The Baseless and Inaccurate Attacks on an Algerian Female Boxer

[Subduction Zone]

The form of DSD hasn't been stated. It seems more likely to be 5ARD or PAIS.

The IBA has said it, the IOC (accidentally) confirmed it was DSD, when specifically questioned (by a Guardian journalist, so not exactly a right wing culture warrior) on male puberty regarding the 2 athletes the spokesperson tap danced around the issue and basically just said they are eligible based on passports. In another statement, they said the IBA test were unacceptable because they were 'arbitrary', not that they were wrong or carried out by an unaccredited lab. The fact is the tests were carried out in an accredited lab, and neither boxer disputed the test results.

The assumption of many well connected people in journalism and sport (none of whom are American or even notably conservative) seem to consider this most probable. Given the IBA has tested the athletes and knows the results, it's quite likely they have been leaked.

But as I said, it's not their fault and as they have not chosen to release the results people can always speculate.

The problem is not these 2 boxers, but the rules that allow biological males who have undergone basically a full male puberty to fight in women's boxing. Focus on these 2 kind of misses the point that the IOC are the ones responsible for unethical governance (imo at least) by exposing people to risk while trying to keep it hidden.

If you are interested in a discussion by a leading expert whois a professor of sports science and has been involved in creating international sporting regulations on this topic:

Paris 2024: Males Are About To Fight in Women's Boxing. How Did We Get Here? | The Real Science of Sport Podcast

Controversy in Paris as biological males compete in women's boxing and football. We explore the issues

shows.acast.com

It's a very interesting, balanced and scientific discussion and explains the situation in a very clear and rational manner. It has nothing to do with US domestic politics and no one involved is American if you are worried about that.



I'm not conflating anything, I just know what the rules are.

Swimming (and other sports like cycling) defines sex based on chromosomes and requires athletes to be tested for this to confirm eligibility. These 2 boxers would have to compete in male swimming events:

All athletes must certify their chromosomal sex with their Member Federation in order to be eligible for FINA competitions. Failure to do so, or provision of a false certification, will render the athlete ineligible. ... FINA reserves the right to include a chromosomal sex screen in its antidoping protocol to confirm such certification...

All male athletes, including athletes with 46 XY DSD, are eligible to compete in FINA competitions and to set FINA World Records in the men’s category, regardless of their legal gender, gender identity, or gender expression.

https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/06/19/525de003-51f4-47d3-8d5a-716dac5f77c7/FINA-INCLUSION-POLICY-AND-APPENDICES-FINAL-.pdf

The IBA lost its Olympic standings as a valid source for competition by how they could not even follow their own rules.

Meanwhile you did not support our claims properly at all. Did you forget what you claimed?

 

[Augustus]

The IBA lost its Olympic standings as a valid source for competition by how they could not even follow their own rules.

The IBA is certainly corrupt, as is the IOC.

The tests were done in accredited labs though and thus are independent of the IBA.

Neither boxer has challenged them despite it being an easy slam dunk win if the IBA are lying.

You can read the process here:

IBA clarifies the facts: the letter to the IOC regarding two ineligible boxers was sent and acknowledged

The International Boxing Association (IBA) has clarified the facts that led to the disqualification of two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Chinese Taipei. Imane Khelif has been participating in the IBA competitions since 2018, and Lin Yu-ting has competed since 2017. Cu...

www.iba.sport

Meanwhile you did not support our claims properly at all. Did you forget what you claimed?

Yes I did, you just didn’t read properly. I said most probable based on IOC statements (and other background information). I didn't say the IOC had explicitly stated it or that it was definitively proved, just the most probable.

1. The boxers are 46XY DSD per lab test. The IOC has not challenged this, they criticised the test for being 'arbitrary' but not that it was wrong or unaccredited. The boxers have not challenged this despite being disqualified on these grounds. they have legally accepted it (see above link)
2. The IOC accidentally said "it's not a DSD issue" then issued a formal correction to say they meant to say "it's not a transgender issue" (hence it is a DSD issue or they would have included that in the denial)
3. Other IOC statements keep emphasising they are eligible based on passports while tap-dancing around the question of male puberty. They could easily have said "We know of no athletes who have undergone male puberty" without breaking confidentiality. They didn't do this despite being directly asked it.
4. Even without this, contingent on an elite athlete being 46XY DSD, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is 5ARD or PAIS due to the athletic advantage they give, especially the former. It's no different from assuming that contingent on being an NBA player, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is you are tall.
5. Journalists and connected people seem to have had the information leaked to them. If you listen to the link I gave you, you can hear this being confirmed by a leading expert involved in high level sport, and a journalist from the most notoriously progressive newspaper in the UK.


