Women need to start boycotting sports

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not doing that, at all.

Your remarks are there for all to see. I'm content with allowing each individual to judge them for themselves.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

She never went through a male puberty or anything like that.

That is not what I have read says, nor is it what her picture clearly shows.

She doesn't have testicles.

Again, not what I have read.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is not what I have read says, nor is it what her picture clearly shows.

Again, not what I have read.

Oh, you have pictures of her testicles? If you have evidence, you need to post it. But this is just adding up to bigotry and ignorance about the female body so far.

 

[Koldo]

Your remarks are there for all to see. I'm content with allowing each individual to judge them for themselves.

Likewise.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, you have pictures of her testicles? If you have evidence, you need to post it. But this is just adding up to bigotry and ignorance about the female body so far.

We know that when someone is XY and born with a body that looks female on the outside, that they do not have ovaries. The ignorance here is your lack of knowledge about DID.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We know that when someone is XY and born with a body that looks female on the outside, that they do not have ovaries. The ignorance here is your lack of knowledge about DID.

Except it's not confirmed she has male chromosomes or that she doesn't have ovaries. It's a rumor without evidence for it. @Godobeyer posted a pic of her as a girl with her family in Algeria. You mean DSD, not DID. DID is something else entirely.

She may have some elevated testosterone levels but so what. So do women with conditions like PCOS. Again, no evidence for any of this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Except it's not confirmed she has male chromosomes

Yes it was. The response by the Olympic committee is simply to put their fingers in their ears and say, "We don't accept your tests."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes it was. The response by the Olympic committee is simply to put their fingers in their ears and say, "We don't accept your tests."

"Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, rumours surfaced on social media about her gender. These were fuelled by Khelif's disqualification from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA) after allegedly failing unspecified gender eligibility tests. This disqualification happened three days after Khelif defeated a previously unbeaten Russian prospect, thus restoring the Russian boxer's undefeated record. The IBA's Olympic status was later revoked due to governance issues as well as judging and refereeing corruption. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its Paris Boxing Unit stated Khelif was eligible to compete in the Olympics, and criticized the IBA's previous disqualification as "sudden and arbitrary" and taken "without any due process". No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published. Khelif was born female and identifies as female."

Imane Khelif - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They're saying it's probably a result of corruption. If she's a "man", it should be easy to prove with doctor's records. Again, you're expecting me to believe that Algerian Muslims raised a boy as a girl. Yeah, right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Also from Wikipedia:

The Algerian Olympic Committee (COA) defended Khelif, describing the reaction towards Khelif as "unethical targeting" and "baseless propaganda". The COA stated that they have taken all necessary measures to protect Khelif and her right to compete in the Olympics. The next day, Carini apologized to Khelif via the Italian newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport, stating, "All this controversy makes me sad [...] I'm sorry for my opponent, too. If the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision."

Khelif's father, in a statement to Sky Sports, stated, "My child is a girl. She was raised as a girl. She's a strong girl. I raised her to be hard-working and brave. She has a strong will to work and to train." At a news conference on 3 August 2024, IOC President Thomas Bach defended the participation of Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, saying, "There was never any doubt about them being a woman." He further reaffirmed that Khelif was born a woman and denounced hate speech against her."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To me, this is just bigotry against more masculine than average females who train hard and have some muscles, because the US is currently obsessed with trans people. Female bodybuilders must be men, too. The wrestler and bodybuilder, Chyna, was totally a man.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They're saying it's probably a result of corruption. If she's a "man", it should be easy to prove with doctor's records. Again, you're expecting me to believe that Algerian Muslims raised a boy as a girl. Yeah, right.

"This Olympics, the IOC has consistently indicated that when it comes to boxing it relies on the athlete’s passport, rather than any sort of genetic, hormonal or chromosome test, to determine gender classification."

Olympic boxing controversy: IBA fires back at IOC in chaotic news conference

While Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting are in the eye of this ever-expanding cultural storm, this story truly begins with the rift between the International Olympic Committee and the International Boxing Association.

sports.yahoo.com

Individuals with this form of DID are pretty universally raised as girls, although in some cultures, after they go through male puberty, their sex is redesignated as male.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"This Olympics, the IOC has consistently indicated that when it comes to boxing it relies on the athlete’s passport, rather than any sort of genetic, hormonal or chromosome test, to determine gender classification."

Olympic boxing controversy: IBA fires back at IOC in chaotic news conference

While Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting are in the eye of this ever-expanding cultural storm, this story truly begins with the rift between the International Olympic Committee and the International Boxing Association.

sports.yahoo.com

Individuals with this form of DID are pretty universally raised as girls, although in some cultures, after they go through male puberty, their sex is redesignated as male.

