I just disagree that we're talking about "biological males" when we're talking about Khelif.
No need to make this into something it isn't ("culture wars")
Given we know it is not uncommon for males with DSDs to be incorrectly assigned female at birth,
why would you consider it more probable that:
The IBA lied in a way that was almost certain to get found out and cause them significant problems as the organisation would basically be untenable without significant reforms.
That the IBA being blocked from releasing the results by the boxers is good evidence the results are false?
Why is it remotely probable that both boxers
legally accepted the verdicts despite them being malicious lies, and both continue to block the release of the test results that prove their innocence?
Given the conspiracy involves 2 accredited labs, why not just frame for PEDs rather than sex which is simple to disprove? The labs do both tests. Why is it most probable they chose the most stupid and easily disproven conspiracy in history?
Why is it most probable that 2 super competitive athletes care enough about the sport to win world titles ( or be in the final), but not care enough to do the simple task of getting to keep them by proving a conspiracy in the court they automatically could appeal to?
Why is it most probable that the IBA were confident neither would appeal?
Why haven’t they sued the IBA and the many major media organisations that have certainly libelled them if they are XX?
Why is it most probable that 2 people who aren’t especially rich chose to pass up millions in free money while gaining justice and respect?
Why is it probable that they prefer their greatest triumphs to be tarnished rather than simply prove they are victims and have won a great victory for the underdog?
Why is it most probable that her own trainer was lying or mistaken when he said her chromosomes and testosterone were abnormal for a female?
Ditto the IOC when the accidentally confirmed a DSD.
Why is it probable that neither they nor their proponents have ever even said the tests were false given they complained about them being arbitrary and numerous other things? The IOC has the test results after all.
Why do you think that contingent on having a DSD, a chromosomal abnormality, high testosterone and being an elite woman’s boxer , that it is most likely she is biologically female and hasn’t undergone male puberty? This alone makes it extremely probable she is biologically male, let alone when combined with all the others. To go against this balance of probabilities is like saying contingent on someone being an NBA player who is known for being good at dunking and rebounding, it is more probable they are of below the male average height.
Other than for reasons of politics, why would anyone view such an unlikely series if contingencies as being by far the most probable?