I also said the focus on the 2 boxers misses the point that it is the rules that are the problem, not the boxers, and that they would have to compete as males in Olympic Swimming (and other sports)

Have you changed your mind in the sex screening being “useless” btw now you know it is being used in the Olympics?

Do you think biological males who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to fight women given we understand the risks involved in this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not playing this game with you.

There's no game. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

No idea why, but it's always like pulling teeth with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is not a trans issue or a US culture war issue.

It has basically been accepted by the IOC that they are biological males with DSDs, not females with high testosterone. Like Caster Semenya, they were probably assigned the wrong sex at birth, raised as girls then underwent male puberty.

While it’s very hard on them to be dragged through this in public, the IOC rules currently accept males who have gone through male puberty can fight females as long as their passport says female.

The problem is the lack of transparency in the IOC governance. It’s not the fault of the 2 boxers, but imo it is poor governance.

It’s better to look at the rules rather than individuals.

There are 2 options:

1. You say inclusion matters most and include people based on gender or legal identity.

2. You consider that female sport is a protected category, and that it is protected against male athletic advantage that results from both testosterone and puberty. If you do this you need to test for eligibility. Swimming already does this as part of the protocol that includes anti doping. It’s just a cheek swab.

As it is a subjective ethical judgement, your preference is up to you. If you favour the first, you need to be open and honest about the fact you accept a significant increase in risk of serious injury (or even death) to female boxers who fight those who have gone through male puberty. There is no win-win solution, no moral high ground of good and bad. Inclusion will increase life changing injuries and deaths in the long run. That’s just a fact based on what physics and biology tell us.

The level of strength difference between male and female is akin to the strength difference between a lightweight and heavyweight of the same sex. It wouldn’t be “fat phobic” to prevent a heavyweight fighting in the lightweight category, it would be a simple and very obvious safety consideration.

I personally think that the risk of life changing injury along with fairness makes the 2nd option more ethical.

That is my opinion and I can’t claim it is objectively right. I also think that it is unethical to tell female boxers they must accept the increased risk or they can’t enter the Olympics.

I certainly wouldn’t want any female I cared about fighting someone with male athletic advantage anyway.

There's been a ton of speculation about this woman's chromosomes and body parts and whatever else that we really don't actually know.

There is testing within the Olympics, and she passed. (This stuff isn't new to the Olympics either, check out how this kind of stuff went down in the 50's and 60's.) She passed the test for, and competed in the Tokyo Olympics as well (and incidentally, didn't win any medals that time around). She has fought and lost to other women on at least 4 other occasions.

I think this is a great illustration for the anti-trans types though, because it shows that biology is messy, which is what people like me have been saying all along. Human beings don't often fit neatly into little boxes. Women can have masculine traits and physical strength. Men can have feminine traits and have less physical strength. Some men have height advantages over other men. Some women have strength advantages over other women. Everyone at the Olympics has some sort of advantage over others that helped get them there in the first place. Michael Phelps body produces half the amount of lactic acid that an average body does, which allows him to have more endurance than most people, to swim longer distances. He also has unusually large hands and feet that help him swim faster. Should he be disqualified for having such an advantage that probably got him to the Olympics in the first place?

If you prioritise safety, she should be fighting males at a significantly lower level of competition.

How is that fair to her?

Safety is based on sex not gender identity.

If you prioritise inclusion she can fight whoever she likes.

Khelif is a woman. She has fought (and lost) to other women. She will probably continue to fight as a woman, because that's what she is.
Despite what people on the internet may want to say about her based on speculative internet rumours.

 

[Kathryn]

There's no game. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

No idea why, but it's always like pulling teeth with you.

I'm just stating facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just stating facts.

So was @SkepticThinker.
But her facts were integral to a conversation.
Yours seem disjointed.
They hint at meaning.

 

[Kathryn]

So was @SkepticThinker.
But her facts were integral to a conversation.
Yours seem disjointed.
They hint at meaning.

Sorry you see it that way.













Not really. I mean, not actually SORRY for anything.

 

[Mister Emu]

I had to talk to me nephew about this, she has lived as a woman her whole life and doesn't know anything else. Whatever DSD she apparently has, only matters in that it led to her life as a woman. While the idea of someone with male genetics in a women's fighting sport makes me somewhat uncomfortable, that is her place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The IBA is certainly corrupt, as is the IOC.

The tests were done in accredited labs though and thus are independent of the IBA.

Neither boxer has challenged them despite it being an easy slam dunk win if the IBA are lying.

