You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.
You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
There’s no innocent or guilt here.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.