Well no, I think for me the statistical evidence is a new piece of information that has pushed me more towards accepting there is perhaps a sizeable advantage for intersex women over normal women on average.
I have no preconceptions or prejudices. I did not set out in this thread to 'prove' that Semenya has no advantage. I tried to go through and explore different avenues.
Under the torrent of assault against Semenya (mostly personal attacks) I found myself defending her. I was not trying too hard to be the voice of reason, that is your opinion. There is little 'common sense' to be had when talking about topics of scientific disagreement and poor research, such as the action of serum testosterone in people with androgen insensitivity.
Speculating how the Semenya may be affected by her condition is just that, speculation. Like I said, muscle mass (which lots have got caught up on here) is not conclusive evidence of an unfair athletic advantage; she has bigger muscles than most mid-d men and they are way faster. I personally believe if she lost some upper body mass she would be quicker still, but that is a different matter.
Of course, the question of what constitutes an unfair advantage is an ethical one. But it does have a scientific relevance in this case. The size of the advantage has to be determined, perhaps on an individual basis. It for sure will not be the same magnitude for all intersex women.
'Gender' (you mean sex) cannot be called the only accepted unfair advantage, for the reason that sex is a wide collection of attributes of which if we could properly pinpoint what makes males athletically better than females there would be no need for this discussion.
I don't think moving intersex women into the male category is the right thing to do. These people are not men, there is far more to being male than high T. Medically, they could easily be 90% female for example. And I think historically, this statement:
is a dangerous one.
It's going to be unfair for someone. Make it unfair for the significantly smaller population.
Whatever happens, the CAS ruling puts the IAAF in a difficult position. T may still be the answer but it needs to be proved. As it stands, this looks to be something that is just accepted until all the athletes make a big deal out of it. 12% is still small enough to ignore. The IAAF is good at pretending there aren't problems in their sport.