You can read the process here:

IBA clarifies the facts: the letter to the IOC regarding two ineligible boxers was sent and acknowledged

The International Boxing Association (IBA) has clarified the facts that led to the disqualification of two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Chinese Taipei. Imane Khelif has been participating in the IBA competitions since 2018, and Lin Yu-ting has competed since 2017. Cu...

www.iba.sport

Yes I did, you just didn’t read properly. I said most probable based on IOC statements (and other background information). I didn't say the IOC had explicitly stated it or that it was definitively proved, just the most probable.

1. The boxers are 46XY DSD per lab test. The IOC has not challenged this, they criticised the test for being 'arbitrary' but not that it was wrong or unaccredited. The boxers have not challenged this despite being disqualified on these grounds. they have legally accepted it (see above link)
2. The IOC accidentally said "it's not a DSD issue" then issued a formal correction to say they meant to say "it's not a transgender issue" (hence it is a DSD issue or they would have included that in the denial)
3. Other IOC statements keep emphasising they are eligible based on passports while tap-dancing around the question of male puberty. They could easily have said "We know of no athletes who have undergone male puberty" without breaking confidentiality. They didn't do this despite being directly asked it.
4. Even without this, contingent on an elite athlete being 46XY DSD, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is 5ARD or PAIS due to the athletic advantage they give, especially the former. It's no different from assuming that contingent on being an NBA player, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is you are tall.
5. Journalists and connected people seem to have had the information leaked to them. If you listen to the link I gave you, you can hear this being confirmed by a leading expert involved in high level sport, and a journalist from the most notoriously progressive newspaper in the UK.


I also said the focus on the 2 boxers misses the point that it is the rules that are the problem, not the boxers, and that they would have to compete as males in Olympic Swimming (and other sports)

Have you changed your mind in the sex screening being “useless” btw now you know it is being used in the Olympics?

Do you think biological males who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to fight women given we understand the risks involved in this?

The IBA is certainly corrupt, as is the IOC.

The tests were done in accredited labs though and thus are independent of the IBA.

Neither boxer has challenged them despite it being an easy slam dunk win if the IBA are lying.

You can read the process here:

IBA clarifies the facts: the letter to the IOC regarding two ineligible boxers was sent and acknowledged

The International Boxing Association (IBA) has clarified the facts that led to the disqualification of two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Chinese Taipei. Imane Khelif has been participating in the IBA competitions since 2018, and Lin Yu-ting has competed since 2017. Cu...

www.iba.sport

Yes I did, you just didn’t read properly. I said most probable based on IOC statements (and other background information). I didn't say the IOC had explicitly stated it or that it was definitively proved, just the most probable.

1. The boxers are 46XY DSD per lab test. The IOC has not challenged this, they criticised the test for being 'arbitrary' but not that it was wrong or unaccredited. The boxers have not challenged this despite being disqualified on these grounds. they have legally accepted it (see above link)
2. The IOC accidentally said "it's not a DSD issue" then issued a formal correction to say they meant to say "it's not a transgender issue" (hence it is a DSD issue or they would have included that in the denial)
3. Other IOC statements keep emphasising they are eligible based on passports while tap-dancing around the question of male puberty. They could easily have said "We know of no athletes who have undergone male puberty" without breaking confidentiality. They didn't do this despite being directly asked it.
4. Even without this, contingent on an elite athlete being 46XY DSD, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is 5ARD or PAIS due to the athletic advantage they give, especially the former. It's no different from assuming that contingent on being an NBA player, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is you are tall.
5. Journalists and connected people seem to have had the information leaked to them. If you listen to the link I gave you, you can hear this being confirmed by a leading expert involved in high level sport, and a journalist from the most notoriously progressive newspaper in the UK.


I also said the focus on the 2 boxers misses the point that it is the rules that are the problem, not the boxers, and that they would have to compete as males in Olympic Swimming (and other sports)

Have you changed your mind in the sex screening being “useless” btw now you know it is being used in the Olympics?

Do you think biological males who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to fight women given we understand the risks involved in this?

Oh my, can you argue more like a creationist? You went to contested source for your "evidence". Here is an article from a neutral source that goes over why the IBA was disqualified. By the way, the IBA's problems were bigger than just this issue. Their improper actions in the case of the two female boxers were the last straw:

Imane Khelif gender eligibility test, explained: Why IOC doesn't recognize 'sudden and arbitrary' disqualification from IBA World Championship | Sporting News

Why controversial boxer Imane Khelif failed a gender eligibility test and why the IOC isn't recognizing it.

www.sportingnews.com

"
The IOC defended Khelif's eligibility amid the controversy, releasing a statement Thursday that declared, "Every person has the right to practice sport without discrimination."

The IOC reaffirmed that every boxer at the Olympics met eligibility requirements and, without naming Khelif, explained that the committee does not recognize the IBA's ban on the Algerian boxer and Taiwan's Lin Yu-Ting.

