Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy's latest: "In deciding whether trans and intersex women should be allowed to compete as women, who has the burden of proof in the debate? The answer is clear: those who seek to exclude." No. If you want to change the status quo, the burden of proof...

...is on you. Secondly, here is the usual attempt to muddy the waters by including intersex people (whose sex characteristics are atypical) in the debate. We know the sex of transwomen and transmen. They are unhappy with the sex they were born with.

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) all clearly state that there is a human right to participate in competitive sport." No. What the IOC and CAS say about human rights and sport has...

... has no bearing on international human rights law. I cannot find any mention by the UNHRC that sport is a human right. Instead, there is the idea that you can use sport to further human rights in countries where these are not (fully) upheld. And

... doesn't not provide any citation for her claim about the UNHRC. What the IOC and CAS are saying is mere hyperbole.

"For the purposes of sport, trans and intersex women are considered fully female. Inclusion is the default." Not in UK and Australian law.