Talk:Imane Khelif

She has not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD

I recently edited the third paragraph of the lead to include She has not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD at the end which is entirely WP:DUE given the sentences which proceed it and supported by RS. See Special:Diff/1344423597. This has been reverted by @Riposte97 at Special:Diff/1344424899 and Special:Diff/1344425420, who has therefore put themselves in being in breach of the 1RR restriction on this page. I am raising this here (and not Riposte97's talk) as they have specifically requested that I do not post on their talk. I would suggest that Riposte97 self-reverts to remedy their breach of 1RR. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with that addition, either. I don't actually see it being DUE from the preceding sentences. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that the preceding sentence states that "Khelif revealed that she has high levels of testosterone", I think it's entirely DUE. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

But high levels of testosterone doesn't = intersex or DSD. People's testosterone levels vary. I mean, if she hasn't described herself as intersex or having a DSD, why would we need to say she hasn't described herself that way? It feels like saying "Khelif has not admitted to" or something. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and it clearly presents a BLP issue. TP, can you please just engage with the productive discussion below regarding these highly sensitive issues, rather than acting unilaterally? Riposte97 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Riposte97, there is no BLP issue in stating that the subject has not described herself as being intersex or as having DSD. To suggest so is WP:CRYBLP. @Riposte97 are you refusing to remedy your 1RR breach? TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on their time card it doesn't seem like Riposte97 is very active at the moment. I left a message on their user talk page as their second revert is very clearly a 1RR violation. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, there is in my view a clear BLP issue with the interpretation that your edit invites - that Khelif is under some obligation to rebut the proposition that she is intersex or has a DSD. Editors on this page have spent weeks arguing exactly how we can address the SRY point without giving that impression. I know through our interactions that you did not intend that interpretation, but it shines through nonetheless. This is a BLP, and I won't apologise for taking a harm-minimisation approach.

You can crow about edit warring if you like, but if (as you seem to be implying) you're intending to take this to a noticeboard, I'd be careful. You may wind up in the dock with me for reverting to reinsert challenged content. Why can't we just discuss this on talk? Why does this have to be pistols at noon and accusations of rule violations? Riposte97 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Your BLP claim is lacking in validity. You have violated a clear brightline conduct policy and you refuse to remedy your breach. TarnishedPath^talk 13:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you actually care about the content? Or do you just enjoy having arguments? If the content, perhaps we can word something that makes it clear neither Khelif nor the IOC have not thought the direct question of an intersex condition has merited addressing. Riposte97 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Everyone cares about the content, but that's not an excuse for violating 1RR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree with Valereee that it's a very "Khelif has denied the allegations" sort of sentence. But on the other hand, per WP:BLPPUBLIC if there are allegations we'd need to include a denial if there is one, and I think it's pretty obvious that there are in fact allegations that Khelif has a DSD. So on balance, I'm for keeping this line in (definitely in the body and I think probably also in the lead). Loki (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

But then shouldn't we first discuss it being alleged? Right now it feels like it's just coming out of the blue in both places. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

We do, all over the article:

In 2023, Umar Kremlev, president of the IBA, claimed that the disqualifications were because DNA tests "proved they had XY chromosomes".

In May 2025, World Boxing announced the implementation of sex verification testing for all athletes in events sanctioned by the group; its announcement specifically singled out Khelif by saying she would be barred from competing until she underwent sex testing to prove the absence of an SRY gene and androgenizing DSDs.

And directly before the line in question:

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." Subsequent reporting interpreted this exchange as her confirming she has the SRY gene.

Loki (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

But none of that is same as "is intersex" or "has DSDs". If we can say "X alleged Khelif was intersex or has DSDs", we can follow it up with "Khelif has not described herself as intersex or having DSDs." But why are we writing the followup when we haven't written the reason for the need for followup? Valereee (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, we've written "as her confirming she has the SRY gene", do sources support "as her confirming she has the SRY gene, a difference in sexual development."? Because then I could see the need for followup. But I don't think SRY is always/necessarily a DSD, so if there's not some RS out there saying that, why do we need to follow it up? It seems almost like a non sequitur. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Saying she has a specific DSD isn't the same as saying she has DSDs? Really? Loki (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

By that logic, we couldn't say it anyway, because she now has described herself has having the SRY gene. Riposte97 (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 for everything that Loki wrote. We have attributed statements in the article that our subject has XY, SRY and DSD. Not covering this material from GLAAD, attributed if necessary, would be UNDUE. We can discuss if it should be in the lead or not, and I think it does, but it most definitely belongs in the body. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that those are things that people have said, whereas this is just noting something that she hasn't said. Not sure what the point is.

