Imane Khelif was nominated as aSports and recreation good article, but it did not meet thegood article criteria at the time (February 9, 2026,reviewed version). There are suggestions onthe review page for improving the article. If you can improve it,please do; it may then berenominated.

Editing of this page bynew orunregistered users is currentlydisabled to promote compliance withWikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people. See theprotection policy andprotection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you canrequest unprotection,log in, orcreate an account.

Imane Khelif (final version) received apeer review by Wikipedia editors, which wasarchived on 2 June 2025. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.

Biography:Sports and Games This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported bythe sports and games work group (assessed asLow-importance). AlgeriaLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toAlgeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Boxing This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBoxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge →Help pick the nextarticle for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand:Hasim Rahman |Gabriel Elorde |Gerry Peñalosa |Ike Quartey |Joel Casamayor |Jean-Marc Mormeck |Odlanier Solís |Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate:Boxing Discuss: Annotate:Muhammad Ali |Sugar Ray Robinson |Oscar De La Hoya |Jack Dempsey |Rocky Marciano |Joe Louis |George Foreman |Roy Jones Jr. |Marvin Hagler |Lennox Lewis |Evander Holyfield |Manny Pacquiao |Érik Morales Assess: Create: OlympicsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOlympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofwomen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women's sport:BoxingLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Women's boxing task force.

Current consensus (September 2025): Inthis RfC there was no consensus to remove the sentence in the lead which states that no medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes has been published, consensus against stating that Khelif was assigned female at birth and consensus that sources presenting evidence for the possibility of XY chromosomes are unreliable. Inthis discussion there was consensus that a moratorium be in place until March 20, 2026 ondiscussing Imane Khelif's gender ... unless coverage in reliable sources indicates a new development having to do with the subject directly and not merely re-reporting of old developments, speculation, or social commentary.

There have beenattempts torecruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input, such asrequest for comments,third opinions, posting to noticeboard, or other mechanisms based on neutral criteria. If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Remember that, on Wikipedia, disputes are resolved bycommunity consensus, not by majority vote.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 28 to August 3, 2024 (1st) August 4 to 10, 2024 (5th) August 11 to 17, 2024 (19th)

On 2026-02-07, this talk page waslinked fromReddit, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted inits revision history.

I propose what I would consider to be a minor, routine edit.

The article states, as fact: "the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs." It includes a source link. But:

   1. The "source" is an opinion article (it calls the IBA "farcical".)   2. The writer states the claim as fact but includes literally zero evidence, or why he believes this to be the case.   3. The number of other outlets making this claim is ... zero. None.   4. I can find no evidence that even KHELIF HERSELF has ever made this claim.

Including this as a fact does a disservice to the reader, who is going to come away with the impression that this is, well, a known fact. It's not.

This should be a routine edit of the kind that is (correctly) made all the time: Pointing out that the "source" is just one guy making an unsupported assertion.

I fixed it using language that does not speculate, does not editorialize, and simply relates what is known: "She appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the proceedings were terminated after she did not pay the procedural costs." I included a link to the source, which does not speculate as to WHY she did not pay the costs.

I have no desire to engage in an edit war. My edit keeps getting reverted by people who do not or can not explain why they are reverting it.

I respectfully ask that my edit be reinstated; or, if reverted, the reverter explain why it it a good thing that the article present the unsupported claim of one opinion columnist as undisputed fact.

(Finally, I will note that this edit has nothing to do with gender, or even Khelif herself. Seriously, this should be completely uncontroversial. It's just pointing out that an unsubstantiated claim is being presented to the reader as fact. That's all.)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAlaska Jack (talk •contribs)23:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaska JackThe SMH article is not an opinion piece.

You not liking it is not reason to remove it. The material is supported in the article and given you have been reverted by three separate editors, you should take that on board as meaning that you currently don't have consensus for your preferred version. Do not reinstate your preferred version until such time that you have obtained consensus.TarnishedPath^talk23:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> You not liking it

1. I just want to take a moment to highlight how unprofessional your framing is. Me "not liking it" -- or how I FEEL about it in any way -- is obviously not the issue. Can you please be more professional and stick to the merits?

2. Your appeal to the "consensus" of a few partisan editors, likewise, says nothing about the merits. You write, "Do not reinstate your preferred version until such time that you have obtained consensus." Yes. I haven't. Obviously.

3. "The SMH article is not an opinion piece." "Farcical" is an opinion. But regardless, while that augments my point, my point does not rely on it. The writer -- who is the only one making this specific claim -- does not give the reader any reason whatsoever to believe it.Alaska Jack (talk)00:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of one adjective in a news piece does not render the whole lot opinion. Given that SMH is considered generally reliable, unless we have good sourcing contradicting it then your objection very much does come across asWP:IDONTLIKEIT.TarnishedPath^talk00:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting more and more surreal.

We are /telling/ the readers that Khelif "could not pay the fee." Even though we know -- and couldn't know! -- no such thing.

If the reporter had asserted "Khelif refused to pay the fee" -- and literally not a single other reporter claimed that, nor did Khelif -- you would never, ever accept presenting that as a /fact/ to the readers.

How about this? This is literally, exactly true: "Khelif did not pay the fee. One sports columnist in Australia reported that she didn't because she couldn't. (Khelif herself did not claim this; no one else reported it; and the columnist did not say how or why he believed this.) There -- now the reader has the exact facts and can draw their own conclusions.Alaska Jack (talk)01:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So where's your sourcing which contradicts the SMH article?TarnishedPath^talk01:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It truly is absurd. This entire talk section should be embarrassment to Wikipedia. It wasn't like this 10 years ago. I guess things really have gotten crazy.Emeraldflames (talk)00:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @M.Bitton, @Felicia777 and @Sirfurboy as involved editors.TarnishedPath^talk23:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far I see no reason not to follow the source, nor is it so pressing that BLP concerns would dictate a more cautious approach. What are the reasons for thinking the SMH may have misreported? I do note that newspaper sources are not best sources, and if I were concerned here, I might suggest avoiding wikivoice and attributing instead. But I don't see any reason to do so yet. As TarnisedPath has pointed out, the reversion of the edits shows an objection. Consensus is required before this can be tried again.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)00:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a newspaper of record. I'd want to see reporting which is contradictory to the SMH to entertain any of the arguments put forward by AJ.TarnishedPath^talk00:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a newspaper of record, although newspapers of record can certainly get things wrong too, and do so in small and usually insignificant ways inmost articles. See what people think about the Daily Telegraph on this topic, or your own recent concerns about the Times. The problem is Wikipedians overly relying on newspapers to write articles. Alaska Jack may have a point, although they're going about this the wrong way. They are, however, an account with very few edits, despite being an old account, so I think we should give them the benefit of notWP:BITEing the newcomers. I agree that there is no call to change this unless there is some contradictory reporting, and Alaska Jack would do well to stop assuming that everyone reverting their edit is partisan. (Jack, readWP:AGF and take it to heart).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)07:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any valid reason to remove sourced content that is neither extraordinary nor contradicted by other RS.M.Bitton (talk)21:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone object to attributing the statement? That is, something like:

from

She initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs

to

An appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was terminated; according to Michael Chammas, writing for theSydney Morning Herald, Khelif couldn't afford the procedural costs.

Valereee (talk)12:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with this suggestion.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)12:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the attribution.M.Bitton (talk)12:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both, I've made that change. Happy for anyone to tweak it!Valereee (talk)14:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

attribution works for me.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be attributing statements of fact. Either we consider the source reliable for its usage, or we don't. We only need to attribute opinions.TarnishedPath^talk07:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution seems fine here for a statement we have only one source verifying, it helps obviate the DUEness problemKatzrockso (talk)16:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE talks about representing all significant viewpoints. This is a statement of fact, not a viewpoint, and more to the point there has been no reliable secondary sourcing presented which contradicts the statement. Attribution is not appropriate.TarnishedPath^talk23:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A statement of fact that appears only in one publication is not necessarily DUE for inclusion, that is it may not be "significant".Katzrockso (talk)11:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely failed to address what I wrote above and just repeated yourself.TarnishedPath^talk11:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is your contention that a statement of fact is not subject toWP:DUE? I'm failing to understand your response otherwise.Katzrockso (talk)17:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read what I wrote. I'm not going to repeat myself.TarnishedPath^talk07:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, @Sirfurboy and @M.Bitton. I know that you all agreed withthe edit, but I seriously don't think this sort of attribution is supported byWP:PAG.WP:VOICE (the most pertinent policy I can think of) has nothing to say about attributing statements of fact, which areverified fromreliable sources, when there is zero contradiction from reliablesecondary sources. I would appreciate if you reconsidered your support and averted the need for an RFC on something soWP:LAME.TarnishedPath^talk11:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right this is not the most contentious issue. But now consider if it were. What if we had one source that stated as fact that a genetic test had shown she had a Y chromosome. Would we state that as fact in wikivoice? I think we all understand that we would choose to be much more critical about such a source (how old is it? are they just reporting the IBA result? what are their sources? what are their biases, etc.) That is, we would be applying the kind of critical source evaluation that is required of primary sources. Contemporary news reporting is generally a discursive primary source. This statement under discussion comes from one such source. We don't write BLPs from such sources.Well actually, too often we do, but that's a whole bigger issue.

Put another way, you say it is a statement of fact. How do we know it is a statement of fact? Michael Chammas of the SMH thinks it is true, and we think enough of him and the SMH that we include it with attribution, but the SMH contains errors, like any other newspaper. Chammas did not cite his sources. All we have is Chammas' opinion that this is a fact. It seems likely that he asked Khelif herself, but we don't know that. And whoever he asked (even if it were Khelif) it may be incorrect. We don't attribute facts like "the earth is round" because that's something everyone with eyes and a modicum of common sense can see for themselves. But this "fact" is only expressed by one person, and plausibly could be wrong, so we attribute it.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)12:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say statement of fact, I'm not making a judgement about its truth value. I'm saying that it is making a claim about reality. A claim that is open tofalsification. All it would take for us to have any serious doubt about the claim would be the presentation of evidence stating something contradictory. In this case, that is absent. We would be in a very awkward position if we were to start attributing every statement about reality just because there is only one source supporting it. More importantly I don't see any support for this sort of attribution in our policy and guidelines. It serves no purpose other than to bring about clunky language and to draw into doubt claims for which there is absolutely zero controversy.TarnishedPath^talk12:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, I've often found myself agreeing with your position that a source can beWP:PRIMARY orWP:SECONDARY depending on what it is being used for. However, I don't think that necessitates attribution when there is zero controversy.TarnishedPath^talk12:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if someone's objecting because literally no one else is saying it, I see no reason not to attribute in the spirit of compromise. It's not saying anything inaccurate. I did actually look pretty hard to see if I could find any other source saying this, but I couldn't. I don't feel it's making the statement seem suspect -- it's a writer for the SMH, a paper of record, and letting the reader know where this info is coming from actually ought to make it more plausible, not less. And once someone's objected to something, it's no longer zero controversy. It's a CT and a BLP. I'd say this is the side of caution.Valereee (talk)12:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are barely autoconfirmed objecting to something is not reason for change. It's not long ago that this talk page was locked against anyone who wasn'tWP:XC because of the amount of inanity. Either the claim is controversial or it isn't. If it isn't then why exactly are we attributing?TarnishedPath^talk13:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I've added a section atCourt_of_Arbitration_for_Sport#Fees_and_costs and linked to it in the sentence. Would that work for you? These costs can run to tens of thousands of Swiss francs. They're intended to be paid by organizational bodies, not by individuals.Valereee (talk)13:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, what I am concerned about primarily is needlessly having sentences along the lines of 'According to X, who works for Y, Z happened'. It doesn't make for good reading. It's completely unnecessary to couch our language in this manner when there is exactly zero controversy in the coverage about it and we're only doing it to placate editors.TarnishedPath^talk14:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about we change the wording to "Her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was terminated after the required procedural costs were not paid.", with a link?Valereee (talk)14:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me.TarnishedPath^talk14:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rather than try to ping everyone who has opined so far, I'll make that change and emphasize it's purely BOLD, anyone is free to revert, and we can keep discussing.Valereee (talk)14:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.TarnishedPath^talk14:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very reasonable to meEmeraldflames (talk)17:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding a simple solution here!Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Editors who are barely autoconfirmed…' that is obviously a totally illegitimate argument, and I'd ask you to drop the stick.Riposte97 (talk)14:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the first completely illegitimate argument I have seen from that particular source, but it doesn't seem to really make a difference one way or the other. It's more or less a dictatorship here.Emeraldflames (talk)00:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any solid reason to object to that.

I don't think it should be reported as absolute fact and the way it was phrased did exactly that.

Even reliable sources make mistakes and, even if it's not a crucial issue, I think readers ought to have precise information.

It's not a fact and it shouldn't be reported as one.Emeraldflames (talk)17:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DanielRigal! How are you doing? I saw that you reverted my recent edit trimming out some of what I think to be excess from the lead. In my eyes, the lead insistswayyyy too much (i.e. repeats itself) on Khelif being a woman to the point where it comes across as insincere (which obviously isn't the intent!!!). I'll break it down a little just to clarify my take on the lead:

1. It is redundant to state that Khelif was born a woman then state that no evidence exists to prove that she was born male. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, why not kill two birds with one stone?
2. As a woman, it is obvious that Khelif only plays in women's sports. Mentioning this in the lead is redundant and unnecessary. On this note, the fact that she was bornmale female(fixed typoYasslaywikia (talk)23:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)) infers that she isn't transgender either, so what's the point of mentioning that?[reply]
3. Aspects of the lead go into a bit too much depth on certain details, e.g. "Khelif has not participated in events organised byWorld Boxing,which supplanted IBA as the IOC-recognised boxing federation ..."

What suggestions do you disagree with? With that in mind, we can then work towards shortening and tightening up the lead a bit.