"The two athletes were the victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA," the IOC said, arguing that Khelif and Yu-Ting "were suddenly disqualified without any due process."

The IOC added that the IBA's decision was carried out by the organization's secretary general and CEO without any review. The IBA also didn't reveal specifics about the exact test Khelif failed."

Please note that the IBA has only made general claims of the tests that these boxers failed. The IOC says that they were not give any specifics. If you want more details from the IOC's perspective there is this long publication here:

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2023/06/2023-06-IOC-Comprehensive-Report-IBA.pdf

As to what Khelim has your claims were rather weak for it not being Swyer Syndrome. You need to remember she was identified at birth as a female. That means no visible male genitalia and visible female genitalia. Algeria is far from trans friendly. Her father genuinely believed her to be a girl. She was brought up as a girl. People with Swyer Syndrome do not go through puberty and her musculature is less developed than some female sprinters. From the experts that know best it sounds as if Swyer Syndrome is what she has. Do you need articles on that as well?

 

[Augustus]

Oh my, can you argue more like a creationist? You went to contested source for your "evidence".

Come on Answers in Genesis, you can do better than lazy ad hominem.

Do you dispute any of these facts:

1. There were 2 tests in 2 accredited labs, carried out on request by the governing body of a sport. (I accept both the IBA and IOC are corrupt organisations, but so are almost all global sporting bodies. That is why lab accreditation and the CAS exist).
2. The tests established the athletes were not eligible for the women's category
3. The IBA (like swimming, cycling, etc.) bases this on XX female, XY male
4. The results were communicated to the athletes
5. The athletes were offered the right to challenge these at the neutral Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. The CAS is a respected international legal institution not a corrupt IBA stooge.
6. Had it been a big mean Russian conspiracy to maliciously lie about the boxers and ruin their careers, the boxers could have objectively disproved it in a neutral court for free with a test easier than a covid PCR test, been reinstated, and probably sued the IBA for large quantities of money.
7. If the athletes did not challenge the tests/bans in CAS, they accepted them as legally binding and it would ruin much of their careers.
8. The athletes did not challenge the test and accepted them as legally binding.
9. Neither the athletes of the IOC have ever disputed the results of the tests or claimed that both boxers are XX, just that they are eligible (which they certainly are)

The IOC defended Khelif's eligibility amid the controversy, releasing a statement Thursday that declared, "Every person has the right to practice sport without discrimination."

The IOC reaffirmed that every boxer at the Olympics met eligibility requirements and, without naming Khelif, explained that the committee does not recognize the IBA's ban on the Algerian boxer and Taiwan's Lin Yu-Ting.

"The two athletes were the victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA," the IOC said, arguing that Khelif and Yu-Ting "were suddenly disqualified without any due process."

The IOC added that the IBA's decision was carried out by the organization's secretary general and CEO without any review. The IBA also didn't reveal specifics about the exact test Khelif failed."

Please note that the IBA has only made general claims of the tests that these boxers failed. The IOC says that they were not give any specifics. If you want more details from the IOC's perspective there is this long publication here:

Strange that you consider a legally binding decision, based on objective evidence that could have been challenged in a trusted court as 'contested "evidence"' yet you consider whatever a spokesman from the (also corrupt) IOC says to be neutral.

The idea they didn't have "due process" is objectively a lie btw. They could challenge the ban at CAS. Instead they accepted it. The IOC was given the same information as the boxers.

Is your argument that the boxers were not given any specifics yet chose to have their career ruined rather than make a simple challenge to the decision at CAS?

Again, prove they are XX, they overturn the ban, get their careers back and objectively get to prove a witch hunt against them carried out by malicious actors. They then get to sue the malicious actors, and would have lawyers lining up to do this pro-bono.

As to what Khelim has your claims were rather weak for it not being Swyer Syndrome. You need to remember she was identified at birth as a female. That means no visible male genitalia and visible female genitalia. Algeria is far from trans friendly. Her father genuinely believed her to be a girl. She was brought up as a girl. People with Swyer Syndrome do not go through puberty and her musculature is less developed than some female sprinters. From the experts that know best it sounds as if Swyer Syndrome is what she has. Do you need articles on that as well?

If she has Swyer Syndrome, you accept that the IBA test was indeed accurate and she was right to have been banned. She would also be ineligible for multiple women's sports at the Olympics. So why were you whining about contested "evidence"?

Again, all of the above can also apply to 5ARD or PAIS. No one here is saying she is trans. She was raised as a girl. Caster Semenya was also raised also raised as a girl as are many 5ARD or PAIS males. Most of them socially transition when they reach male puberty.