Regardless, the current wording and placement in the body seem fine to me. Just please don't put it in the lead - we have to stop chucking everything in there... Clicriffhard (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

This is something that GLAAD have said. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Well I don't think you need to attribute it to GLAAD, for what it's worth. Wikivoice seems fine for a statement to the effect that she hasn't explicitly confirmed or denied having a DSD. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

So, GLAAD thinking it's worth saying in what is basically a list of facts about Khelif isn't really very convincing to me that including this is DUE or even helpful. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the issue here is that there's so much stuff in the lead that any omission can start to feel pointed. It's like walking into a room with five people in it and saying "you look nice" to four of them.

I'd be more inclined to support you pruning the parts of the lead that currently make you feel that that omission is significant, if that's any use to you? Obviously provided that it's done in a reasonably neutral way. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

My opinion: if she hasn't described herself as intersex or having a DSD, then just don't mention those conditions. Why is it necessary to specifically point this out? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to remove that again. We can continue to discuss if anyone disagrees, but at this point I think it's clear that at minimum we don't have consensus for inclusion. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee you've just removed it from the body. That wasn't under discussion. The lead was under discussion. The body explicitly states that she admitted to having SRY, so a statenent there that she has not stated that is more than DUE, unless you're proposing to remove the SRY statement also? TarnishedPath^talk 14:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, oh, I hadn't even realized it was in the lead. Yeah, def out of the lead, but frankly I don't think it's needed in the body either. I'll go revert though, and we can discuss! Valereee (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, done. Yeah, I don't think it belongs in either place. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I agree - it's a bit of a nothing statement. Without it, the article gives the impression that she may or may not have a DSD. With it added in... well, the article gives the impression that she may or may not have a DSD. It's a bit different from something like "she is not transgender", which is actually giving the reader extra information. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

And the 'she is not transgender' is clearly something Khelif herself feels she has to say. For me that was key. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so I feel like I am I seeing consensus to remove from the section, too. Anyone want to continue to discuss? Valereee (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, wait. With the addition from the Guardian, I think we'd have to include it. NM. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Perils of trying journalism in a WP article (and perils of RfC's). Creating confusing content for the reader: Khelif says she has the SRY gene and subsequent reporting confirms she has the SRY gene, but we aren't confident enough to state it outright because it is just reporting "interpreting" an exchange. Guardian says she has a DSD but GLADD says not so fast she hasn't said that. To CNN Khelif says she has high levels of testosterone but to L'Équipe says she has female hormones. I don't think this is encyclopedic content especially within a BLP.

The question should be is there confidence enough here based on the totality of sources to state without attribution that Khelif has a DSD, SRY gene, male chromosomes, and male testosterone (with wording an editorial judgement) or not?

What the existing content is describing is a temporary confusion and varying levels of certainty in sources; sources with the primary purpose of chronicling events. Describing this is not something of enduring notability of persons. Yeah, i know that is a pretty convoluted policy argument, but WP:NOTNEWS is a poorly written policy. fiveby(zero) 13:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This is precisely why I said I wanted higher quality sources than sports journalism for these claims in the past BTW. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I may have seen a comment or two of yours elsewhere on use of journalism? Tough argument to make when it's possible to read the P&G's as allowing and encouraging this kind of content. fiveby(zero) 15:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm just saying that, all along, I've been saying that sports journalists are not appropriately equipped to interpret what medical conditions a living person might have. The ambiguities you have identified above are that thing happening. I do understand what you mean by a "losing argument" as it's one I've been losing for a long time and not just on this page. LOL. But, in the case of interpreting what medical conditions a living person might have when there is ambiguity about that, yeah, I don't think these sources are fit to purpose. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, an additional reason not to do this i agree with. But there's an RfC result a random editor found "consensus" in saying the article must. Got any ideas on how to proceed? fiveby(zero) 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

My preference would be to say nothing until more reliable sources of information are available. Failing that attribute everything and make sure we report that it is unclear whether she has any specific medical condition as reports are conflicting and lacking third party verification. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. There are people (off wiki) who seem to be deeply invested in reifying their claims about her into "accepted facts" before proof can come along and settle the matter. We should not help them in that, even unwittingly. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the people (off wiki) - where is that? Clicriffhard (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

SRY redux for those who were concerned

GLAAD in their fact sheet about Khelif says "Khelif told the French sports newspaper L’Equipe that she naturally possesses the SRY gene". So GLAAD is interpreting her "yes, and it's natural" answer that way. It seems very important to me that an advocacy group is interpreting her answer as a flat, definite "yes" to that part of the question. I'm hoping this will reassure other editors who like me were concerned about the interpretation of her answer to a multipart question not in her first language. I think if GLAAD is accepting that interpretation, WP can. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're stating here? Are you saying that our current wording accurately reflects the weight of coverage at this point in time? TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think the current wording accurately reflects the weight of coverage. I was okay with the outcome already, but this for me is reassuring that we did not get it wrong by including it. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that now that commentary like this exists in RS (in a broad overview of Khelif's career, rather than breaking news), I would now !vote to include the information (i.e. if the RfC were rerun, I would change my vote).