PS. I did make some minor changes to the syntax of the lead. Is it alright if I restore those changes for the time being?Yasslaywikia (talk)18:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to do some syntax changes. I'm not against reducing the lead a bit. On your specific points, I disagree about the first one. I think it has to be set out, step by step, nailing down any possibility of being misconstrued, because there is a real likelihood that an appreciable proportional of our readers will have heard misinformation about the subject and might need to have those ideas explicitly dispelled in order for them to understand the facts. On your second point about obviousness, I see where you are coming from but I feel that there is so much obfuscation and misinformation around this that maybenothing is too obvious? I tentatively agree that the third point might be better left to the body. It's going to be hard to get agreement on anything here. Let's see what other people think. --DanielRigal (talk)20:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! All of your arguments look sound to me, I understand that there’s been a lot of disruption related to the article based on its history. I’ll restore point 3 and the syntax stuff for the time being as I don’t think they’re too controversial. I won’t remove any details that are essential to the lead at present. It’s a shame that we can’t keep things simple given that history; we have to go into so much detail over something that’s been debunked so thoroughly already in the lead! In an ideal world, that’d be better left to the lead, but alas…Yasslaywikia (talk)20:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm fine with the current version atSpecial:Permalink/1333992445. I'll reread a couple more times, when I am able and think about it. 1 major critique I have however, is that those are some very long paragraphs. They need to be broken from two paragraphs, into three. I'll give it a go and see what others think.TarnishedPath^talk23:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SeeSpecial:Permalink/1333994239. No change to content, just seperated 2 paras into 4.TarnishedPath^talk23:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what it was like before my last edit to the article (I made a separate edit joining the paragraphs together). I thought the split-up paragraphs were a bit too short to merit being separate but I’m totally happy either way! I can’t really care for the coverage of the false claims made about Khelif’s sex in the lead too much to bother arguing for it to be removed - there’s definitely merit to keeping it detailed, anyway - but I personally think it’d be better to discuss it in greater detail in the body rather than the lead as it already takes up a big chunk of the section. To give an overview, essentially, which the lead already does, but in a more concise manner.Yasslaywikia (talk)23:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's good to avoid 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs; however, going to the other extreme is worse. I'll try and think of a way to make it 3 paras instead of 4 after work.TarnishedPath^talk23:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganised into three paras and reworded a little. SeeSpecial:Permalink/1334000584.TarnishedPath^talk00:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved fromUser talk:M.Bitton

 –M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, you removed multiple sources from the Imane Khelif article that pertained to an interview Khelif did with L'Equipe on February 4th 2026. I'm curious as to what your justification is? There's no issue with including additional citations from CNN's interview, but I struggle to see why Le Monde, L'Equipe, and France24 would be considered unreliable sources.Smokerton (talk)19:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced them because a) they're all attributing the same claom to "L'Equipe". 2) L'Equipe's article is behind a paywall, so there is no way of checking what she actually actually said. 3)the claim doesn't make any sense (how can she admit to having something that she's willing to be tested for?) 4) in the the CNN interview (which is accessible), she says the opposite of what L'Equipe is claiming (assuming L'Equipe has been quoted properly).M.Bitton (talk)20:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out with some of the text from the L'Equipe article.

>>Q: Pour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité.

A: Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. Et les gens ne le savent pas, mais j'ai déjà baissé mon taux de testostérone pour des compétitions. Je suis entourée de médecins, un professeur me suit, et j'ai pris des traitements hormonaux pour faire baisser mon taux de testostérone. Pour le tournoi de qualification aux Jeux de Paris, qui se déroulait à Dakar, j'ai baissé mon taux de testostérone à zéro (le taux moyen se situe entre 0,3 et 3 nanomoles par litre de sang chez la femme). Et j'ai gagné la médaille d'or là-bas.>>

Google Translate of the question and answer: Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.

A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I've already lowered my testosterone levels for competitions. I'm surrounded by doctors, a professor is monitoring me, and I've taken hormone treatments to lower my testosterone. For the qualifying tournament for the Paris Games, which took place in Dakar, I lowered my testosterone level to zero (the average level is between 0.3 and 3 nanomoles per liter of blood in women). And I won the gold medal there.

The reports inLe Monde,Le Figaro andFrance24 are all accurate recountings of what is in L'Equipe.Thisischarlesarthur (talk)21:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)editor is currently topic banned from GENSEX[reply]

Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. this is a reply tovous avez un phénotype féminin.

Was the interview conducted in French?M.Bitton (talk)22:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just paid for the website. Yes, the interview is in French. Here is the section in question:

Il vous faudra désormais consentir à un test génétique pour participer aux compétitions de World Boxing, notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028...

Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider. Nous avons tous une génétique différente, tous des taux d'hormones différents. Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle. Ma différence, elle est naturelle. Je suis comme ça. Je n'ai rien fait pour changer la manière dont la nature m'a faite. C'est pour ça que je n'ai pas peur. Pour les prochains Jeux, s'il faut passer un test, je m'y soumettrai. Je n'ai aucun problème avec ça. Ce test, je l'ai déjà fait. J'ai contacté World Boxing, je leur ai envoyé mon dossier médical, mes tests hormonaux, tout. Mais je n'ai eu aucune réponse. Je ne me cache pas, je ne refuse pas les tests. Ce que je ne comprends pas, c'est pourquoi on veut autant grossir mon histoire.

Pour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité.

Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. Et les gens ne le savent pas, mais j'ai déjà baissé mon taux de testostérone pour des compétitions. Je suis entourée de médecins, un professeur me suit, et j'ai pris des traitements hormonaux pour faire baisser mon taux de testostérone. Pour le tournoi de qualification aux Jeux de Paris, qui se déroulait à Dakar, j'ai baissé mon taux de testostérone à zéro (le taux moyen se situe entre 0,3 et 3 nanomoles par litre de sang chez la femme). Et j'ai gagné la médaille d'or là-bas.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. is a reply tovous avez un phénotype féminin. French is not her language.M.Bitton (talk)22:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For those unable to read French and unwilling to rely upon a machine translation:

Now you'll have to agree to a genetic test to participate in the World Boxing competition, specifically because of the Games of 2028...

Doctors and professors make that decision. We all have different genes, we all have different hormone levels. I'm not transgender. My difference is natural. I'm just like that. I didn't do anything to change the way I naturally am. This is why I'm not scared. For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that. I already took this test. I reached out to World Boxing and sent them my medical records, my hormone levels and everything. But they didn't respond to me. I'm not hiding or refusing testing. The thing I don't understand is why they want to make such a big deal out of my story.

To be clear, you have a female phenotype but have the SRY gene, an indicator of maculinity.

Yes, and it's natural. My hormones are female. And though people aren't aware, I've already gotten my testosterone levels down for competition. I'm surrounded by doctors, there is a professor following me and I have taken hormone treatments for lowering my testosterone. In order to qualify for the tournament at the Paris Games in Dakar, I reduced my testosterone levels to zero (the typical level is between 0.3 and 3 nanomoles per liter of blood in women). And I won the gold medal there.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Below you sayI just posted a translation of the L'Equip interview above. It's a bit of a red flag that you mis-spell l'equipe. Looking at this translation, I see a few small issues. The translation is broadly correct, but Google does better, I think. Here are some issues I noticed:

1. You haven't captured the sense ofdésormais. The sense of that opening is more "From now on, you will be required to consent to a genetic test."
2. The original says"aux compétitions de World Boxing" (plural), referring to events governed by the organisation, not one single competition.
3. The phrase"notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028" means "with the 2028 Games in view". Perhaps, "especially looking ahead to the 2028 Games," not "because of."
4. "Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider" literally means "It’s for the doctors and professors to decide."
5. The French"Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle" specifically usestranssexuelle, nottransgenre. In French usage, transsexuelle may refer more narrowly to a person who has transitioned (just as it may in English). There are those who will disagree, and say, instead, it's all about medicalisation. But in terns of translation, the word is correctly translated as transsexual. Whether any difference was intended in the use of one word over another is unknown.
6. I think "I haven’t done anything to change the way nature made me" better captures the sense here than "I didn’t do anything to change the way I naturally am".
7. "J’ai contacté World Boxing" is more neutral and formal than you have it. "I contacted..." not "I reached out..."

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a red flag that you mis-spell l'equipe. It's actually "L'Équipe", so you misspelled it yourself,and you got the capitalization wrong. (Also, the word is "misspell', not "mis-spell'.)

1. You haven't captured the sense of désormais. If you didn't already know that "now" can be used in place of "from now on," then you just learned something new.
2. The original says "aux compétitions de World Boxing" (plural), referring to events governed by the organisation, not one single competition. Once again, you're substituting spellchecking for actual critique. Add an 's' onto the end of the word in your mind. I'd do it myself, but the tenor of your response has disinclined me to.
3. The phrase "notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028" means "with the 2028 Games in view". Perhaps, "especially looking ahead to the 2028 Games," not "because of." This is just plain bizarre. What do you think the 'view' references? What is the common meaning, in both idomatic English and French, of saying "in view of X"? You could also phrase it "in light of of the 2028 Games" or "with the 2028 Games in mind" or any of a dozen other ways. All mean the same thing as what I wrote.
4. "Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider" literally means "It’s for the doctors and professors to decide." A distinction without a difference.
5. The French "Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle" specifically uses transsexuelle, not transgenre. In French usage, transsexuelle may refer more narrowly to a person who has transitioned (just as it may in English. In English, the word is frequently considered offensive. I am told by a Parisian that it is the same in French. I posted a translation, not a transliteration. Cope.
6. I think "I haven’t done anything to change the way nature made me" better captures the sense here than "I didn’t do anything to change the way I naturally am". Another distinction without a difference.
7. "J’ai contacté World Boxing" is more neutral and formal than you have it. "I contacted..." not "I reached out..." Yet another distinction without a difference.

All in all, if you want to whine about my prosaic choices in translating, you'd be better off taking it up on my talk page than trying to disrupt this discussion with an obviousFUD tactic. And I don't want you on my talk page, so that just leaves you to keep your silly opinions to yourself.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go through this point by point. I will ask if you speak French. Are you aware l'équipe is a French word and not just a name? The sense ofdésormais is specific, and so when translating it, you should also be specific. Further, the form "fro now" or "from now" is a specific construction in English (see the OED entry fornow, p.1.b) and you would only drop the "from" and the adverb in colloquial usage, and even that is probably locale specific (like "gotten"). You are introducing ambiguity where the original is clear. It was saying "henceforth..." Likewise getting plurals wrong is changing the meaning of the text. It's not a huge problem. I said your translation was "broadly correct" and I saw "small issues", but when you are making a big deal below about the correct reading of French text, it is a pertinent question as to whether you have the necessary expertise to speak to what the French text actually says. Do you?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing you've said here addresses anything in the comment it replies to. You're just repeating yourself and adding some snottiness in for good measure.

In addition, my answer to condescending and ignorant questions such as asking me if I can read French in response to me translating something written in French is and always shall be "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram."ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... asking me if I can read French I actually asked if you speak French. You don't want to reply so we'll leave it there.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)21:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I misspelled L'Equipe throughout the thread (just corrected it a few minutes ago), so Mjollnir may have just followed that. Don't think it's really a red flag either way.

Thank you for checking the nuances of the language in general. I would say here that I think the prior translation was generally sufficient, but appreciate that you reviewed.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Regarding L'Equipe as a source, I would point toWP:PAYWALL - the fact that a source is behind a paywall is not grounds to reject it. It would be better then to just leave L'Equipe as a source on its own (though I think it's better to have those additional reliable sources that quote L'Equipe directly, since as you said, it is behind a paywall). Your opinion is that "the claim doesn't make sense," but I don't see how that is relevant to adding salient details to an article. It's notable, relevant to the subject of the article, and reliably sourced. Finally I would just point out theWP:V policy on contradicting sources: "If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain aneutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side itsdue weight."Smokerton (talk)21:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the relevance of the fact that the claim (about a living person) doesn't make any sense? How about the fact that it's also contradicted by the words of the living person?

NPOV plays second fiddle to BLP.M.Bitton (talk)22:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it doesn't make sense, anyway. The claim that her statement potentially contradicts what would be in her interests (although we're not experts, I presume, on the exact testing requirements) veers close to OR and SYNTH.Riposte97 (talk)22:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basic common sense doesn't need expertise.M.Bitton (talk)22:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to where exactly in your cited source Khelif contradicts the claim that she has the SRY gene?Smokerton (talk)22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the CNN interview where she says that the report about her allegedly having the SRY gene is fake.M.Bitton (talk)22:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right - I think Khelif is referring there to the leaked alleged results last year, not the recent interview. Here's the specific text from CNN:

It’s the first time Khelif has publicly addressed whether she would take such a test since last year’s move by the sport’s international amateur governing body to introduce mandatory genetic testing for all boxers over the age of 18, saying it would “ensure the safety of all participants and deliver a competitive level playing field for men and women.”

The World Boxing decision came after a report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes circulated online. Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and “modified.”

Announcing the new rules in May, World Boxing singled out Khelif by name, saying that she would not be able to participate in the female category at any World Boxing event until she underwent so-called sex testing.

“When they published my name, they caused another crisis for me. They caused more discourse and another campaign against me,” she said of that moment.

Amid the dispute, Khelif withdrew from the World Championships. She hasn’t returned to competition since.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would she admit to having the SRY gene and then say she's ready to do the test (to prove that she doesn't have it)?M.Bitton (talk)22:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is a fundamentally different issue. I don't agree that there's any contradiction here between sources. As far as speculating on Khelif's reasoning, who knows? Maybe she wants to get out in front of upcoming news about her test results. Maybe she simply wanted to tell L'Equipe what they claim she told them. Maybe she has bipolar type I. What's the point in speculating? I don't think it's relevant to whether or not we should include the claim in the article.Smokerton (talk)22:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in speculating, but claims that don't make any sense don't belong in an encyclopedia, least of all in a BLP.M.Bitton (talk)22:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this 'doesn't make sense' is, respectfully, yours alone. No sources state it. Other editors don't see it. I think you'll need an RS to back it up.Riposte97 (talk)23:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope thatbasic common sense is not mine and mine alone.M.Bitton (talk)M.Bitton (talk)23:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So we have:

1) a detailed, longform interview by the subject (L'Equipe)

2) an articlewith a couple of lines of quotes in English, with no wider context as to questions asked (CNN)

Wouldn't BLP militate in favor of using the subject's own words in the longform interview?Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. this is a reply tovous avez un phénotype féminin. That's all we have from L'equipe.

In the CNN interview, you can hear her talk.

Lastly, the fact that L'equipe's claim doesn't make any sense is very important. Why would she admit to having something and then say she's ready to do the test (to prove that she doesn't have it)?M.Bitton (talk)22:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's on us to do this kind of interpretation when we have a clear quote in a mainstream source, that has been quoted (and as-yet uncorrected) by multiple sources running an AFP story, with the latter being a perennial reliable source.

If wehad to speculate, I would say Khelif is pursuing a strategy of admitting to having SRY, but emphasizing that it is natural and that she has suppressed testosterone, thinking that if there is no way out of the testing requirement, then this is the best course of action. That's totally cogent.

But we don't have to go that far - we have a clear quote.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the CNN interview and there is no mention at all of SRY, only a reference to the leaked purported chromosomal report last year. That's clearly not responsive to the information from the story inL'Equip.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Khelif is pursuing a strategy of admitting to having SRY, why would she do that and then say she's ready to do the genetic test to prove that she doesn't have it?

Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines is all she said.M.Bitton (talk)22:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that Khelif is saying she will take a test to prove she doesn't have the SRY gene? Here is the translated block quote:

It's up to the doctors and professors to decide. We all have different genetics, different hormone levels. I am not transgender. My difference is natural. That's just how I am. I haven't done anything to change the way nature made me. That's why I'm not afraid. For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that. I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical file, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't received any response. I'm not hiding anything, I'm not refusing the tests. What I don't understand is why they want to sensationalize my story so much.