You need to make a case why it is more probable that it is Swyer, than 5ARD or PAIS though. Almost all XY DSD women's athletes are 5ARD or PAIS. The reasons for this are obvious.

Again, contingent on being an elite women's athlete and knowing that they are XY DSD, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is one of the forms that gives you a massive advantage. It is no different from assuming significantly above average height contingent on being an NBA player.

So why is Swyer more probable? What evidence are you basing this on? Being assigned female at birth and raised a girl objectively applies to all of them. Objectively, the forms that give massive advantage are much more common in elite women's athletes.

I did give you a link to a comprehensive discussion from one of the world's leading scientists on this topic who was an expert advisor to CAS regarding Semenya, was part of the World Rugby review into participation of those who had undergone male puberty in women's rugby, and is also a University Professor in sports science.

For some reason, I consider him to be a more reliable judge of the situation than you because you read a news article on the web.

Also, I repeatedly said the problem is the rules not the individuals, and that they have done nothing wrong.

Do you support the IOC in thinking that boxers who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to box women despite the fact we know this significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on Answers in Genesis, you can do better than lazy ad hominem.

Do you dispute any of these facts:

1. There were 2 tests in 2 accredited labs, carried out on request by the governing body of a sport. (I accept both the IBA and IOC are corrupt organisations, but so are almost all global sporting bodies. That is why lab accreditation and the CAS exist).

So what? Do you not understand how stupid this argument can be? You have no clue as to what the tests were. If they were just genetic tests, so what/

2. The tests established the athletes were not eligible for the women's category

You have not clue it they did that or not. They only made that claim. They never substantiated it.

3. The IBA (like swimming, cycling, etc.) bases this on XX female, XY male

Oh, then you admit that the test was flawed. Okay.

4. The results were communicated to the athletes

Again, so what?

5. The athletes were offered the right to challenge these at the neutral Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. The CAS is a respected international legal institution not a corrupt IBA stooge.

Were they? The way that I heard it the tests were in the middle of a competition. If they would have had to have waited months for a hearing. Those do not happen instantly.

6. Had it been a big mean Russian conspiracy to maliciously lie about the boxers and ruin their careers, the boxers could have objectively disproved it in a neutral court for free with a test easier than a covid PCR test, been reinstated, and probably sued the IBA for large quantities of money.

Again, the damage was done because they were removed from a tournament without the ability to appeal immediately.

7. If the athletes did not challenge the tests/bans in CAS, they accepted them as legally binding and it would ruin much of their careers.

And that is BS. Once again, that tournament was the one that mattered. If they won that would only have affected their ability to compete in future meets and they were worried about the Olympics.

8. The athletes did not challenge the test and accepted them as legally binding.

No, silence to an immoral ruling is not "accepting".

9. Neither the athletes of the IOC have ever disputed the results of the tests or claimed that both boxers are XX, just that they are eligible (which they certainly are)

Actually they did by going bringing their problems to the IOC and they found for them.



Strange that you consider a legally binding decision, based on objective evidence that could have been challenged in a trusted court as 'contested "evidence"' yet you consider whatever a spokesman from the (also corrupt) IOC says to be neutral.

Please you can do better than this.

The idea they didn't have "due process" is objectively a lie btw. They could challenge the ban at CAS. Instead they accepted it. The IOC was given the same information as the boxers.

That you think that they had due process is hilarious.

Is your argument that the boxers were not given any specifics yet chose to have their career ruined rather than make a simple challenge to the decision at CAS?

They did object. They did win. The IAB lost.

Again, prove they are XX, they overturn the ban, get their careers back and objectively get to prove a witch hunt against them carried out by malicious actors. They then get to sue the malicious actors, and would have lawyers lining up to do this pro-bono.

What? You have not been paying attention. By your standards you lost the debate since you never argued against the points that I brought up multiple times.

If she has Swyer Syndrome, you accept that the IBA test was indeed accurate and she was right to have been banned. She would also be ineligible for multiple women's sports at the Olympics. So why were you whining about contested "evidence"?

No, you in fact it is the other way around. You just admitted that the test was bogus if she has Swyer's Syndrome. The IBA already knew that just having XY chromosomes is not enough. You keep ignoring the arguments that refute you.

Again, all of the above can also apply to 5ARD or PAIS. No one here is saying she is trans. She was raised as a girl. Caster Semenya was also raised also raised as a girl as are many 5ARD or PAIS males. Most of them socially transition when they reach male puberty.

Except people with Swyer Syndrome do not go through male puberty. That was your assumption. That was what had to be shown and that was not the case.

You need to make a case why it is more probable that it is Swyer, than 5ARD or PAIS though. Almost all XY DSD women's athletes are 5ARD or PAIS. The reasons for this are obvious.

