I've no answers here, I just don't want perceived fairness in elite sport to result in a worse society for people who don't fit the norm.
That's the dilemma. Not "fitting the norm" whether through having genetic conditions or being trans can come with sufficient problems that adding disqualification from elite women's sport might seem relatively trivial.
And anyway women's sport has generally been regarded as not really that big a deal, so what does it matter if a handful of competitors who have male genetic advantage are included for the sake of kindness, also sparing the indignities of testing?
At which point you'd probably want to hear from women, elite athletes or otherwise. Failing to tick any of these boxes I'll spare you my further deep thoughts...
So, I can't pick not using SRY testing? And I'm minimising harm in general? As it's only the IOC enforcing it for now, then only test the athletes they have direct say over. Don't make anyone else take the test beyond the ICO rules. If you want to compete at the olympics, you have to follow their rules.
I can see the logic in that - but I think Convert's point is - if you are an olympic hopeful perhaps expecting to go to your first olympics at ~20, you are probably joining an olympic development programme (all the olympic sports have them) at 15/16. They usually have another tier which feeds the development programme too. If you are going to be rejected from the Olympics is it better to find that out a few months before the games or actually to know when you would be entering the olympic development programme?
Now you are quite right to say, when do you stop - if the talent programme for the next tier down is very focussed on feeding the olympic programme why not test there? in some sports/disciplines almost the whole of the serious youth side of the competition seems to be directed at finding the next olympians (we can debate if that is healthy, but it is reality) in which case when do you test them?
I can see your point too - there are some toxic clubs / coaches where their desire to be linked to an olympic medalist (perhaps to compensate for their own less successful time) would mean that some might be tempted to do this even earlier when they first spot someone who looks like a future star.
You put that more eloquently than me.
My overriding point is that from my experience of those involved in elite sport, decision making will be driven by efficiency, not kindness. Elite sport is pretty ruthless after all and for the vast vast majority of young athletes who engage with it their last contact with it is being rejected and discarded. And there are plenty of sad stories about how that effected future lives regardless of the reason already.
But this feels like an issue so profound to the rest of these young people's lives that kindness in the way it is applied and the aftermath (however you make a judgment call, SYR screening or otherwise) should be the overriding emphasis. How do you engineer in kindness to a protocol most probably executed by people without a lot of it baked into their character traits. That could be about making judgment calls for when best to 'judge', it could be about mandated support for those impacted. It could be about working to change societal preconceptions at large to educate the bigots.