This seems to be 1) admitting to a "difference," 2) emphasizing compliance, and 3) trying to spin it as natural, and hopefully therefore acceptable.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (including CNN) mention what she said about the genetic test that she's ready to take.M.Bitton (talk)22:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Khelif specifically state that the result of those tests will be that she does not have an SRY gene? I see no such thing in either piece.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What mandatory genetic tests is she referring to if not the ones that everyone knows? There is just one new mandatory test (which is meant to detect the SRY gene). It's also mentioned in the CNN source (the SRY gene, the marker that’s the basis ofthe test).M.Bitton (talk)23:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being willing to take the test does not mean she is making a claim about the result. As has been explained to you, it could be that she accepts the result but hopes to frame media attention and get the policy changed. Hence stating that she has an SRY gene but emphasizing that it is natural, that she did nothing to cause it, and that she is taking remedial steps (lowering testosterone). This is perfectly cogent.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point of saying I want to do the test if the result is already known to her (as suggested by the claim)? Frankly, it doesn't make any sense regardless of how you look at it.M.Bitton (talk)23:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point of saying she'll do the test would presumably be to show compliance, as I've stated.

But this is getting into speculation and synthesis. If you have any quote of her saying that the test will show NO presence of the SRY gene, please link it. Otherwise, this line of argument really can't be credited.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your baseless and nonsensical conclusion. Ialready cited the part about the test that she's referring to.M.Bitton (talk)23:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take this as an admission that you do not have any source of Khelif making the claim that a test will show no presence of the SRY gene. TheCNN piece clearly does not contain that claim.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you imposed your POV through edit warring, you can take what I said to mean whatever you wish.M.Bitton (talk)23:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is laudable that everyone wants to be very careful here, but... I think we're being too careful with this. I read the article directly on the website. I speak both English and French.

The interview in L'Equipe makes it clear that she is responding both in French and Arabic, and she has hermanager there with her, and she consults him on her answers. He is Algerian but also speaks French fluently. Khelif herself, like a lot of Algerians, has a high level of receptive French, even if she struggles to speak it herself. There's very little reason to believe she did not understand the question. At this stage the idea that she doesn't understand "SRY gene" would be a little infantilising. She probably knows what it sounds like in several languages.

Elle s'exprime tantôt en français, tantôt en arabe pour demander à Ahmed Delimi, son manager depuis 2021, de préciser ses mots et sa pensée.

She has also shared thisreel in her Instagram stories (I have a screenshot? But this is a trust me bro).

Reading the interview, I don't see much room to interpret it in any way other than she is confirming that she has the SRY gene. It was a very clear question. She responds, and gives her interpretation of the situation.

Notably, she also discusses Caster Semenya in this interview and doesn't attempt to distance herself from Caster's situation. She outright denies being transgender (and transexual, both words are used), but she does not in any way make a distinction when Caster Semenya comes up.

I understand that this all can seem nonsensical, but if you look at the actual arguments around sex testing right now, while many bodies use SRY as a "gold standard", the science world isn't exactly rallying behind this. It's entirely possible her team are in touch with people involved in this kind of research/policy/advocacy right now and know that while World Boxing may be putting up blockers, there's a chance the IOC will not. But even if she's doing this for some bizarre/naive reason, I don't think we have any credible barriers to saying "In an interview with L'Equipe, Khelif appears to confirm that she has an SRY gene." She has confirmed multiple times that she manages her testosterone levels under medical supervision.

She does not confirm that she is XY. She confirms she has SRY. She confirms that her testosterone levels are naturally high.Detachedspork (talk)16:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khelif appears to confirm that she has an SRY gene "appears" is the magic word here.M.Bitton (talk)16:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Detachedspork, re:It is laudable that everyone wants to be very careful here, but... I think we're being too careful with this, I actually don't think we're being too careful. This is a BLP involved in a controversy over an aspect of genetic makeup vs. public presentation that literally gets people not just disqualified from a competition but gets them arrested and killed. If this were "Khelif appears to confirm she has two sisters", fine, I'm willing to include that based on a single line in a single interview in a language that is not the subject's first. The greater the potential for harm from an error, the more careful we need to be.Valereee (talk)17:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Detachedspork. To be clear then, regarding this reel that she has apparently chosen to share: it says: "Elle révèle qu'elle a toujours été une femme, mais une femme différente. Porteuse du gène SRY." That is exactly what she confirmed in the interview. She appears to have chosen to make this information public at this time.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)18:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP, and as such, anything that is based on "trust me bro" should be disregarded, if not deleted.M.Bitton (talk)18:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the France24 one is just a reproduction AFP's report. (WP:RSPAFP). In that case, it's WP:DUE IMO, AFP is a major news agency and directly says "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity."Burcet95 (talk)23:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She only confirmed that she has "feminine hormones". There is alsothis major contradiction.M.Bitton (talk)23:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the hormone part. The testing does not only cover SRY, if someone fails the first screen that's typically aQPCR they do additional tests to determine if there is a "masculinizing DSD". So they could be ready for further testing.Burcet95 (talk)23:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It starts with SRY.M.Bitton (talk)23:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having seenM.Bitton's objections in this section, they seem to be:

1) a claim that the CNN piece contradicts the L'Equipe claim, but this is clearly incorrect. The CNN piece does not address the L'Equipe claims at all 2) Pure speculation that Khelif mispoke in the L'Equipe interview (and presumably somehow did not have the chance to review the text, or request a correction after it was widely re-reported).

Given that neither of these arguments appears to have merit, I will add the L'Equipe source and contents back into the article. Given BLP concerns, it is key to have the subject's own words on this important subject represented. If there is a correction or clarification, we should immediately update to reflect that.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is based mostly on what she said and the fact that the claim about her doesn't make any sense. I have yet to see a valid explanation for the nonsense that is being peddled by some newspapers.M.Bitton (talk)23:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the explanation is that they are RS, and we are not allowed to assess their claims as 'nonsense' based on our own interpretation of the facts.Riposte97 (talk)23:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers will do whatever they have to do to sell their crap. Luckily, we're not a newspaper.M.Bitton (talk)23:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor of your experience should know that your objections are cutting across policy. Perhaps try a different tack. If there are sources which directly support your point, we should certainly weigh them.Riposte97 (talk)00:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here.
Wikipedia prefers English language sources. So if something is reported in an English language source—for a publisher which is considered by the community to be generally reliable—and something else is published in a non-English lanaguage source and which conflicts with the English language source then we go with the English language source.
Secondly there has been a challange to the reliablity of the L'Equip story.WP:ONUS puts the responsiblity on those proposing change to obtain consensus. Also refer to the heightened requirements ofWP:BLPUNDEL.
Thirdly, why is this being edited into the lead prior to it being edited into the body? Please refer toMOS:LEAD.TarnishedPath^talk00:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, can everyone please remember thatWP:BLP applies to every word in this article.TarnishedPath^talk00:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are procedural points, the relevance of which is not directly clear to the question at hand. We have a French source reporting a claim. We do not have any English language sources rejecting the claim. So, point one is satisfied. Consensus does not mean that we need to entertain objections that are not based in policy. The objections raised by M.Bitton have been assessed and dismissed by multiple editors. Point two, check. I trust that the editor who brought this proposal is content to also add the content to the body, satisfying point 3.Riposte97 (talk)00:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No these are not mere procedural points. From the CNN interview "She says it is fake". You statingobjections raised by M.Bitton have been assessed and dismissed by multiple editors does not remove the validity of what they are stating. The CNN source is cearly in conflict with the French language source (I can't actually read the French source, so I'm taking at face value what other editors state it says).WP:V is clear on this. We prefer English language sources.TarnishedPath^talk01:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The language objection is illegitimate, It's WP:RSAFP that's WP:SYNDICATED that's in English as well, not just French:

https://www.barrons.com/news/boxer-khelif-reveals-hormone-treatments-before-paris-olympics-bc0a35b5Burcet95 (talk)01:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFP's report is in English too, no? AFP is RS.Burcet95 (talk)00:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included more information in the body. If we are going to include the sourcing I originally added, then I am glad to include those details.Smokerton (talk)01:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There does not actually seem to be any contradiction in the sources discussed in this section.

The L'Equipe interview (which is in French, but the key element of which has been published in English inLe Monde andFrance24 as an AFP story) quotes Khelif as saying she has the SRY gene.

TheCNN article has her disputing the purported leaked test results from last year. She does not address the SRY gene or her interview with L'Equipe in the CNN article. Thus, there does not appear to be a contradiction in sources here.

It's true that a challenge has been raised to the reliability of the L'Equipe story, but that challenge - raised by and evidently comprehensible to onlyM.Bitton - relies wholly on speculation and synthesis. The allegation is that Khelif must have misunderstood, or intended to give a different answer, or was answering only part of the question, or something similar. But we have no reason to believe any of that, and AFP as a reliable secondary source has taken Khelif's acknowledge of having an SRY gene at face value, with no source contradicting it. At this point, the L'Equipe and AFP sources evidently appear suitable to myself,Burcet95,Riposte97,Smokerton, and I suspectThisischarlesarthur; onlyM.Bitton disagrees, with an objection that appears frankly to be spurious.

As far as adding to the body text, I am sureSmokerton or myself would be happy to do so.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given I have raised multiple points, consensus will be required first.TarnishedPath^talk01:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the interview it is stated "She says it is fake". Unless you are accusing Khelif of lying by admission (sourcing required) that would mean both the report and the claims that she has DSD.TarnishedPath^talk01:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I include a transcript of the relevant part of theCNN interview. It seems to me that the "it's fake" is clearly referring to the alleged leaked 2023 results, not to the L'Equipe interview. Khelif also does not state what element of the alleged leaked results was fake. There is no addressing at all of the presence of an SRY gene as the L'Equipe interview and AFP wire story have stated.

TRANSCRIPT:

[Voiceover] "It came after a 2023 report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes was circulated online. She says it's fake."

Khelif: "You see the report? You personally, you see the report?"

Christina Macfarlane: "I have not, no."

Khelif: "The report is not clear. Is just a test, a genetic test with a company, small company of tests, but it's not clear.[In Arabic] The report that was published was modified. It was posted by people opposed to me and have animosity towards me."

Voiceover: "While Khelif maintains that test was modified, she reveals she has naturally high testosterone levels, currently a key test in regulating women's sports."Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there is no actual mention in the CNN interview of DSDs whatsoever. Please share what specific language you think in the CNN interview contradicts the L'Equipe interview.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you keep claiming, the CNN article mentions the SRY gene test and the fact that she's ready to take it (which contradicts any claim stating that she acknowledged it having it). In fact, the very sources that you used mention this, yet for some unknown reason, basic common sense seems to have evaded some journalists.

One more thing: doesn't the fact that she also says in the clearest possible termsI have female hormones contradict what is attributed to her?M.Bitton (talk)01:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate items. The CNNinterview and thearticle. The interview does not touch on DSD and the SRY gene at all. The article mentions SRY in one instance and mentions DSDs as a concept, but does not make any claim one way or the other as to whether Khelif has a DSD or an SRY gene.

"Female hormones" is ambiguous language that in any case does not contradict having an SRY gene. The full context in L'Equipe is:

Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.

A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I've already lowered my testosterone levels for competitions. ...

But regardless, we do not need to interrogate the interview when we have a reliable source (AFP) recounting it for us, in English, with conclusory language: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity."Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention the SRY gene and connects directly tothe test that she's willing to take.

I have female hormones is her response to the question.

I disagree: we're not robots, we have working brains that differentiate between claims that make sense and those that don't.M.Bitton (talk)01:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A natural interpretation of her answer is that yes she has the SRY gene and she says it's natural, and yes she also has female hormones. Both statements are not contradictory.TR (talk)02:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At not point did she say I have the SRY gene.M.Bitton (talk)02:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The transcript explicitly contradicts that. You stated "At no point did she say I have the SRY gene," but the interview text is verbatim:

Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype butpossess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.

A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones...

The question specifically asks if she "possess[es] the SRY gene" and she answers with a direct "Yes". It doesn't get clearer than that.TR (talk)02:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asked about "phenotype and the SRY gene", she said "I have female hormones". Does that strike you as an answer of someone who understood and paid attention to the question?

More important than that: why would someone who declares that they have the SRY gene say that they are ready to do the mandatory genetic test (that would disqualify anyone with the SRY gene) because they want to participate in the 2028 olympics?M.Bitton (talk)02:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine. Khelif answers the direct questioned asked, and then pivots to her main PR points. Happens in interviews all the time. It doesn't seem unbelievable at all.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)02:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shift in argument. We moved from "she didn't say it" (a factual claim, now refuted) to "she didn't understand the question" (a speculative claim).

As editors, we cannot psychoanalyze the subject to decide if she "paid attention" or "understood." Speculating on her state of mind or analyzing her strategy for the 2028 Olympics to dismiss a verified source is textbookWP:OR. The source stands on its own. Our personal incredulity about her consistency or logic is not a valid reason to exclude it.TR (talk)02:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has ever argued that she didn't say what she said in that interview. Don't be dishonest.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When my change was reverted, the message that @M.Bitton provided was: "that's not what she said. In fact, she said the opposite [...]".Smokerton (talk)00:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have no basis to ignore the first sentence of her answer. And in any case, we already have RS (AFP, appearing inLe Monde andFrance24) telling us what the interview says. Please share why you think we should ignore that RS, or provide a contradictory RS, or concede the point. Thanks.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)02:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar withCircular reporting?M.Bitton (talk)02:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with the timeline, you'll recall that there was some supposedly leaked medical report of Khelif's that was going around the internet a year or so ago. That's all that she's referring to there, it has nothing to do with the L'Equipe interview. The CNN interview doesn't touch on whether she has DSD or not, but the L'Equipe interview does. The interviews in fact complement each other well.Smokerton (talk)01:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the thread and the associated sources (both French media and CNN), I agree that the objection raised above appears to rely onoriginal research, specificallyWP:SYNTH, rather than the explicit text of the citations.Verifiability requires us to report what reliable sources publish, not to conduct our own analysis of the medical plausibility. We have a direct interview where the subject affirms the presence of the SRY gene, a fact reported by multiplereliable sources. We must reflect these sources to remain neutral.TR (talk)01:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The pages of circular argument above, and resistance to adding what are now well-known facts, unfortunately reinforces narratives about ideological bias in Wikipedia - so it's important that the main text is honest in reflecting reliable sources.Fig (talk)08:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is missing a crucial fact. In the CNN interview, it's made clear: she's willing to take "a test but only if the IOC run it". This fact comes around the minus 3:00 mark. From the text of the CNN article:Speaking in Paris, Khelif said she has nothing to hide, telling CNN that she would accept genetic testing requirements – but only if conducted by the IOC. The IOC has not yet finished any rules (though they're expected not too far into the future).

This fact easily resolves the claimed contradiction between the presence (or not) of SRY and the willingess to take "a test" conducted by the IOC.Kingsindian ♝ ♚13:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find this all very confusing but here is my take. If shereally did say, unambiguously, that she has the SRY gene, and has not subsequently walked it back as a misunderstanding, then we can include it in the article, so long as we don't go beyond what Reliable Sources report, but we must be on the lookout for subsequent statements clarifying her position. We will need to be ready to rewrite or remove that whole section if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.