I already explained that for one of them. I did not check both, but then neither did you. In one male organs are present, though not well developed. In Swyer Syndrome they not only have no penis or testes, they have other organs as well. It is usually not detected until the people that have it do not go through puberty.

Again, contingent on being an elite women's athlete and knowing that they are XY DSD, the overwhelming balance of probabilities is one of the forms that gives you a massive advantage. It is no different from assuming significantly above average height contingent on being an NBA player.

So why is Swyer more probable? What evidence are you basing this on? Being assigned female at birth and raised a girl objectively applies to all of them. Objectively, the forms that give massive advantage are much more common in elite women's athletes.

I did give you a link to a comprehensive discussion from one of the world's leading scientists on this topic who was an expert advisor to CAS regarding Semenya, was part of the World Rugby review into participation of those who had undergone male puberty in women's rugby, and is also a University Professor in sports science.

For some reason, I consider him to be a more reliable judge of the situation than you because you read a news article on the web.

Also, I repeatedly said the problem is the rules not the individuals, and that they have done nothing wrong.

Do you support the IOC in thinking that boxers who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to box women despite the fact we know this significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries?

Enough of this BS. The reason that Sawyr Syndrome is not a problem is because they do not have a massive advantage. You yourself admitted that the tests were bogus (actually we have no idea what the tests were) but you make the error of assuming that an XY pairing is an automatic fail.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Imane Khelif is and has always been a biological female.

She has never been a biological female, because she has XY (male) chromosomes. She was assigned female at birth because individuals suffering from DSD look like girls at birth, and chromosome tests are not given to babies that look perfectly normal.

While the Olympic Committee complained that the genetic test was arbitrary, they never said it was inaccurate.

It is also interesting that the Olympic Committee refuses to do their own chromosomal test, but simply bases the athletes sex on what their Visa states. SMH.

 

[Augustus]

There's been a ton of speculation about this woman's chromosomes and body parts and whatever else that we really don't actually know.

We know she was banned for XY chromosomes and instead of proving it wrong at CAS, accepted it as legally binding regarding IBA competition.

There is testing within the Olympics, and she passed. (This stuff isn't new to the Olympics either, check out how this kind of stuff went down in the 50's and 60's.)

There is no eligibility screening for Olympic Boxing, just a passport check.

There is eligibility screening in swimming, cycling etc that she would have failed (unless you can think of a reason she would not have challenged the IBA decision at CAS if it was a malicious lie they invented)

Th testing is a cheek swab, nothing like the invasive and cruel stuff in the past. The vast majority of women athletes favour eligibility screening btw.

Do you think swimming and cycling are unscientific bigots for doing this test?

I think this is a great illustration for the anti-trans types though, because it shows that biology is messy, which is what people like me have been saying all along. Human beings don't often fit neatly into little boxes. Women can have masculine traits and physical strength. Men can have feminine traits and have less physical strength. Some men have height advantages over other men.

What I think is a great illustration is that nobody who favour inclusion over safety ever wants to accept the basic scientific fact that it massively increases the risk to boxers who have not undergone male puberty.

There is always some tap-dancing around a simple scientific truth regarding male advantage that was known to cavemen.

It's like "we are good and inclusive" and "you are bad and prejudiced".

Forget about the 2 boxers as they are innocent and largely irrelevant, do you support the IOC rules that accept biological males who have undergone a (near) full male puberty can fight in women's competition as long as their passport says female? Do you accept that this means a significant increase in risk to biological women, and that over time it guarantees more life changing injuries and eventually deaths?

All it requires to accept the above is the same level of knowledge as a caveman had and in modern terms relates to elementary aspects of biology and physics.

If people don't care about the increased risk they wish to expose others to, they should at least accept that is what they are arguing for. There is no way to square the circle. No win-win. Inclusion or safety is a simple choice.

Michael Phelps body produces half the amount of lactic acid that an average body does, which allows him to have more endurance than most people, to swim longer distances. He also has unusually large hands and feet that help him swim faster. Should he be disqualified for having such an advantage that probably got him to the Olympics in the first place?

The person with the biggest hands, feet, highest VO2 max, biggest muscles, etc. does not win the final. There is no trait you can use that will differentiate between elite male athletes at a discipline. The margin of victory is usually 1% or so. MP was not the best in all disciplines.

Put any elite male into an elite women's event and they will win so easily it will be ridiculous (excepting non-athletic or strength based disciplines). You can put an elite 15 year old boy in a women's event and he would win. You could predict the results with 100% accuracy every single time. MP would win every single women's swimming event without trying. He could probably win numerous non-swimming ones too.

No trait is remotely close to "has undergone male puberty".