However, I echo TarnishedPath's question about whether this implies we should make any changes and if so, what? Katzrockso (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change our wording, although I think we could add the GLAAD citation to it as I think as the statement by an advocacy group it's probably the strongest for that. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Done - might as well. I've added The Independent too, as the two cited French sources aren't fully independent of one another (both are in-house edits of an AFP story). Clicriffhard (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, however, GLAAD was cited in the RFC, by OwenBlacker, and was the basis of my support vote on 14 February. There were a lot of words in that RfC and understandable that we didn't all read all of them, but this information was already available. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I did not see that particular quote from the GLAAD source at the time I was involved in that particular discussion. I remember reading the GLAAD source at one point and it had not been updated to include the information from the L'Equipe interview. Katzrockso (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Citations should be used to reassure readers, not editors. It is an advocacy organization and for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer" and the article should not imply Khelif is any of these. However the fact sheet was also released by interACT ("attributable to GLAAD, interACT and Athlete Ally"). In case this ends up being attributed in text. fiveby(zero) 13:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

References

IOC announce

• Primary source: International Olympic Committee announces new Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport
• Secondary: AP, CNN

I was coming to nitpick at the lead. But I have the feeling this will occupy the talk page for a while. The IOC opinion about tests being "sudden and arbitrary" have to be revisted mayhaps? "It replaces all previous IOC statements on this matter, including the Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations." Iluvalar (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

An unfortunate headline and lead paragraph from CNN which connects the decision to Khelif. fiveby(zero) 17:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 22:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the point of having reporters when they don't even take the time to report things accurately. They should know more about the subject than Wikipedia editors, but they don't know hardly anything. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is there anything specific that you want to discuss for inclusion straight off the bat?

For what it's worth, I don't think this creates a need to revisit "sudden and arbitrary" in the body, because the article is just relating the statement that the IOC made at the time, and this new statement obviously doesn't change the past. It's also well sourced, and doesn't imply that the statement was right or wrong (to my mind). With respect to the lead, that's probably something to consider once we know whether this will lead to any significant changes to the body, and what they are. Any disagreement there? Clicriffhard (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Much the same as you, I don't think this changes much at present. The IOC still said what they said in the past and this isn't a negation of that, rather a change in policy. The CNN article does mention Khelif but only to reinforce what we already have in our article, that she would be willing to take a gene test. TarnishedPath^talk 22:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no mention in this article that there was a controversy about the IOC not doing any gene screening tests during the 2024 Olympics. We paint that POV as "online abuse and misinformation" because a few people in the process erroneously called her a "man". That's a fallacy if I ever saw one. And even now that the IOC step back and confirm that, yes, there will be new SRY tests in the 2028 Olympic to promote fairness, we are still framing the POV as "misinformation" without further precision. I struggle to understand, are we lacking the sources to do better(in which case I can help) or are we lacking the will do to better? As a side note, I realize we'll probably need a new round of fresh sources who disagree with the new current position of the IOC. I'd like to WP:IAR for a brief moment and express an opinion. I fully sympathize with Imane Khelif. I can't imagine how gut-wrenching the current situation and uncertainties can feel ❤️. We need to address the situation with all the tact it deserve. Iluvalar (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a whole article about the controversy. You can read it at 2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not entirely clear what you're proposing so, for me, the most helpful thing you could do is to spell out exactly what you want to insert or amend, and which sources you're drawing on. Obviously doesn't need to be perfectly worded if you haven't quite figured that out yet. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

If you have a suggested change to the article, we can discuss, but the article is about the person, not the controversy. We really only need the article to cover the controversy as much as is needed for the reader to understand Khelif. Unless we think covering the IOC's announcement would add anything here, I don't think it changes much. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I think would be appropriate to, in regards to their previous statement, to add something like "at the time", just to make it clear that this was something they said at one point and did not necessarily maintain. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Not needed. Multiple things can continue to be true. It can still be true that they criticised the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitary" and that they also had a change in policy in regards to their own goverance. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)