We have to remember that we are talking about statements made on the spot by a boxer, who is neither a geneticist nor an endocrinologist. It is not clear if she was being interviewed in her first language. If you stopped random people on the streets of Algeria, or pretty much anywhere else, and asked them confusing questions about their genetics then you would get a wide range of incoherent or mistaken partial answers. If you translated those answers (possibly twice) into another language and published them as if they were gospel then that would be far more your fault than theirs.

We should not try to use this confusing situation in a way that implies that this is the final word on the matter or that the future genetic test results are already a done deal. --DanielRigal (talk)15:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about SRY was in the French media. She was interviewed in French. The complete text is givenabove. Here's the translation (Google Translate), assuming the text is accurate:Q: To be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity. A: Yes, and it's natural. ...

By all means, be careful and on the lookout for any contradictions and walkbacks. So far, there's no contradiction.Kingsindian ♝ ♚15:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the sources that are repeating the contradictory claims:

The boxer, who aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, knows that she will have to agree tomandatory gender testing imposed by World Boxing, a body recognised by theInternational Olympic Committee, and says she is ready. "For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that," she said. "I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical records, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't had any response. I'm not hiding, I'm not refusing the tests."

Why would she admit to having a gene that would prevent her from participating in the 2028 Olympics (a competition that she's keen on)? Why would she send them a test that will disqualify her?M.Bitton (talk)15:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, World Boxing hasprovisional recognition for the IOC. And boxing is included in 2028 Olympics. Final rules etc. have not been decided yet. The IOC is reportedly making its own global policy. Nothing fixed yet.

As for the claim about SRY, the source is clear and unambiguous. If you want to know Khelif's motivations, ask her, not me.Kingsindian ♝ ♚16:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What shesaid here is crystal clear. I'm just highlighting the contradictory claims.M.Bitton (talk)16:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SRY test is a screening process. One can have SRY and have a non-androgenzinizing DSD (which is eligible for female category according to World Boxing). SeeCAIS.Kingsindian ♝ ♚16:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, someone with this condition should fail the first round and then eventually get cleared upon further testing.Burcet95 (talk)16:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the official source: point 2.3 is very clear on what "female" means (as far as the test is concerned).M.Bitton (talk)16:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? 2.3 proves you wrong, look, it's right there. It states verbatim:

a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity)

means an individual is SRY positive but considered female and would definitely pass the sex screening. It says "absence of SRY or" it doesn't say SRY positive is disqualifying 100% of the time.Burcet95 (talk)16:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not missing anything. There are none so blind as those who will not see.Kingsindian ♝ ♚16:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the "or (which is there for a reason):

The word“female” means of or denoting the sex intended to produce ova.For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, a boxer shall be confirmed as female by the presence of XX chromosomes,orthe absence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene),or a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity).

I underlined the relevant part.M.Bitton (talk)16:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the use of "or" means that only one of the three prongs must be met. Hence, presence or absence of SRY is not wholly dispositive.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if any of those isnot met, they fail the test.M.Bitton (talk)17:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is false and bizarre; just read the text. Plainly any one of the three elements can confirm a boxer as female. You might really consider taking a break from this topic at this point.

For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, a boxer shall be confirmed as female by the presence of XX chromosomes, or the absence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene), or a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity).Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly any one of the three elements can confirm a boxer as female that's right. Theabsence of the SRY gene would confirm that the athlete is female. The presence of the gene (which is what the claim is about) would confirm the opposite.

I suggest you actually read the comments before replying to them.M.Bitton (talk)17:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of the gene (which is what the claim is about) would confirm the opposite. That's not how it works, I'm afraid. The presence of the SRY gene, with adifference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur, would permit a person to compete in the female category. Tewdar 18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Says who?

The word“male” means of or denoting the sex intended to produce sperm. For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, boxers shall be confirmed as male bythe presence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene)or with a difference of sex development where male androgenization occurs

M.Bitton (talk)18:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the rules are logically inconsistent, then. Tewdar 18:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my opinion as a law-doing-guy is that the drafting is atrocious. Read literally, it would classify someone withXX male syndrome as both male (because they have "a difference of sex development where male androgenization occurs") and female (because of "the presence of XX chromosomes"). So I very much doubt that the literal meaning of the words can possibly be what they intended, but any attempt to decipher what they actually meant is peakWP:OR.

(Saying nothing of "intended to produce ova/sperm"...)Clicriffhard (talk)18:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most XX-male syndrome people do have an SRY gene, it's just on the X chromosome. Some of them are indeed lacking SRY, which is a complicated case. I agree that the phrasing is a little bad. But it's just quibbling and doesn't matter here.

The main point is having an SRY gene, by itself, does not disqualify Khelif from competing in World Boxing events. SRY is a screening test, and there can be more tests later. The idea that Khelif would not admit having an SRY gene is simply handwavy OR and doesn't deserve any response. I'm sorry I even tried to do it.Kingsindian ♝ ♚19:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

having an SRY gene, by itself, does not disqualify Khelif from competing in World Boxing events. this is factually incorrect (see the cited source as well asthis one). 20:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)M.Bitton (talk)20:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, both sources are so badly written that it depends on which paragraph you read. According to this paragraph, everyone with the SRY gene is eligible for the male category:

Athletes that are deemed to be male at birth, as evidenced by the presence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a difference of sexual development (DSD) where male androgenization occurs, will be eligible to compete in the male category.

According to this paragraph, there are ways for someone with the SRY gene to evidence their eligibility for the female category:

Athletes that are deemed to be female at birth, as evidenced by the presence of XX chromosomes or the absence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a DSD where male androgenization does not occur, will be eligible to compete in the female category.

The only way to reconcile the two is to think that some people are eligible for both categories, but they appear to contradict that here:

World Boxing respects the dignity of all individuals and its overriding priority is to ensure safety and competitive fairness to all athletes. To do this, it is essential that strict categories, determined by sex are maintained and enforced, and means that World Boxing will only operate competitions for athletes categorised as male or female.

I know what I think they meant, but we'd need a clarification to be sure.Clicriffhard (talk)21:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion with regard to the second point is clearly wrong. The sources make it clear that anyone with an SRY gene cannot compete in the female category.M.Bitton (talk)22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, but I can see that others have tried to explain that already. Short version: you don't seem to understand the word "or".Clicriffhard (talk)22:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely do. I understand "or" and I'm more than willing to take this to the board of your choosing.M.Bitton (talk)22:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we're not doing this - I'm not going to argue with you about whether "or" really means "and". If you want to take that claim to a board then that's your prerogative.Clicriffhard (talk)22:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, don't make claims about my understanding. My offer still stands if you change your mind.M.Bitton (talk)22:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: there's no need to take this to any board. You're just wrong.Nil Einne (talk)04:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is baseless, so again (to put this to bed), I'm more than willing to take this to the board of your choosing.M.Bitton (talk)12:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: There's no need to take this to any board when you are the sole person making this claim and absolutely no one supports your view which appears to reveal a problem understanding basic English. This is a clear case ofWP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Everyone who has replied, regardless of their view on adding the SRY thing to the article agrees that you're simply wrong. If you are unable to find anyone to support your view, you just need to accept consensus is against you or risk being topic banned.

If taking it to a board will help convince you that's up to you. It's nothing to do with any of us when consensus is already clear.

I'd add, why would World Boxing say[1][2] "Where test results for boxers that want to compete in the female category reveal Y chromosome genetic material and a potential Difference of Sexual Development (DSD), the initial screenings will be referred to World Boxing’s expert medical panel for genetic screening, hormonal profiles, anatomical examination or other valuation of endocrine profiles by medical specialists. The policy includes an appeals process, and support will be offered to any boxers that provide an adverse test result." if the presence of Y chromosome genetic material is an automatic exclusion?

Nil Einne (talk)15:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of what I and others said. If you're unwilling to take it to a board (so that others can weigh in), that's your prerogative, but it also means that I won't be wasting my time entertaining your opinion about me. I'm done here, and if you still disagree, you know what to do.M.Bitton (talk)15:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note Time which is a reliable source (WP:RSPS)[3] also supports the interpretation "If only a pair of XX chromosomes are found, or a DSD in which androgenization does not occur, the athlete will be considered eligible to compete in the female category." There are probably other RS which say the same thing but I got lazy searching because most quote one or both parts of what World Boxing said. Again I don't mean to be rude but I feel it's necessary to be honest. I can't imagine many people with a good understanding of English will make the same mistake you have made. It's simply not how English works. So most people, when reading what World Boxing has said will already understand that simply having SRY is not a complete exclusion by reading quotes of what World Boxing said. I did not find any source which supports what you're saying and I don't expect to.Nil Einne (talk)15:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude you are being rude and unwilling to substantiate your baseless claims about me in a board, which suggests that you're also not confident about what you're claiming.

So, again, take it to a board or do me a favour and stop making claims about me.M.Bitton (talk)15:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an RS to support my claim. You've provided zilch other than your own OR based on a highly flawed understanding of English. The ball is in your court. I'm unwilling to waste the time of a noticeboard with this since anything I do is on my head. I wouldn't be surprised if I get topic banned for raising this in a noticeboard forWP:Pointy behaviour as noticeboards are not intended to prove someone is wrong when consensus is already against them. As you're the one who is clear in aWP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation, it's up to you to demonstrate there is no consensus or otherwise just accept there is consensus. Whether you get topic banned for raising this in a board, that's on your head.Nil Einne (talk)16:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making any sense. What claim and consensus for what exactly?M.Bitton (talk)16:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus in this discussion that under current World Boxing guidelines the presence of SRY does not result in an automatic exclusion from the woman category since that's how "or" works in the English language. You claim the current guidelines mean there is an automatic exclusion if SRY is found based solely on a flawed reading of those guidelines. Everyone else who has read those guidelines, including a reliable source, Time, says it does not. Instead there will be further testing to decided whether the boxer can compete in the woman category.Nil Einne (talk)16:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "consensus" (that's just your claim). If you're after one, then short of starting a RfC about it, taking it to a board (like I suggested) is the only way to know for sure. Also, contrary to what you're claiming, the sources that I cited disagree with you.M.Bitton (talk)16:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sources?Nil Einne (talk)16:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you expecting me to read my comments for you?M.Bitton (talk)16:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the only source you've provided in this whole thing is the World Boxing guidelines, a primary source which as I keep saying you're misinterpreted since everyone else disagrees with how you're reading it. The only secondary sources in this discussion have been provided by me. And one of them, Time, explicitly supports the interpretation of everyone else in this thread. You say there is no consensus. Please name one person who supports your view. Because I'm counting 6 people including myself who support the opposite which is enough for consensus against one person.Nil Einne (talk)16:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes that are deemed to bemale at birth, as evidenced bythe presence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene)or with a difference of sexual development (DSD) where male androgenization occurs, will be eligible to compete in the male category.

Athletes that are deemed to befemale at birth, as evidenced by the presence of XX chromosomesor theabsence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene)or with a DSD where male androgenization does not occur, will be eligible to compete in the female category.

Interpretthis source however you wish.M.Bitton (talk)16:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a primary source which you've misinterpreted as 6 people agree. Again the only secondary source which has looked at what World Boxing have said and explained what they mean is Time. You refuse to accept Time's interpretation, instead rely on your own interpretation of a primary source which 6 people agree is wrong and absolutely no one agrees is correct. And you claim there is no consensus. This is disruptive behaviour likely to lead to a topic or site ban if it continues.Nil Einne (talk)16:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the source you linked you is the same one which says "Where test results for boxers that want to compete in the female category reveal Y chromosome genetic material and a potential DSD, the initial screenings will be referred to independent clinical specialists for genetic screening, hormonal profiles, anatomical examination or other valuation of endocrine profiles by medical specialists." I notice you've conveniently decided to ignore this part.Nil Einne (talk)16:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the relevant part (about the SRY gene). In any case, I said what I needed to say, and since your opinion doesn't mean much to me, I see no point in entertaining it any longer. Have a nice day.M.Bitton (talk)16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the part which conflicts with your interpretation is not "citing the relevant part". In fact, it's disruptive behaviour likely to lead to a topic ban or site ban if it continues. I'd note that while the part I quoted doesn't mention SRY per se, the part you quoted makes it clear that when they say Y chromosome genetic material they mean the SRY gene. AlsoWP:PRIMARY is quite clear that we require secondary source interpretation of primary sources and that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". While that's for inclusion of content in articles which this isn't about, it reflects the fact that from wikipedia's PoV, editor interpretations of primary sources are far less important than secondary source interpretation. We have that secondary source interpretation of what World Boxing has said from Time which supports the view of the 6 of us, but you've still provided none for your view. And I've explained why am not willing to take this to a notice board i.e. because as far as I am concerned, there is already clear consensus and in doing so I risk being sanctioned myself. You disagree there is consensus. But you have not explained why you're not willing to take this to a notice board yourself. No one has said you should not do so. The only thing that has been said is it's up to you whether to do so, and you do so under your own risk. If you take this to a board and commentators agree with you, then of course the consensus assessment will change. You are not saying there is already consensus in your favour. You do not believe you're refusal to accept consensus is disruptive. So there is zero reason for you not not simply take this to a board if you still disagree with 6 other people. I've even suggested a simpler alternative. Simply ask an editor you trust. I'm confident enough that virtually everyone with a good understanding of English will agree with us 6 that I'm begging you to simply do that in lieu of taking this to a notice board, since I'm certain almost anyone you ask will tell you you're wrong. (To be clear, it's up to you whether to take this to a noticeboard or ask an editor you trust. I'm suggesting two options which I'm certain will lead to the same result in terms of what you're told about your intepretation and leave it to you to chose. I'm just asking you to chose one of them rather than continuing to insist you're right despite the absence of anything to support what you're saying.) BTW, I'd normally take this to your talk page but since you've already deleted my simple comment there, I'm leaving this here.Nil Einne (talk)16:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. I stuck to what is said about the SRY gene (what is being discussed). If others want to make medical claims about her (even indirectly), then that's on them.M.Bitton (talk)17:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly not what "or" means. (To M.Bitton if the indentarion isn't clear)Ratgomery (talk)18:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this seems clear that an SRY gene is not in itself dispositive, but only in the absence of androgen insensitivity.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)16:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is speculation and synthesis. You cite no source for thisinterpretation and invite us to speculate on the motivations of an individual.

Even then, there is a clear possible answer: perhaps she knows she has the gene, and thinks her best chance going forward is a PR campaign to have the standard changed. Hence she acknowledges having the SRY gene, but emphasizes that her condition is natural and not deliberate, and that she is suppressing testosterone to reduce any purported advantage.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)16:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the relevant quote. The contradiction is glaring.M.Bitton (talk)16:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I agree completely with this. It's clearly untrue to claim that she denied having an SRY gene in this interview, but the claim that she 'admitted' having one is a tortured reading, at best.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I agree with a lot of this - and yes, there are multiple apparent contradictions between her various statements and actions (another is that she now says she has "no problem" with taking World Boxing's test, and even that she's taken it, when the latest we know from other reporting that she's currently taking WB to the CAS to challenge that requirement). I don't see anything in the secondary sources that allows us to reconcile those contradictions one way or another, or to declare any given statement as true or false or a misunderstanding or anything else.