Yours is an argument against elite female sport, not for inclusion.

Either you have a women's category and limit who can enter, or you have no women's sport. And this limit has to be more than "self-identifies as a woman".

How is that fair to her?

For the same reason it is fair for XY DSD swimmers and cyclists to have to compete in the men's category. For the same reason women's sports exists in the first place.

 

[Augustus]

The way that I heard it the tests were in the middle of a competition. If they would have had to have waited months for a hearing. Those do not happen instantly.

Jesus wept. It was a life ban if they didn't challenge

Choice 1: Legally accept a completely malicious and unfounded life ban from most competitions in the sport you love and are one of the best in the world at that you could overturn for free with a simple test while exposing the corruption of those that victimised you.

Choice 2: challenge the completely malicious and unfounded life ban by doing a simple test, being reinstated, receiving a world medal and being free to continue your career. You could then sue those who maliciously tried to ruin your career.

Come on *staff edit*, you really think it probable they chose 1?

You just admitted that the test was bogus if she has Swyer's Syndrome. The IBA already knew that just having XY chromosomes is not enough.

You are confusing yourself *staff edit*. Being XY is enough, as it is in swimming and cycling.

They did object. They did win. The IAB lost.

Again,*staff edit*. , they are banned from IBA competitions such as the world championships.

They are allowed in the Olympics because the rules are different and the only thing that matter is a passport.

I already explained that for one of them. I did not check both, but then neither did you. In one male organs are present, though not well developed. In Swyer Syndrome they not only have no penis or testes, they have other organs as well. It is usually not detected until the people that have it do not go through puberty.

Not an argument *staff edit*.

We know that those with Swyer, 5ARD and PAIS can all be assigned female at birth for the same reason. No visible male genitalia.

We also know, unless you want to continue to to go full creationist, that contingent on being an elite women's athlete with XY DSD, the overwhelming probability is one of the forms that gives massive advantage. You forgot to address that for some reason though.

If you don't understand why, think tall people and NBA.

You missed this bit again btw. Funny that.

I did give you a link to a comprehensive discussion from one of the world's leading scientists on this topic who was an expert advisor to CAS regarding Semenya, was part of the World Rugby review into participation of those who had undergone male puberty in women's rugby, and is also a University Professor in sports science.

For some reason, I consider him to be a more reliable judge of the situation than you because you read a news article on the web.

Also, I repeatedly said the problem is the rules not the individuals, and that they have done nothing wrong.

Do you support the IOC in thinking that boxers who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to box women despite the fact we know this significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus wept. It was a life ban if they didn't challenge

From the IBA, which had already shown their bias. That was not their goal. It looks as if the Olympics was their goal. If a crooked orgnaizaton wants you out it does not do much good to appeal.

Choice 1: Legally accept a completely malicious and unfounded life ban from most competitions in the sport you love and are one of the best in the world at that you could overturn for free with a simple test while exposing the corruption of those that victimised you.

Choice 2: challenge the completely malicious and unfounded life ban by doing a simple test, being reinstated, receiving a world medal and being free to continue your career. You could then sue those who maliciously tried to ruin your career.

Come on Answers in Genesis, you really think it probable they chose 1?



You are confusing yourself AIG. Being XY is enough, as it is in swimming and cycling.



Again, AIG, they are banned from IBA competitions such as the world championships.

They are allowed in the Olympics because the rules are different and the only thing that matter is a passport.



Not an argument AIG.

We know that those with Swyer, 5ARD and PAIS can all be assigned female at birth for the same reason. No visible male genitalia.

We also know, unless you want to continue to to go full creationist, that contingent on being an elite women's athlete with XY DSD, the overwhelming probability is one of the forms that gives massive advantage. You forgot to address that for some reason though.

If you don't understand why, think tall people and NBA.

You missed this bit again btw. Funny that.

I did give you a link to a comprehensive discussion from one of the world's leading scientists on this topic who was an expert advisor to CAS regarding Semenya, was part of the World Rugby review into participation of those who had undergone male puberty in women's rugby, and is also a University Professor in sports science.

For some reason, I consider him to be a more reliable judge of the situation than you because you read a news article on the web.

Also, I repeatedly said the problem is the rules not the individuals, and that they have done nothing wrong.

Do you support the IOC in thinking that boxers who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to box women despite the fact we know this significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries?

Oh my, hypocrisy and name calling. You lost. You never supported your claims properly. You are the one following a source that does not follow the science.

 

[Augustus]

From the IBA, which had already shown their bias. That was not their goal. It looks as if the Olympics was their goal. If a crooked orgnaizaton wants you out it does not do much good to appeal.

You’d win the Olympic gold for mental gymnastics certainly.

