writers are relating it back to the topic which brings the most clicks, which is transgender athletes.

The IOC didn't go on a crusade against transgender athletes specifically. They were refining the rules on sex-based divisions and included a lot of considerations and nuance.

The former is included in the latter, so while inaccurate it's still correct.

Just as cis women can have the SRY gene, so too can trans women not have it.

The page you link to doesn’t say that. “As of February 2026, Khelif had not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD.”

That page is at the center of a massive debate on Wikipedia for that specific topic.

Khelif responded to a question about having the SRY gene like this:

> In a February 2026 interview with L'Équipe, Khelif was asked: "To be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity", to which she responded: "Yes, and it’s natural. I have female hormones."

So she was asked if she had the SRY gene and she responded "Yes". That's also consistent with the previous issues with governing bodies excluding her under their rules, but they are not allowed to share test results for obvious reasons.

The debate now is down to technicalities. Technically the Wikipedia quote is correct in that Khelif has not described herself as intersex or having a DSD in those words but she has now admitted to having an SRY gene, which is the important part in the context of these competition rules.

I find the Khelif debacle incredibly damning for anti-trans militants since she apparently was born as a woman and has this weird thing where she has male characteristics. The anti-trans hysteria at that point in time was super off-putting for me since she did nothing wrong but merely existed. Before this I was like... meh, have sex separated sports and be done with it, but this made me re-evaluate my views in sex in that it's much more fluid than I gave it credit for. And this, by "nature", without human intervention.

I don't see anyone ever going "oh, Michael Phelps has unfair advantages because of this crazy gene". Then, it's fair and square, just better genes life's not fair. No, suddenly the care now, eeeeveryone cares now about woman's sports because someone with a rare genetic disorder showed up in the spot light. Utterly bizzare for me.

You need to read up about XY 5-ARD (the condition Caster Semenya has and Khelif surely has). Being XY with active SRY means you're male. Khelif has admitted having the SRY gene (in an interview with L'Equipe). Males have very significant advantages (50% plus) in power sports such as weightlifting and, yes, boxing.

Sex isn't "more fluid". It's entirely binary, but DSDs (differences of sexual development) can make appearances deceptive - so an XY male can be wrongly recorded as female at birth, especially in countries with inexperienced medics and midwives.

Phelps's records have all been broken. By other males, of course - no female is getting close to his numbers. That's male advantage in action.

Khelif has an uterus, breasts and any other characteristics associated with women. Conservatives calling her a man is pure insanity and just shows how limited their perspectives are and how confused they are about the subject.

Used to be that they'd ask in bad faith "what is a woman?" to trans advocates, but maybe it was a genuine question? Because they don't look like they could recognize one if they ever saw one.

and obviously the inability to properly "identify a woman" will lead to further discrimination against cis women who "don't pass"

i always find it very very interesting that trans men are always left out of these conversations...

Under your rules, does an XY male who conceives and gives birth change category?

Sex is “entirely binary”, except for the ways that it’s not, which you’re going to squeeze into your binary definitions? Scientists update their models and definitions when reality shows itself to be more complex than initially thought. In terms of reproduction, clearly there is quite a bit of a sex binary going on. It’s not nothing. But it’s certainly not everything either.

Anti-transgender stance in sports doesn't mean anyone is doing something wrong, it's just that it's considered unfair to female women, and this includes various other conditions such as Khelif's.

As far as your other argument it seems to suggest doing away with the whole women's sports as separate.

> Anti-transgender stance in sports doesn't mean anyone is doing something wrong, it's just that it's considered unfair to female women, and this includes various other conditions such as Khelif's.

Right, but that's not what's going on here, it's used as a platform for bigotry under the pretense of protecting women. It's not only... we need clear ground rules for this thing in order to have a level playing field, it's "Look what the trans are doing! Oh, the decadence in humanity!"

I'm not saying about doing away with woman's sports, sure, do the separation n xy chromozomes if we converge on this. I'm saying that it seems that the arguments of anit-trans activists are inconsistent and, for me, personally, a dude that doesn't really care about these things, off putting.

I don't think it was ever "look at what the trans are doing" but much rather "look what these evil bastards in sports bodies are doing". Some think these evil bastards are part of a larger plot to ruin the western civilization, go figure.

Exactly, it just got to be fair for everyone. Can't make a woman with 'internal testicles and higher levels of testosterone compare against other women, that would be like accepting dopping.

And Michael Phelps should be banned for having freakishly long arms - his genetic advantage is basically doping as well, obviously!

If you divided the competitors into “has freakishly long arms” and “doesn’t have freakishly long arms” groups to compete within, and Phelps met the metrics for freakishly long arms, are you saying you think he should be free to compete in either group?

If so, there was no point in dividing into groups.

That said, I am sure athletes and governing bodies could agree on a better solution than outright banning- for example all it takes is a group that pairs a freakishly long armed swimmer with not, and they compete as pairs. Or an open group- maybe someone without freakishly long arms will find a way to win.

Anyway, it’s sports, people will min/max everything you let them, and we know from history they may bend or break rules as well. At the end of the day someone has to make a rule and enforce it, over time it will evolve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com