Really, the only way I can see to deal with this is to keep it all at arm's length with careful attribution and the most non-committal language available, i.e. we say that she "told l'Equipe [x]" and that she "told CNN [y]" - in both cases using the interpretations commonly given by secondary sources - and then we just leave it at that, and readers are free to wonder about the contradictions if they want to. I know we haven't often agreed about this article in the past, but does that sound generally reasonable as an approach?Clicriffhard (talk)18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It is obviously anWP:EXCEPTIONAL claim; and the usual logic for exceptional claims applies. If the interview is accurate and not mistranslated, and she didn't misspeak, then there will be across-the-board coverage. Right now there very noticeablyisn't, which throws it into doubt. I also want to take particular issue withthis edit, which was a strictWP:BLP violation and unsupported by any sources; evenif she had the SRY genes, none of the existing sources suggest that she is trans, and we have numerous sources where she unambiguously states she is not; even in the interview in question she states it unequivocally, so using it to imply sheis would be misusing it as a source even before we get to the exceptional nature of the claim. Things like this are another reason to wait for broader sourcing, since editors are adding skepticism to the article unsupported by any sources based on their personal interpretations of a single interview - that's not an appropriate way to handle BLP issues. Wait for more sourcing, then we can handle it based on what those sources say. Note that the sentences that were altered in that edit weredecided in an RFC; given that it's obviously contested, another RFC would probably be needed to change them - though, again, I would suggest waiting a few days to see what further coverage emerges, since this is sufficiently exceptional that it would be bizarre for it to not get more coverage. --Aquillion (talk)15:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is obviously the best advice here, take WP:bns to heart and wait a day or 2 for the sources to come to a consensusLunaHasArrived (talk)19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aquillion please tag me when you drag me, I almost missed this! My reasoning for that edit was that the lead makes several assertions that now seem to be contestable (if ever they were not). I tried in my edit to remove material that made positive claims, without adding any positive claims. Bear in mind that BLP cuts both ways, and if we are potentially stating false/contestable information, there is not an 'out' because we are making claims that we believe the subject would approve of, or that we think are kinder. I think the safest thing to do it to make as few assertions as possible as more information emerges.Riposte97 (talk)23:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I just posted a translation of the L'Equip interview above. The claim that she 'admits' to having the SRY gene is either a lie or wishful thinking. The interviewer claimed she had it, and she didn't even respond to that claim.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you mean? Presumably you're reading this part differently from the secondary sources that were cited (France24, Le Monde etc.)?

  To be clear, you have a female phenotype but have the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.

  Yes, and it's natural.

  Clicriffhard (talk)16:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I'm 'reading it differently' is by not cherry picking one sentence out of her reply.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but you are reading it in a way that contradicts that sentence; that's why I'm asking you to clarify what you mean. That sentence, read in the ordinary way, looks very difficult to reconcile with the idea that "she didn't even respond to that claim".

  Perhaps more importantly: are there any sources that read it the same way as you?Clicriffhard (talk)18:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The interviewer made a statement with multiple claims, at least one of which Khelif agreed with, hence she started her response with "Oui" or "Yes."

  She thenwent on to talk only about the claim the interviewer made about hormones and not the other claim.

  This isn't rocket science.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what your interpretation of that is (this is a mistake that has been made several times on this talk page). WP:RS/P directly says "Khelif confirmed having the SRY gene" with zero sources that confirm otherwise. It doesn't get more direct than that. Your objection is pure OR.

  Suggest readingWikipedia:Common sense is not common andWikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs as well.Burcet95 (talk)18:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one insisting that I know exactly what Khelif meant that 'Oui' in response to, here. So who's engaging inWP:OR again?

  WP:RS/P directly says "Khelif confirmed having the SRY gene" with zero sources that confirm otherwise. No, it doesn't. This doesn't even make any sense.WP:RS/P is a list of perennial sources that come up in arguments. It doesn't say anything about Khelif.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea what point you are making.The source posted above (Le Monde) isWikipedia:Independent sources#Syndicated stories and reliable.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Agence France-Presse says "Khelif confirmed having the SRY gene". Any objection that you raise a statement of fact that is written clearly in RS is pure OR.Burcet95 (talk)19:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • raised to a statement of fact

  Burcet95 (talk)19:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea what point you are making. Of course you don't.

  Any objection that you raise a statement of fact that is written clearly in RS is pure OR. LOL, that's cute. An account with 57 edits is presuming to dictate to me what our policy is and how it works.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @MjolnirPants We don't need the sniping. Do you actually have a policy based objection to what was said? Otherwise, yes, any editor is within their rights to correct you. We're all equal here.Riposte97 (talk)23:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  lol so you had to come snipe at me about it. That's even cuter.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not rocket science, no, but it isWP:OR if it contradicts the interpretations of her words commonly given by secondary sources. Just so we're clear, you're not aware of any sources that interpreted it the way that you think we should?Clicriffhard (talk)19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's OR to insist that you know exactly what she meant that 'Oui' in response to, for sure.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You've seen the secondary sources for that interpretation though, right? By definition, that's notWP:OR.Clicriffhard (talk)19:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone agreeing with your OR doesn't make it not OR.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is getting bizarre. This is whatWP:OR says:

  Do not analyze, evaluate,interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead,refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

  That's literally whatWP:OR is for? To make sure that we let secondary sources interpret the primary sources and don't do it ourselves?Clicriffhard (talk)20:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You'reinterpreting Khelif's words in this interview. As I've said multiple times now, you'd have a much easier time and experience much less pushback if you just waited a bit to let the sources come to a consensus, instead of rushing to add in your interpretation of what she said the moment y'all catch wind of it.

  I know you think my problem is with claiming that Khelif has the SRY gene, but it's really not. My issue is with the logic being used to arrive at the conclusions that this represents an 'admission' and should be included post-haste. This article has been subject to massive amounts of POV pushing since Khelif came into the limelight. I'm extremely wary of letting any WP article (at least the public-facing main page) become a culture-war battleground.

  So I'll make you a deal. Give it a week. Come send me a message on my talk page, restating your case and including any relevant sources in a week. I'll do my own survey of sources, and if we can establish that a reasonable proportion of sources (say 40% if they're all right-leaning, or 25% if there's a decent mix) interpret her words the same way, and that Khelif hasn't come out and denied it, and I'll switch to supporting this inclusion, so long as it's stated properly. I.E. "In February of 2026, Khelif gave an interview in which it was which was widely noted that she seemed to confirm having the SRY gene."ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, well you can do that whether I message you or not.

  To be clear though, I'm not "interpreting Khelif's words", or at least I'm not giving my own interpretation any value in respect of what the article should say. Currently, the reliable secondary sources say that Khelif told L'Equipe that she has the SRY gene, so that's what I think we have to include, but I will doyou a deal: if other reliable secondary sources report on that statement belatedly and that shifts the balance on how they're interpreting it, I will absolutely support any call to revisit that part of the article and adjust it accordingly. Likewise if Khelif comes out to clarify her comments.Clicriffhard (talk)03:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be true if we were interpreting the primary source ourselves, but we are not. We are citing high-quality secondary sources that have already done that interpretation for us.

  Le Monde (February 5, 2026), a source of record, explicitly states that she confirmed it. In their coverage of the interview, they write:

• "In an interview with a French sports daily... the 26-year-old Algerian...confirms that she has the SRY gene and took treatment to lower her testosterone levels"^[1]

  When a top-tier source likeLe Monde explicitly uses the phrase "confirms that she has the SRY gene", it is not "OR" for Wikipedia to report that confirmation. Conversely, arguing that shedidn't mean it - contradicting Le Monde - would be Original Research.TR (talk)19:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PASSINGMENTION applies to all of those 'secondary sources' you keep dragging up, and none of you have made a case for why the interviewer or multiple other secondary sources didn't seem to read it that way.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have that exactly backward regarding how the interviewer read it. The interviewer's intent is clearly to establish beyond doubt whether or not Khelif has the SRY gene. That is why he says "To be clear..."

  The fact that he doesnot seek further clarification after Khelif's answer would mean that, to him, clarityhas now been established.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)21:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never in my entire life read an interview where the subject admitted to anything that wasn't clear that didn't involve a followup question to confirm that's what they meant. Not once. I'm not saying that isn't the case here, I'm saying that it'sWP:TOOSOON for us to be jumping to the conclusion that it was.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  She clearly answers "yes" to a yes or no question. It's possible that she misinterpreted the question or only meant to answer one part of it and not the other, but we have no indication of that, and the only RS to address the interview has interpreted it as a clear "yes" to the question of having the SRY gene.

  If we want to do a careful reading of the text, I think there are a few points that militate in favor of this interpretation.

  1. Khelif in her prior answer acknowledges "my difference" and says "we all have different genes, we all have different hormone levels." She is clearly aware that she is acknowledging something is distinct or of note about her biology in some way.
  2. Khelif acknowledges (both in L'Equipe and in the CNN article) having high testosterone and taking steps to suppress it ahead of competing. This is an acknowledgment of some competition-relevant biological factor (and high testosterone is a likely mechanism of a DSD involving the presence of the SRY gene).
  3. Although Khelif is a non-specialist, the specifics of genetic testing would likely be known to her given the 2023 disqualification, the 2025 changes in eligibility for World Boxing, and her own ongoing appeal in the Court for Arbitration of Sport.
  4. This is a not off-the-cuff, but a sit-down interview, and the question specifically starts with a "to be clear..." indicating the intent to clarify a point of confusion.

  I suppose it is always possible that an interview subject misunderstands a question (although, again, the only RS here to address this point does not take that stance). But the context and surrounding answers appear to make it quite plausible that Khelif is indeed acknowledging having an SRY gene.

  Woshiwaiguoren (talk)16:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Her answer was much longer than 'yes', and at no point was there a question. The interviewer madetwo statements, and Khelif's response was very plainly to the first statement about her hormones, which sheexplicitly mentioned in her response.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't see how you can read that interview and arrive at this level of special pleading. She is making the point that she is not trans-sexual. She is a woman, born this way, and she makes much of her hormones being feminine (although indicates this is, at least recently, controlled). She is asked if she has female phenotype but with an SRY gene, and she says yes, but makes the point that this is just genetic variation and she is naturally female. That is, she is saying she is naturally female despite the SRY gene. But she has clearly admitted that she has the gene. Any further special pleading on that point is silly.

  Did she misunderstand the question? If so, she'll correct this is short order, especially as her comments are being reported more widely. But let's not have any more nonsense about what words she spoke.

  As for our article: pff. The reason I have not said anything sooner is because this is the age old issue of people rushing off to update an encyclopaedic article based on news reporting. The interview inL'Equipe is a primary source. Wikipedia says we can use those when the BLP subject is talking about themself, but it's still a primary source. But this is going to find its way into a secondary source. We can wait. Wikipedia is not a news paper and we don't have to report every update instantly. If shedoes issue a retraction then our patience will have been proven wise. If she doesn't issue a retraction, then we still won't have done anything wrong. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course you can't see it.

  But let's not have any more nonsense about what words she spoke. That's rich, coming from someone supporting an argument that requires us to ignoremost of what she and the interviewer said in order to wring a tortured 'admission' out of it.

  Tell me, if she was 'admitting it' in this inteview, why didn't the interviewer confirm that? That's what interviewers do, when a subject admits to something at the heart of the very thing they're being interviewed about. It seems to me that the interviewer shares the exact same reading I and M. Bitton and at least one other editor do.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The interviewer did confirm it. The interviewer saidPour qu'on comprenne bien... That question was itself confirmatory.And, btw, if you don't know that interviewers may indeed ask "are you sure" questions, but then omit those from the published accounts as repetitive, you don't know how interviews are professionally edited. The point has been made by others too, but i think you are not hearing it because you are seeing this discussion as partisan. For instance, you sayYou and your allies in this discussion are insisting... You are assuming that people making points here are allies, on the same side of some partisan conflict. That we are all saying the same thing, and we are all failing to take into account what is clear and obvious to you. If that is how this is framed in your mind, then it is your framing that is the problem.

  The tenacity with which people are trying to instill doubt into a primary source that presents no doubt is amazing. But if you look at what I said or what Aquillion said, or what others have said, you will see that we have allowed that Khelif may have misunderstood the question, and argued there is no hurry. But the problem there is the tendency of Wikipedians to rush to cover every new thing without waiting for secondary sources. This page is full of that. The whole project is full of it. But here, on this point, we can wait for secondary sourcing. We are writing an articlein medias res as it were. This is not how the article will look when the story is done.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it amazing that some people refuse to seethe glaring contradiction in what has been reported.M.Bitton (talk)12:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that it's a interviewing prompt but not technically phrased as a question. Thank you for that.

  However, I don't think we have any basis to say that "Yes..." only applies to one of the two elements in the prompt. The rest of the response makes sense either way.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The rest of the response is about hormones, not genes. She talks about natural diversity in response to theprevious statement from the interviewer, not this one.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "The rest of the response is about hormones, not genes" - yes, but not that part of the response. On the face of that, that was a plain and simple "yes" to the whole statement, and that appears to be how secondary sources are reporting it.

  If there are other interpretations in other secondary sources then that's obviously relevant, but I can't say I've seen it.Clicriffhard (talk)18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, but not that part of the response. A tacit admissions to cherry-picking? Points for honesty.

  On the face of that, that was a plain and simple "yes" to the whole statement, I've seen so many different statements that start with "yes" that I know enough to not stop reading/listening after that word. That's where that whole 'context' thing comes into play. You keep insisting that the word 'yes' was a direct response to every part of the preceding statement, but you've got absolutely no evidence that it wasn't agreement with only the first part, or even just afiller word.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Every secondary source reporting on this seems to disagree with your interpretation, though. Now, it's possible that they are all wrong and you are correct, in which case I would imagine Khelif will say she has been misquoted or misinterpreted in the next few days or weeks. But for now, it just seems to be you and a couple of others claiming that her own words do not mean what they seem to mean. Tewdar 18:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's factually incorrect. There are plenty of RS (BBC, Al-Jazeera, CNN, NYT, etc.) that don't mention the contentious claim.M.Bitton (talk)19:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are none that say, "secondary source X falsely claimed that Khelif said she has the SRY gene", though. Tewdar 19:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That just means that whether or not she 'admitted' to it is a controversial claim, it doesn't establish whether or not it's what she meant.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Tell me why the interviewer didn't bother to confirm that she was 'admitting' to something that lies at the very heart of the matter they were interviewing her over, then.

  As I said before, it seems the interviewer (who was actually there in the moment, talking to her and has a better grasp on her meaning) shares the same interpretation that I and four other editors seem to share.

  The fact that organizations who make more money when they get more clicks chose to run with a different interpretation doesn't bother me one bit.