The appeal goes to CAS. The IBA can’t stop you. You win. 100% certainty. All it takes is a cheek swab.

Of course it does good to appeal a case that you are 100% certain to win that means you get your world titles and medals back, have your reputation restored, can continue your career in full without a flicker of suspicion and a global media circus, especially when you could then sue the person who tried to ruin your life with such a malicious lie about you failing multiple gender tests.

No progressive lawyers would help a brown woman being unfairly labelled a man by racist and sexist Russians pro bono. Nobody would donate and support her cause online.

Also it’s a strange risk to take for the IBA to assume neither boxer would appeal and they would objectively be proved wrong. Usually they just rig the judging of the fights if they want someone to win. Can’t appeal that to CAS with objective proof of corruption.

(And don’t forget the IOC is also a crooked organisation, that is not in doubt)

Oh my, hypocrisy and name calling. You lost. You never supported your claims properly. You are the one following a source that does not follow the science.

Sorry, just ignoring evidence out of ignorance and bias doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s what creationists do. They then say “well it’s not certain therefore every alternative is equally plausible.

You even think in most probable that they chose not to overturn a malicious lie that tarnishes their entire legacy and strips them of past achievements by doing a simple test.

What else did you get wrong?

You claimed XY isn’t enough for ban, it is. As it is in swimming, cycling, etc. at the Olympics.

You then said they are probably Swyer (which would support IBA tests being correct btw which kind of pisses on your own chips about how evil they are and why appealing is so pointless). even though we know with certainty that if an elite women athlete is XY almost certainly they are 5ARD or PAIS.

You thought they were Swyer due to no visible male genitalia, without realising this may also apply to PAIS and 5ARD.

You missed this bit again btw. Funny that. Creationists like to quibble and attack the person, but skip the science. They then claim victory based on satisfying their own sense of self.

As I am no expert, I have to rely on what experts say.

I did give you a link to a comprehensive discussion from one of the world's leading scientists on this topic who was an expert advisor to CAS regarding Semenya, was part of the World Rugby review into participation of those who had undergone male puberty in women's rugby, and is also a University Professor in sports science.

For some reason, I consider him to be a more reliable judge of the situation than you because you read a news article on the web.

Also, I repeatedly said the problem is the rules not the individuals, and that they have done nothing wrong.

Do you support the IOC in thinking that boxers who have undergone male puberty should be allowed to box women despite the fact we know this significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries?

 

[Augustus]

While the Olympic Committee complained that the genetic test was arbitrary, they never said it was inaccurate.

It was 2 tests, not just 1.

Done in approved labs which have been named

So if the IBA maliciously lied about the tests (despite knowing they could easily be proved corrupt and malicious liars at CAS), 2 labs in different countries also risked their accreditation and reputation by being complicit in such a feeble ruse.

I mean absent an explicit announcement you can say there remains a sliver of philosophical doubt. Stranger things have happened after all, but if one was looking to what the balance of probabilities say I’m amazed so many people find the “Russian conspiracy” to be the most plausible explanation of the known facts.

Also that if they are XY DSD that it is more probable that it is Swyer where they wouldn’t even undergo any form of male or female puberty without HRT, rather than one of the varieties where they get a massive advantage that makes it exponentially more likely they could become an elite women’s athlete.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Also that if they are XY DSD that it is more probable that it is Swyer where they wouldn’t even undergo any form of male or female puberty without HRT, rather than one of the varieties where they get a massive advantage that makes it exponentially more likely they could become an elite women’s athlete.

Here are the forms of XY DSD that include going through male puberty:

• Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)
• 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency
• Hypospadias
• Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is also interesting that the Olympic Committee refuses to do their own chromosomal test, but simply bases the athletes sex on what their Visa states. SMH.

I would have done the same hoping that there wouldn't be any commotion or lawsuits. I think most people would avoid getting involved if possible. It would be a hot potato. Imagine how complicated it would be to raise this as a subject before anything had happened? Typical bureaucratic thinking. Head down. Knees tucked. Iron smile. Why create problems for ones self?

 

[Augustus]

I would have done the same hoping that there wouldn't be any commotion or lawsuits. I think most people would avoid getting involved if possible. It would be a hot potato. Imagine how complicated it would be to raise this as a subject before anything had happened? Typical bureaucratic thinking. Head down. Knees tucked. Iron smile. Why create problems for ones self?

In swimming, all athletes have to register their chromosomal sex with their national federation.

They can then be tested at any point after.

This means they will be screened from the start of their career so there will be no high profile cases as they will be identified before they are famous.

For anyone with an undiagnosed DSD, this is far better than having it pointed out when tested at a major championship.

All athletes get drug tested anyway, which is more invasive than a cheek swab.