  Also, the only secondary source I've been shown which does that isNewsweek, and their story is literally about the conservative reaction to it. Additionally, when they actually quoted her, they went with the CNN source, and not this one. Nothing in that article lends any credence to the claim that she was actually admitting to anything, beyond a passing mention in a context in which it would be clunky to include a disclaimer.

  Add to that the multiple other sources like theBBC andAl-Jazeera which absolutely do not make any such claim, I would hardly consider that a ringing endorsement of your interpretation.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, let's wait and see how this plays out then, instead of doing our own original interpretations and armchair psychology. Tewdar 19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with waiting. I'm shocked that some editors feel that this is such a pressing issue as to need to be included right away and filling a talk page with this much argumentation in favor of doing so.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The whole article is full to bursting with stuff like this already. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a bunch of newspaper clippings stuck together with sellotape. Tewdar 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but there's going to be no fixing it unless and until the people who are dead set on raising doubt about her sex stop doing things like rushing to the page every time she answers an interviewer in a way that might be construed as an admission of some point of theirs if you squint just right.

  I have no problem with stating in Wikivoice that Khelif has the SRY gene. But given the nightmare that the poor woman has stirred up by [checks notes] being good at her job in a world where transphobic transvestigators exist and the iron-clad rules ofWP:BLP, I'm not willing to run with what some editors are interpreting from an ambiguous response she gave to an interviewer.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with stating in Wikivoice that Khelif has the SRY gene.

  I actually do have a problem with that. Putting it in Wikivoice would be far too strong given the inconsistencies with her other statements. What we should be doing is saying that she "told L'Equipe [x]", using secondary sources to determine what she told them, and staying completely silent on whether what she told them was true or false. We should do the exact same thing with her (arguably contradictory) comments to CNN.Clicriffhard (talk)20:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If she previously believed she didn't have that gene and then learned that she did, there would be no contradiction there.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, but that isn't what happened here. We're talking about interviews given to L'Equipe and CNN within the last few days, in which she makes comments that are difficult to reconcile with one another.Clicriffhard (talk)21:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the obvious answer is to stop pushing to update this article withbreaking news and wait for this to play out and see where the preponderance sources eventually land.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have the secondary sources to say that she told L'Equipe and CNN what she told L'Equipe and CNN. The obvious answer is to include that, and not to say or imply that any of it was true or false in Wikivoice.Clicriffhard (talk)21:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't actually think they're especially hard to reconcile? In both cases, Khelif acknowledges lowering her testosterone. In one case, Khelif (evidently) acknowledges having an SRY gene. In the other case, Khelif says that a past leaked report was wrong in some unspecified way. Itranscribed the relevant part of that interview, and you can see that it is quite nonspecific. So there is no direct contradiction, at least.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)21:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well yes, but she's also now saying that she has no problem with taking World Boxing's sex verification test (which would usually exclude someone with SRY and high levels of androgens), and even that she's taken it. She's also filed a challenge to World Boxing's test at the CAS, and formally requested that they enable her to compete without taking that test, so the whole thing is quite difficult to make sense of.

  In short, I think there are a lot of inconsistencies that should at least make us aware that some thingscould be misstatements or misunderstandings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't include her comments (as interpreted by secondary sources) - of course we should - but it's a good enough reason to be cautious about throwing the weight of Wikivoice behind any of them.Clicriffhard (talk)21:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, but what are we actually waiting for? We have secondary sources interpreting Khelif's interview, and we can include those interpretations in a dry "Khelif told L'Equipe [x]" format without claiming or implying that what she said was true, false, or anything else. If there's more coverage and we adjust the article accordingly then cool, but we have a decent amount already.

  Side point: there's a moratorium in place with an exception for new developments. That effectively forces people to act on new reporting as and when it happens, because you won't be allowed to come back to it later.Clicriffhard (talk)19:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This development will always post-date the beginning of the moratorium, and so I would call this a "new development" in three days, three weeks, or three months. Nobody,nobody here would say that by waiting a little while to see if Khelif responds, say "sorry, time's run out"... surely?

  Hmm. Maybe we should just have the RfC as soon as possible... Tewdar 20:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  With the best will in the world, the fact that we're even having to have this incredibly long conversation - with bizarre digressions into things likethe meaning of the word "or" - just to include something that Khelif very obviously said herself in her article, is enough to undermine my confidence that nobody would do such a thing.

  Would that it were otherwise, Tewdar. Would that it were.Clicriffhard (talk)20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A tacit admissions to cherry-picking? Points for honesty.

  Well no, obviously not; I'm saying that the only part of her response that purports to address the whole statement was a plain "yes" to that whole statement, and the fact that she expands on hormones doesn't tell us whether shemeant to agree with the whole statement.

  In any case, my interpretation doesn't matter. Nor does yours. My point is that we have a bunch of sources that have interpreted it as a "yes" to the whole statement, and I'm asking you if there are other sources that explicitly contradict that interpretation (rather than just not mentioning the SRY aspect). If there are, then we should take that into account. If there aren't, then I don't know why you're bringing it up.Clicriffhard (talk)19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you point out to me where she claims that she said 'Oui' in response to both? I seem to have missed it. Without her weighing in on her exact meaning, we can't possibly know it.

  Otherwise, the claim that it's a response to both is just plainWP:OR. I already pointed out that it could be afiller word, or a response to just the first clause.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To reiterate:we have a bunch of secondary sources that have interpreted it as a "yes" to the whole statement. By definition, that isn'tWP:OR. I'm also completely open to the possibility that other sources might contradict that interpretation, but you don't seem overly keen to produce any.Clicriffhard (talk)19:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying "a bunch" but I've only seen three, one falls afoul ofWP:HEADLINE and all three areWP:PASSINGMENTIONs, one of which was done in a context in which expressing doubt about it being an admission would make wording the story they were writing needlessly complex.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones fall foul of WP:HEADLINE and WP:PASSINGMENTION?

  That aside, if you're quibbling over the numerical limits of a "bunch" then we can probably both find better uses for our time. Again, finding sources that interpret that same statement to mean something else would be a good use of time, but I haven't seen any.Clicriffhard (talk)22:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I just said all three only do so as a passing mention. As for headline, I don't remember which one, but I searched the article for "SRY" and the claim that she admitted to having one was only in the byline.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's definitely in the body of theLe Monde article (para. 2), theFrance24 article (paras 3 & 4), and the French-languageLe Figaro article (para. 2). Don't really agree that any of them is a passing mention, but we can probably park that while the RfC is on.Clicriffhard (talk)03:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern here is the extent to which those are secondary. I know that from one point of view, the article in L'Équipe is the primary source and so these reports of the reports must be secondary, right? But in terms of historiography, that's incorrect. Inasmuch as they just report the interview verbatim, these are primary reports. There is no synthesis here. They are what historians will consider to be discursive primary sources.

  To be clear, if anyone reading this feels strongly these are secondary sources and are fine for the article, then that is a point of view I will not be able to change. We don't need to fight about the definitions. For me, I'm concerned by the amount we want to write encyclopaedia articles from newspapers. For others, that will be pragmatically the only way to do this. But do bear in mind this caution: if there is no synthesis, it is just the account of the account. If the first is in error, so is the second.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.WP:SECONDARY talks aboutanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis - not only synthesis. I would have said that these are secondary sources in that they provide an interpretation of what Khelif said to L'Equipe and what it meant (e.g. "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity." per Le Monde), which is a useful interpretation because her intended meaning is evidently a bone of contention for some editors. My main doubt about the existing sources is whether we should be treating the articles that refer back to Agence France-Presse (like Le Monde and France24) as multiple sources or merely iterations of a single source.

  Nevertheless, I get the point about waiting for more sources or different kinds of sources. My preference would be to put the information in now and then revisit it if and when the balance of the sources changes, but I won't be kicking and screaming if the RfC closes in favour of a delay.Clicriffhard (talk)12:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But here's the problem with that. You say Le Monde goes beyond verbatim in that it saysKhelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity. So yes, they have added (by way of explanation, I presume) "located on the Y chromosome". But where did they get that from? She didn't say that in the text of the interview for L'Équipe. The SRY gene is usually found on a Y chromosome, but, in fact, it can also be found on an X chromosome. She was not asked and did not indicate if she has a Y chromosome. So Le Monde have not analysed or synthesised information, they have simply added to it. They did so by way of explanation, and probably in ignorance of the possibility it was wrong.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)15:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true, but it's not the point I'm making. I'm referring toKhelif confirmed she has the SRY gene as a useful interpretation, given that some editors didn't read Khelif's "yes" as a response relating to the SRY gene.

  The part suggesting that the SRY gene islocated on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity looks like a biomedical claim to me, so that part would failWP:MEDRS anyway.Clicriffhard (talk)16:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this really says nothing about what her "yes" response is to. The most natural reading is that she is saying yes to the prior statement (which had two clauses), and then discussing what she thinks is most important or most wants to message.

  In no way does referring to hormones contradict the notion that she has an SRY gene, so we are mostly just left with her "yes" response.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)18:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You and your allies in this discussion are insisting that she's saying 'yes' to the clause about the SRY gene, regardless of whether she's saying it in response to to the other clause.

  I'm insisting thatwe don't know what she's saying yes to, and using the rest of her response to provide context. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she meant that word in response to the claim about the SRY gene, and we have good reason to suspect that there would be such evidence, if the interviewer agreed with you (in the form of the blatantly obvious followup confirmation that that was what she meant).ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying that there should be a strong presumption that she agreed with the entire statement, since if she disagreed with a part of it - especially on an important point, and especially after cued by "Just to be clear" - she could have said so. The straightforward, natural reading is that the "yes" is agreeing with the prior statement.

  That she then mentions hormones does nothing to rebut that presumption. It does not contradict having an SRY gene. It simply elaborates on her biological state.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)19:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A 'strong presumption" is stillWP:OR, no matter how you justify it. Unless she says "I have the SRY gene" or words to that effect, or spends enough time fielding questions that explicitly premise upon her having it without bothering to disagree as to make it obvious, then us stating so in wikivoice iscompletely out of the question.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean that's why it was cited to the perennially reliable AFP, as it appeared inFrance24 andLe Monde, which read: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity."Woshiwaiguoren (talk)19:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And as I've pointed out elsewhere, plenty of sources do not make that claim. And the interviewer did not appear to have taken her response as an admission, judging by the lack of a follow-up question to confirm it. Without a direct statement from Khelif, or enough additional statements talking around the subject in a way that implies that was what she meant as to leave no doubt, it's still a BLP vio.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, the reliable source (AFP) have made the claim that she's said "yes" to the clause about the SRY gene. This discussion ultimately is over whether or not AFP is a reliable source, which has already been litigated and has been placed on the RSP list.Smokerton (talk)21:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of stonewalling is amazing. I suggest someone simply open an RfC. Should be pretty straightforward, because the sources are so clear.Kingsindian ♝ ♚17:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also covered in Newsweek, same interpretation:https://www.newsweek.com/maga-reacts-to-boxer-imane-khelif-interview-on-gender-11475081 Tewdar 17:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stonewalling when there are five editors raising multiple objections to a proposed edit, and those objections are mostly going unanswered except by a baseless insistence that they're wrong.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think go for it. I don't really understand why we need an RfC for something that looks so clear, but I can't pretend I'm surprised, given the history of this article.

Possibly worth doing a pre-RfC to make sure the question is the right one?Clicriffhard (talk)18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can just use a different section with a proposed text and then ask for comments. I suggest that you don't clutter it too much by doing back and forth (those arguments can be had in this section). Just look at what people suggest and open an RfC with your best judgement.Kingsindian ♝ ♚18:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I don't want to lead this. Happy to vote if someone else starts an RfC, but the last time I tried to engage with this article, I ended up needing a long mental health break from Wikipedia, so that's about as much as I can commit to.Clicriffhard (talk)19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it tomorrow if nobody else does.Kingsindian ♝ ♚19:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need exact wording? Could the question just be something 'should the statement that Khelif has the SRY gene be included with attribution?' There seems to be enough pre-RfC if so.Riposte97 (talk)23:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd need the exact wording of what you want to add. It shouldn't be that hard.M.Bitton (talk)23:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine to me.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)00:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I'll leave it to whoever starts the RfC, but the examples given atWP:RFCNEUTRAL don't specify exact wording.Clicriffhard (talk)00:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lordy. I go away for half a day and come back and even the barely sufficient text that had been added to cover Khelif's clear personal admission that she has XY genes, has all been reverted and the page is even more NPOV than it was before! Editors that are doing this fighting against reality are hurting Wikipedia. Please do open an RfC, though I don't count on it helping much, given the degree of ideological activism on display here.Fig (talk)20:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, that.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This all is ridiculous and does not require an RfC.
If you can't agree what the quote means, just quote her without further comment until a more unambiguous statement appears. We all agree that she made the statement in response to a certain question, such as it was. Good, bad, dumb, contradictory - doesn't matter. Just quote her. It looks a bit odd style-wise but avoids all the drama over wrong interpretation. The choice between accurate content that is not-exactly-encyclopedia-style and potentially wrong text with an authoritative tone should be obvious. Our job is, among other things, to avoid misinforming readers, to the best of our abilities.
Also, in this manner, "false claims" could be potentially remade into "unsubstantiated" claims. False claims are supposed to be obviously wrong - and this discussion shows it isn'tobviously wrong. But all these statements were made without any evidence and for malicious intent. That we can write.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase "False claims that she was male" is astonishingly misleading. In fact, all ongoing controversy about Khelif centers on whether such claims are true or false. Most generously towards Khelif, we do not yet know whether she is physiologically male or female. Therefore we should not pre-judge the matter by referring to such claims as "false." I agree with the alternative suggestion "unsubstantiated" or "unproven." Thank you.Glasslelia (talk)15:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from violating the BLP.M.Bitton (talk)16:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining thefeedback request service. An editor hasrequested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are two questions:

• A. Should this article mention that Khelif has reportedly stated that she has theSRY gene? (sources:France24LeMonde)
• B. Should this include a quote of what Khelif stated in the interview?

Hemiauchenia (talk)00:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedsingle-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspectedcanvassed users:{{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked forsockpuppetry:{{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|username}}.

• Support inclusion because this is reliably sourced and does not break BLP; quote the subject so as to have their statement in their own words. Frankly, the objections I've seen appear largely seem to stem from either wanting to speculate about the subject's motives or misunderstandings about what is being discussed in the CNN citation.Smokerton (talk)03:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion and yes to quote I think the reliable source coverage threshold has been reached where this should be mentioned in the article. These are mainstream news sources, and this is something that has Khelif has stated herself rather than from a third party. I think Khelif's acutual words should be provided for specific context.Hemiauchenia (talk)00:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Good-faith RfC that can be nevertheless avoided. If you can't agree what the quote means, just quote her without further comment until a more unambiguous statement appears. We all agree that she made the statement in response to a certain question, such as it was. Good, bad, dumb, contradictory - doesn't matter. Just quote her. It looks a bit odd style-wise but avoids all the drama over wrong interpretation, and the choice between accurate content that is not-exactly-encyclopedia-style and potentially wrong text with an authoritative tone should be obvious.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ReCNN source: if she is making statements that contradict each other, then report about her statements to the media. L'Equipe is a good source.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further thought,close this RfC with no result but not for the reasons you may think. It's more because this whole discussion makes us look like super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs. I don't want to be part of this group. Frankly, what she has between her legs or in her genes is none of our fucking business, and is none of the readers', either.
  It may be relevant for sports federations for sex verification purposes but that's about the only thing we should report on - disqualifications, proceedings before theCourt of Arbitration for Sport, other regulatory actions targeted at her and, yes, the controversy. But this is bordering on gratuitously salacious. Genetic composition, sex or gender is absolutely personal information and we shoulderr on the side of not mentioning it at all.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)12:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs

  Can we not do that please? You're the first person I've seen even mention Khelif's genitals. If anyone does then just report them.Clicriffhard (talk)13:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That I will absolutely do on sight, because that's basically inciting flame wars.
  The point I have is that if you read anti-trans or conservative news outlets, you are going to getstuff claiming that Khelif was male all along (see also[4]), which is vile. Unfortunately, no, this whole speculationis ultimately about what she has in her trousers and whether it conforms with her identity as a woman. It is bullshit but that's the sad reality.
  IMHO unless the article subject explicitly stated she's fine that others discuss in detail her genetic composition, genitals or gender, we just should stop doing it. Leave her alone.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)13:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I don't agree that that's whatthis discussion is about, but I won't hammer the point. I think we have the same opinion of discussions that are along those lines.Clicriffhard (talk)14:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I 100% agree with this, which is exactly why I quoted the 2nd paragraph ofWP:BLP below.TarnishedPath^talk14:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Reject outright the suggestion to close down this RfC, since the suggestion is based on anger ("super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs"!) more than anything ofsubstance. If a contributor believes the discussion here violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the rational way forward is to report the violations; not close down the RfC, when there is nothing wrong with the RfC per se. And to address one more point, the same crude was it was expressed: It fuckingis our "business" to report in Wikipedia articles anything ofnotablesubstance that'ssupported byreliable sources. The issue of Imane Khelif's gender has been making headlines in practically all media, for better or worse, and, therefore,anything that's related to that issue deserves an examination on merits already well defined in policies & guidelines here, e.g.WP:BLP. Can we all get along ingood faith? -The Gnome (talk)07:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  unfortunately, much of her notability is the salacious gossip, same asMonica Lewinsky. we cannot opt out of the conversation at this point.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah, agreed. we need some more time to see, but there is policy enough to include the interview attributed to le monde, and with other sourcing showing that Imane Khelif is against what was claimed to be stated in the interview.

  le monde is usually pretty reputable too, isn't it?User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion - reliable secondary sources support the proposition. I have not seen anything which convinces me to discount that fundamental fact.Riposte97 (talk)01:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is, it now seems, support for option 'A'.Riposte97 (talk)01:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Too soon, oppose - I am not convinced that there is a sufficient level of media coverage at present to justify including this alleged development in the article, specifically the lead. This is because including such information would introduce a false balance on the basis of media speculation on Khelif’s sex assigned at birth or her ‘biological’ characteristics, which is totally unsuitable for a BLP; seeWP:NOTGOSSIP. However, as the person who wrote the phrasing currently included in the article, Isupport removing the sentence “No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender.” as it is too strongly worded at present.Yasslaywikia (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)struckYasslaywikia (talk)18:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would just like to add that I wouldsupport rewriting the lead in light of the new development to better reflect what secondary sources are saying, but I wouldn’t like to see any specifics mentioned there. That role should be fulfilled by the body. To clarify, I(1) weakly support mentioning the SRY gene development in the body,(2) strongly support including a quotation from Khelif in the body on the condition that (1) comes to pass, and(3) oppose mentioning any specifics outright in the lead; saying something like her gender/genetic identity has been a source of controversy within media would suffice and sum everything up quite nicely, IMHO. There’s way too much of a focus on speculation regarding her alleged sex and DSDs in the lead, anyway. It would be better done away with.Yasslaywikia (talk)12:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: Istrongly support Loki's proposal based on my understanding of it, that being the claim that Khelif has the SRY gene should not be directly attributed to Wikivoice. Something like the following would do it, in my opinion (NB I have not been following the developments as closely as some, so feel free to make any amendments of your choosing if you think this is the right solution):

  In an interview withL'Équipe in 2026, Khelif stated that she had theSRY gene, but affirmed that her body only producedfemale hormones. (citation)WhileHer statement was reported by other media outlets,such as (Le Monde + other sources listed)she stated that she did not have the SRY gene in an interview with CNN. (citation) Her statement from this interview was also reported by other media outlets at the time. (other sources listed in discussion)struck and amended per @Sirfurboy's comment belowYasslaywikia (talk)15:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @LokiTheLiar, if my understanding of your proposal is incorrect, then please let me know.Yasslaywikia (talk)11:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ... she stated that she did not have the SRY gene in an interview with CNN. - where did she say that?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)12:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought this mentioned down thread, no? If not, then I'll find the source when I'm not busy later or strike it out if I misremembered. Thanks for the heads up!Yasslaywikia (talk)12:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You can find the CNN and associated links throughout the talk page, specifically under TarnishedPath's comment just below and then Loki's proposal that I supported above.Yasslaywikia (talk)14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I've watched the whole interview here[5] and read the CNN article about it here[6]. I don't see where she stated that she did not have the SRY gene. I don't think we can say that she did in the article.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)15:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just rewatched the interview and re-read the article. I must've misremembered, then. My bad, sorry!Yasslaywikia (talk)15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the 'only female hormones' thing is also a landmine since she confirmed her testosterone levels are being or have been medically managed.Riposte97 (talk)20:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion. We have sufficient reliable secondary sources to say that Khelif told L'Equipe she has the SRY gene, but not to say or imply that what she told them was true or false, nor to characterise her comments in any other way. Direct quoting is difficult, as the interview was in French and I'm unaware of a secondary source that translates both Khelif's response and the interviewer's statement that preceded it.Clicriffhard (talk)01:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Per discussion below, apparently we're fine to translate the quote ourselves, and a number of us are French speakers so that is an option. My marginal preference is still for A over B, but no objection if people want to translate and quote.Clicriffhard (talk)02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion until sources beyond breaking news are located to substantiate this interpretation (often interpreted asWP:Primary sources, which are generally inappropriate perWP:BLPPRIMARY). When sources more removed temporally from this interview and outside of the context of the culture war, we can bring this up. There isWP:No deadline. Additionally, we need to considerWP:VICTIMIZE here, as these rumors have caused Khelif to be the subject of incredible harassment, not only online, but from established political figures. Adding this material to Wikipedia should only be done with the highest-quality sources with no ambiguity in light of this history.Katzrockso (talk)02:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, I also oppose the inclusion of just a bare quote as well. It is unclear why this quote isWP:DUE for inclusion after only 2 reliable sources (France 24 and Le Monde) have reported on this segment of the interview, while others have excluded it (e.g.The New York Times). Remember thatWikipedia:Verifability#Verifability does not guarantee inclusion and the other concerns (WP:BLP, in particular) outweigh the fact that any quote might be sourced.Katzrockso (talk)02:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming that there isn't another one, theNew York Times article is about a different interview that Khelif gave to CNN.Clicriffhard (talk)02:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  News reports, which are typically primary sources, do not fall under the scope ofWP:BLPPRIMARY which is for public documents. So Khelif's medical records would not be allowed to be used but the policy does not forbid this source from being used. If this were a BLPPRIMARY issue this RFC wouldn't even be allowed to go ahead.Traumnovelle (talk)02:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they arepermissible to be used (as in they are not explicitly prohibited by the text which uses the bolded wordnot for public documents and the like), but the policy statesExercise extreme caution in using primary sources, not 'Exercise extreme caution in using public documents'. Breaking news is generally not reliable enough to use in a BLP, especially forWP:EXCEPTIONAL claims.Katzrockso (talk)02:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither of those articles are breaking news. Breaking news is when something is hastily published and does not undergo a full editorial process due to a presumed need to get the story out quickly.Traumnovelle (talk)05:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that's exactly what they are.M.Bitton (talk)12:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not, were it breaking news the sources would label it as such.Traumnovelle (talk)19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion and yes to quote For over a year there has been intense speculation that Khelif has a male DSD. Evidence has emerged over and over again. Instead of engaging with that claim and acknowledging the evidence, this page has straw-manned the debate by implying there has been accusations that Khelif is transgender. I have never seen anyone make that claim. Now Khelif has finally personally acknowledged the SRY question. If Wikipedia wants to have any veneer of impartiality, the bare minimum is to just put the quote on Khelif's page.Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of Wikipedia if you think it is editors job to "acknowledg[e] the evidence". Wikipedia does not analyze evidence and make conclusions on that basis, it summarizes whatreliable sources say about a topic.Katzrockso (talk)02:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not put words into my mouth. I didn't suggest Wikipedia editors should "analyze evidence and make conclusions". That should be the reader's job. I suggested that Wikipedia should acknowledge a relevant quote that Khelif made, and not exclude it from the page. And I consider Khelif to be a reliable (or at minimum relevant) source on this issue.Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any inclusion at present perWP:BLP andWP:V given the very potential conflict with the CNN source in which it appears that she states that previous reporting of her having the SRY gene is fake and her other previous comments which appear contradictory to what is being represented by L'Equipe.

From WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not atabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.^[a] Theburden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Further fromWP:EXCEPTIONAL:

Any exceptional claim requiresmultiple high-quality sources.^[2]Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely byprimary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people. This is especially true when proponents say there is aconspiracy to silence them.

• Support inclusion It appears in perennial RS with no direct contradiction, the WP:NONENG objections are patently false, other objections areclear WP:OR demonstrably false as well. It's WP:DUE.Burcet95 (talk)02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OR applies to the content in our articles, not our reasoning in talk discussions.TarnishedPath^talk02:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately many editors don't make it past the first paragraph to where it statesThis policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.. Though even reading the first sentenceWikipediaarticles must not contain original research would disabuse a careful reader of this notion.Katzrockso (talk)02:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Though even reading the first sentence ... would disabuse a careful reader of this notion.

  I would go further and say even an careless reader. But yes, very unfortunate.TarnishedPath^talk02:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I will clarify that part of the vote.Burcet95 (talk)02:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1) for a start, she never said "I have the SRY gene". The interpretation of her so-called reply to the question (in a language that she barely speaks) is tortured at best. 2) the very sources that are repeating the contentious claims also say:

The boxer, who aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, knows that she will have to agree tomandatory gender testing imposed by World Boxing, a body recognised by theInternational Olympic Committee, and says she is ready. "For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that," she said. "I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical records, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't had any response. I'm not hiding, I'm not refusing the tests."

Why would she admit to having a gene that would prevent her from participating in the 2028 Olympics (a competition that she's keen on)? Why would she send them a test that will disqualify her?M.Bitton (talk)02:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with this kind of speculation and mental modelling. One might just as well ask, "If she does not have an SRY gene, why did she skip multiple tournaments and file an appeal in an arbitration court rather than simply take the test?"

We really cannot know.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)02:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you said (multiples times) and you are now comparing apples to oranges.M.Bitton (talk)02:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't get why we should be second-guessing her intentions. She is a grown woman and presumably knows what she says, should say or should not say. If she blundered, it's on her. We shouldn't be rushing to correct her.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about second guessing, it's about common sense (regarding the contradictory claims that are peddled by some news outlets).M.Bitton (talk)02:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting fabrication? Because again, even if she makes contradictory statements, it doesn't mean that news outlets misreported her statements.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I'm suggesting and at no point did I say that she contradicted herself. The contradictory claims are made by the news outlets.M.Bitton (talk)02:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This interview was a few days ago, and multiple RS have reported that she admitted to having the SRY gene. If it were a misunderstanding, she certainly would have spoken out by now to correct the record.TR (talk)11:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A English language translation from the French source, does not indicate that she admitted to having the SRY gene. Her response is ambiguous, at no point did she explicitly state that "I have the SRY gene" or words to that effect. Given the ambiguity, caution is best advised here.TarnishedPath^talk11:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Split the difference We should take a page fromWP:WSAW, approaches either 3 (footnote) or 4c (explain the contradiction) and say something along the lines ofAccording to an interview in French magazine L'Equipe, Khelif claimed to have the SRY gene. However, according to a separate interview with CNN, she denied having the SRY gene. Whether we do it inline or in a footnote I'm not too bothered about but I think I'd lean towards "footnote" considering the number of other times she's denied this.Loki (talk)02:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I should note that if this compromise proposal doesn't gain traction I do not want this to be counted as a !vote for inclusion. Instead I think we should go to the status quo, i.e. I'doppose including this in the article outside of a context explicitly making clear she seems to have both accepted and denied it in short succession.Loki (talk)21:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hold on, where did she deny having the SRY gene? She said she'd accede to a suite of gender eligibility testing. That is along way short of a denial.Riposte97 (talk)03:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Background: Supposedly, a genetic test result was leaked.According to the Times, it was first reported on byWire Sports.

  In the CNN interview, Khelif says the following (in English, interviewer prompt unknown):

  Khelif: You see the report? You personally have seen the report?

  Interviewer: I have not, no.

  Khelif: The report is not clear. It's just a test, genetic test, with a company, small company, of [?testers]. But it's not clear.

  Then, the footage is likely cut. It continues with Khelif stating (translated from what I think is Arabic, by CNN):

  Khelif: [The report that was published was modified. It was posted by people opposed to me and have animosity towards me.]

  So she doesnot deny having an SRY gene, instead just vaguely undermining the report's credibility. She does say the report was modified, but she does not explain how, so we cannot draw conclusions. However,CNN's analysis of the interview states:

  Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and "modified."

  Now from what they've published from the interview, the closest that Khelif comes to saying that the report is inaccurate is her saying that it was modified. However, CNN is already reporting that she claimed it was modified in quotes, so my thought process likely doesn't reflect that of CNN here. I personally don't see any other statements from Khelif that comes close to her saying the report is inaccurate, so assuming that CNN isn't making a mistake here, they are probably reporting on parts of the interview that were not published.

  Now, let us assume that CNN is not making a mistake, and Khelif did in fact call the report inaccurate. Since the only notable thing the report concludes is that Khelif is karotypically male, we can conclude that Khelif said that the report is wrong to conclude that she is karotypically male.

  But even then, it would be wrong to analyse this as Khelif having denied having an SRY gene. After all, that's not what "karotypically male" means. If the report is wrong, then we should conclude that Khelif does not have a Y chromosome, not that she does not have an SRY gene.

  But of course, it wouldalso be wrong to analyse Khelif's statement as her having said that she does not have a Y chromosome. After all, Imane Khelif is not a subject matter expert. She could easily have made the mistake of confusing karotypy with the presence of an SRY gene.

  So in conclusion, direct quotation would probably be best. The addition suggested byLoki contains original research, so definitely not that.Dieknon (talk)18:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If she doesn't have a Y chromosome, then she doesn't have an SRY gene either, since the SRY gene is only on the Y chromosome.

  I'm okay with a closer paraphrase if you want, something likeAccording to an interview in French magazine L'Equipe, Khelif agreed with the interviewer that she has the SRY gene. However, according to a separate interview with CNN, she called a report saying she has a Y chromosome inaccurate.Loki (talk)21:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  XX male syndrome Tewdar 21:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  TIL. Fair enough.Loki (talk)02:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond the fact having the SRY gene doesn't require to have the Y chromosome (as commonly understood), and I remarked this below but I think we have to be very careful in not reading too much into the CNN interview. While the voiceover does[34] mention "Boxing's ruling body provided no justification for its insistence on the disputed test. It came after a 2023 report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes was circulated online. She says it's fake.", we don't know what question was asked of Khelif since AFAICT, it isn't heard/shown. This makes it hard to know what she is referring to when she says "The report that was published was modified." This is significant because AFAIK there are two major alleged leaked reports widely discussed. One is the 3 Wire Sports one in 1 June 2025 which includes a picture allegedly part of a report from a Delhi lab. Note it doesn't explicitly mention XY anyway (at least not in the part leaked) but instead Male karyotype, and although it doesn't say that much more there is a tiny bit so theoretically it could be some other part of what it says that is modified. More importantly, there is also the alleged report/s leaked by Le Correspondant on 25 October 2025. This is much more detailed than simply information on her chromosomes or karyotype. It's true that her comment "The report -- it's not clear, is just the test, genetic test, with company, small company of testers. But it's not clear." doesn't really seem to apply to the Le Correspondant claimed leak (which is said to be from doctors treating her & primarily doesn't involve genetic tests nor a small company of testers) we still have to take care as it's possible she is thinking at least in part of the Le Correspondant claimed leak. We know she must be aware of Le Correspondant's piece since she's suing over it. Note that I haven't discussed the inaccurate bit since that's even more confusing as we have no idea what she said and in what context.Nil Einne (talk)14:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd add that it is also theoretically possible that there is some other claimed leak e.g. a more detailed version of the Delhi report that is circulated somewhere. Khelif would likely know & CNN too if they did their job properly but if for whatever reason it didn't circulate widely it might not be something widely discussed. (Especially if the additional information wasn't that interesting to most.)Nil Einne (talk)14:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear that she did agree. At no point is she quoted as saying "I have SRY" or words to that effect.TarnishedPath^talk02:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to add to what others have said, thathowever looks questionable underMOS:EDITORIAL. That apart, I agree that we should be putting something in about that part of the CNN interview, and for much the same reasons. We'd just have to be careful that we don't link the two in a way that augments or diminishes the impression of a contradiction.Clicriffhard (talk)16:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak Split the difference/possible Oppose - per Loki. We cannotWP:CRYSTALBALL that Le Monde will be proven right. But I also understand that there is a high bar of acceptance for extraordinary claims, so I might be ok with an oppose as well.Apologies to any closer for making tallying vote counts harder.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose perWP:TOOSOON andWP:RECENTISM. We've spent way too much effort dealing with this already. If the supporters here had just waited a week or two longer in order to get a broader picture of things instead of rushing to include something that really doesn't help the reader understand who Imane Khelif is because it supports some narrative, this could have been a much simpler and less cantankerous process. Shit, it might still become a much simpler and less cantankerous process in a week or two.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose under the rationale put forth so eloquently byUser:TarnishedPath.WP:REDFLAG states that "Claims ... that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in ... biographies of living and recently deceased people" are exceptional claims that require multiple high-quality sources. Why would her statements in the CNN interview (which is preferred as it is an English language source) be simply disregarded for a statement in the L'Equipe interview? It is clear that there is a contradiction and that editors have objected to inclusion. As such,WP:BLPRESTORE must be met before inclusion, and I don't think it has been met at this point.I am ambivalent on the "split the difference" proposal, I originally suggested something similar and think it would be a helpful alternative if needed.aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)03:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFP sources (Le Monde, France24) are in English, I don't see some reason to prefer one reliable perennial source over another. They don't contradict in my opinion, but even in the case that they did it would still merit inclusion of both sources.Smokerton (talk)03:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion for now. The statements are ambiguous and we are reading them in translation. The situation is confusing. Rather than say anything now, which might be incorrect and lead to citogenesis of more incorrect coverage, we should wait for clarification. I'm sure it won't be long in coming. --DanielRigal (talk)03:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion it's reported on by secondary reliable sources and no other secondary reliable sources contradict it, end of discussion. Oppose rationale from M.Bitton and MjolnirPants specific is complete original research attempted to psychoanalize the response and mind read something no secondary sources are reporting.Ratgomery (talk)03:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion The statement is not supported in the slightest. The claim is basically making an inference from something Khelif didn't say based on what the interviewer claimed to say. That is not a clear or direct statement at all to include on a BLP, especially for controversial content. But, heytrash bigot media is covering it, so there's that.Silverseren^C03:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It'sWP:RSPAFP so I wouldn't say it's "not supported in the slightest."Smokerton (talk)03:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Reporting on what is essentially gossip without a direct statement from the subject whose claimed word is being used, particularly on a controversial BLP subject matter, is a violation of BLP policy no matter how many reliable sources cover it.Silverseren^C03:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1M.Bitton (talk)03:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not even "without a direct statement from the subject whose claimed word is being used"... they've gone so far as toignore what the subject has actually said in other, more reliable sources because it contradicts them!aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)04:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is indeed another direct point to the whole discussion. The subject has made an explicit statement saying the exact opposite that is then being claimed by inference here. There is no BLP backed policy stance to say "well, we should show both viewpoints, the one the subject explicitly said and the one where we infer they claimed the opposite without saying so". That is exactly the sort of thing that BLP policy is meant to prevent, particularly on controversial subjects.Silverseren^C04:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And what do you say wrt the secondary AFP articles? Those are gold standard RS that make a clear factual assertion. Frankly, I'm not sure why we're even parsing what's been said in the various interviews.Riposte97 (talk)04:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of both A and B. The proposed inclusion is straightforward, reliably sourced, and based on Khelif's own statements. Opposition here seems based on speculation. —Megiddo101304:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Inclusion is based on speculation without a direct statement from the subject. Meanwhile, Khelifhas directly stated the opposite in explicit wording. Please actually give evidence of a direct statement by the subject on the matter rather than pushing a BLP violation based on claimed inferences because of something someone else said.Silverseren^C04:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely disagree with your assessment here but it's been hashed out ad nauseum above and don't feel the start from the beginning. —Megiddo101304:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying that but this is a BLP so can you please provide a source for that? The only thing I've seen that comes close it her statementI'm a woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman, and I am qualified. but none of this is contradicted by her saying she has SRY and it's a BLP violation for you to say it does. There is also the CNN interview where she said some report was false but it's unclear what she's referring to. She could be referring the the claimed leak of her medical records by Le Correspondant which says a lot more about her than simply that she has the SRY gene. BTW to be clear there is also a gensex issue here. While you are entitled to your views, Wikipedia is not the place for you to spread them. So if you believe a woman with SRY cannot be a "a woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman", then you need to stop letting your views influence your editing here or else you can get the fuck out of the gensex topic area.Nil Einne (talk)04:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also reliablesources havediscussed the possibility of Khelif having a DSD/intersex conditions for years, so this recent development isn't as big of a shift in our understanding as some are making it out to be. —Megiddo101304:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That second link, quite prominently, says Opinion at the top. When has an opinion piece ever been an RS for a BLP?Nil🥝04:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, there's clearly some confusion and contradiction regarding her comments. As this is a BLP, best course of action is always to omit contentious material until there is certainty.Nil🥝04:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I almost didn't respond since realistically it seems unlikely we're achieving consensus in this RfC any time soon and this is a potentially rapidly developing story such that a week from now the situation might be different so we can better assess then. But still the RfC is here. I feel given the sensitivity we should wait and see how the sources develop.Nil Einne (talk)04:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support B for sure, A mostly: The text in the AFP (France24) source is extremely clear:"Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.". It is based on the interview Khelif gave to L'Equipe, where she was interviewed in French and was asked a direction question, and she said "Yes". AFP is also French, so is Le Monde. The idea that there's a mistranslation is very unlikely, and based on no evidence whatsoever.

  There are two underlying interview sources here: CNN and L'Equipe. In the CNN interview, she does not say that she had the SRY gene. The reason is simple: she was never asked about it. But there is absolutely no contradiction anywhere in the CNN interview.

  When she is talking about "report not being clear", she is talking about old "reports online" which purportedly were based on some leaked tests. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. There is also no contradiction at all with the "born female" quote. That is referring to her gender in the social and legal sense; and is not relevant to the eligibility criteria. See section 2definitions.

  People are trying to create confusion where it does not exist. That said, I would not be averse to using a quote rather than stating the matter in wiki-voice. Though I would prefer the latter.

  Kingsindian ♝ ♚06:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion and yes to quote This provides evidence that refutes highly disputed claims on the page, it would be misleading / biased to not include it.Hi! (talk)06:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion (Option A and B): Multiple high-quality secondary sources - includingLe Monde,France 24, andAFP - explicitly report that the subject confirmed the presence of the SRY gene. Le Monde (Feb 5) states verbatim: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene." Arguments to exclude this based on the theory that she "misunderstood the question" or that her admission "doesn't make logical sense" rely entirely onWP:OR. We cannot reject the explicit interpretation of Tier-1 secondary sources in favor of our own personal analysis of the transcript or the subject's strategy. PerWP:V, we must reflect what reliable sources report. Given theWP:BLP context, the best approach is to include the information with clear attribution (e.g., "In an interview with L'Équipe, Khelif stated...").TR (talk)10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above,Wikipedia:No original research is not a policy that applies to talk pages. You state thatwe must reflect what reliable sources report, butWP:V states that"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" and that just because something may exist in a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it.Katzrockso (talk)17:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion and yes to quote - I'm amazed but somehow simultaneously not even surprised that we're having an RfC on whether to quote the subject of an article on the specific issue that made them globally famous. It has been public knowledge for well over a year that Khelif has XY sex genes, since the result of her most recent genetic test was leaked to the media (information that was repeatedly removed from this page). Now Khelif has clearly admitted it in an interview. Of course both this fact and the quote should be added to this article. Opposition to this has reached the frankly embarrassing stage, and we can only hope that fixing this page now will repair the damage done by having demonstrably false text here for over a year.Fig (talk)12:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's anWP:EXCEPTIONAL claim in context, in the sense that we would expect wall-to-wall coverage; a relatively tiny handful of breaking-news sources that merely quote the interview, in that context, is not sufficient and suggests that most major sources are approaching the interpretation of the quote people are arguing for here with caution. If this is accurate, it will quickly receive extensive coverage, but it hasn't received it yet - just searching for her on Google News, the story is almost totally absent from recent coverage (over the last few days). That's enough reason to be cautious and take our time with something that is plainly both BLP sensitive and exceptional. Additionally, I'd point out that much of the weight and interpretation people arguing for inclusion are trying to give the interview goeswildly beyond what it says even under the maximalist interpretation. In particular, in the interview, she flatly and unambiguously states that she is not trans, something that is reflected in every piece of the coverage thatdoes exist; yet people above are using this to try and argue or imply that she is, which contradicts all available sources without exception. This further shows why, in situations like this where an exceptional claim is only covered by a few sources, we wait for more in-depth secondary coverage before moving forwards. --Aquillion (talk)14:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is trying to argue or imply that Khelif is trans? Apart from the attempt to remove the line about 'No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender' (which should probably be changed to something like 'she is not transgender' because you do not need medical evidence to be trans) from the actual article, which has nothing to do with this RfC? Tewdar 14:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally dozens of editors on this very page (check the archives) and literally hundreds of right-wing activists, including the sitting president of the US.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read the dozen of comments in this talk page and I can't find anyone arguing that Imane is trans. Absolutely no one. Having a SRY gene is not incompatible with being a woman. She's a woman from birth.TR (talk)16:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One editor who was heavily involved in the above discussion removed content from the article page with an edit summary that heavily implies that she is male and transgender. That is obviously false and potentially a blp violation.LunaHasArrived (talk)17:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the archives. There's tons of them in there. They just lost the argument, so they're trying a different tactic by crowing about her having some DSD based on their preferred reading of a single word she said in a interview.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The controversy didn’t come out of nowhere and now we have several reliable sources covering this. It’s pretty basic.Mattnad (talk)
• Oppose. excellent arguments above from Aquillion and Silver seren about this being a truly exceptional claim. However I do think for going forward that the current wording about her not being transgender should be kept (she has reaffirmed this so removing it seems ridiculous) but we could probably add a small sentence about her reducing her testosterone levels for the Paris Olympics. Also notable is her reaffirmation that the previous leaks were false.LunaHasArrived (talk)14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording about Khelif not being transgender is responding to a claim thatnobody is making or has ever made. You will find some media outlets claiming that "people are accusing her of being transgender", but they never specify which people. It's a straw man to distract from the actual issue, and it always has been. The only accusations media and public figures have ever made is that Khelif has a male DSD and has been concealing it because it confers a substantial advantage in women's boxing.Thunderbird L17 (talk)22:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You can believe what you want, however many reliable sources and Khelif herself repeatedly report that she is not transgender so it would be a massive violation of npov to get rid of that statement.LunaHasArrived (talk)23:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I did not dispute that "they report she is not transgender". What I was pointing out isthey are not replying to any accusations by saying that. And the article as written is incredibly dishonest by raising a straw man accusation that nobody is making. The article responds to that instead of acknowledging that the accusations areactually about an undisclosed DSD conferring a male advantage.Thunderbird L17 (talk)23:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We need to adresse the elephant in the room here. I'm convinced there are neutral ways to convey the facts. I hope that some of the people who oppose this change will come back and propose good addendum and nuances. But this is a decent first step.Iluvalar (talk)20:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with attribution. The reader can make the inference "but she barely speaks French", or what she said isn't "logical". It's a quote from the subject, via a reliable source, relating to the topic which we spend two of the three lead paragraphs summarising.Jevansen (talk)21:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  or what she said isn't "logical" nobody said that.M.Bitton (talk)22:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion and yes to quote, Also, it should be mentioned in the lead (like in theCaster Semenya-article, and others like her),Huldra (talk)23:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perWP:SYNTH, andWP:NODEADLINE. Many supporters quote reliable sources saying: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene.", and pretty much everybody here (I think) agrees she said that. However, she did not say, "...and as you all know, the SRY gene occurs only on the Y chromosome" (and if she did, she is not an endocrinologist and thus not a reliable source for that statement). See the last paragraph ofChromosomal translocation#Role in disease. The mere fact that there is so much disagreement among editors should be enough to make it clear we do not yet understand the situation clearly, and we should avoid rushing in. Wikipedia isnot a newspaper; nothing is lost by waiting. Something could be lost by getting it wrong nowat a biography of a living person and having to correct it in a week or two.Mathglot (talk)05:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]