Again, it's DSD, not DID. Disorders of Sexual Development, not Disassociative Identity Disorder. That article doesn't clear up anything but just goes over the controversy in a general way.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again, it's DSD, not DID. Disorders of Sexual Development, not Disassociative Identity Disorder. That article doesn't clear up anything but just goes over the controversy in a general way.

OOOOPsie. sorry. It's habitual for me to type DID, because I am most often involved in psychological discussions, including DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). Now that you have made me aware that I'm mentally blipping, I will be far more cautious on this topic.

 

[GoodAttention]

If an athlete has a significant advantage over others, how should their participation on competitions be handled?

In a way that doesn't affect her rights as a human being.

Discussing whether Imane Khelif has a significant advantage is redundant if the answer is that they should be allowed to participate without any restrictions.

Excellent point.

 

[GoodAttention]

It’s the term the IOC uses to describe DSD.

Are you agreeing with me that the source you referred to fails to discuss DSD in any way, shape, or form?

Circulating testosterone is not the same as total advantage from male puberty + circulating testosterone.

And yet the IAAF will allow Castor Semeya to compete if she is able to lower her circulating testosterone.

Boxing advantage is much higher anyway as are all strength and throwing sports.

Look at world records for objective proof of this. Weightlifting for example is about 30%

On boxing:

But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males' average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females', with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman

Full study: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb...exual-dimorphism-in-human-arm-power-and-force

Do you have any studies conducted on people with DSD specifically?

Modern medicine knows that 5ARD biological males undergo a significant male puberty as they use testosterone in the same way. It is not androgen insensitivity.

Affected males still develop typical masculine features at puberty (deep voice, facial hair, muscle bulk) since most aspects of pubertal virilization are driven by testosterone, not DHT.

Anecdotally (but not insignificantly). Look at how over represented DSD athletes are in elite woman’s sports

Summary of expert views on p7 here.

"Individuals with 5-ARD have a performance advantage over 46 XX female athletes." [although they did not agree whether this level was the same as in typical males]

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Semenya_CAS_decision.pdf

The Prof Tucker referred to is the person who is on the linked podcast btw.

And yet the IAAF will allow Castor Semenya to participate if she can lower her circulating testosterone.

Plenty of studies exist showing male performance advantage, and plenty exist show that 5ARD males undergo a significant male puberty.

This is more true in strength sports than pure athletics, and arguably more true in boxing than pure strength sports.

It would thus be quite remarkable if this did not result in significant performance advantage, and thus risk, in boxing. The IOC has not offered any of this remarkable evidence.

Quite obviously the assumption should be that any male who has undergone male puberty gains a significant advantage unless shown otherwise

We don’t let weak heavyweights fight against lightweights because the assume an unfair advantage. We don’t need to prove it in every individual case.

Boxing needs to show with quality evidence, not inferences, that a significant advantage exists.

In fact, the onus is on the IBA to show this in context of the IAAF allowing Semenya Castor to participate if she can lower her circulating testosterone.

Yes, of course they are.

But their own guideline prioritise inclusion ahead of safety so they don’t care.

Inclusion already has a strong legal precedent and argument.

It would be moral suicide if the IOC didn't prioritize the ethical inclusion of the many over the questionable safety of a handful.

 

[Augustus]

Are you agreeing with me that the source you referred to fails to discuss DSD in any way, shape, or form?

It discusses male advantage. 5ARD males have normal male levels of testosterone, have undergone male puberty and are not androgen insensitive and are considered to have male advantage (either full or partial).

And yet the IAAF will allow Castor Semenya to participate if she can lower her circulating testosterone.

Imo that was an unscientific and medically unethical fudge. The worst of both worlds. It doesn't create fairness and forces unnecessary medical intervention onto reluctant parties.

Unfortunately there is no way to square the circle, you can allow people with male advantage to compete in women's sports but they will always have a significant advantage.

You have to choose fairness/safety or inclusion to be the main goal and then be honest about it

Boxing needs to show with quality evidence, not inferences, that a significant advantage exists.

In fact, the onus is on the IBA to show this in context of the IAAF allowing Semenya Castor to participate if she can lower her circulating testosterone.

This is entirely backwards. All of the quality evidence exists already. CAS has already ruled that significant ad

The only thing you are quibbling about is whether 5ARD male boxers benefit significantly from puberty.

Cavemen knew males had a performance advantage, by your logic, no one could assume there was significant male advantage until a sports scientist ran some lab tests. Until then it was just "inference".

The assumption is that a male with normal levels of testosterone, without androgen insensitivity and who has undergone male puberty with visible and measurable development of secondary sex characteristics and increased muscle mass has benefitted from male puberty.

All experts agreed that 5ARD led to athletic advantage v biological women. That DSD individuals are significantly overrepresented in women's sport, adds weight to this.

They did not agree if that was full benefit or reduced in some way. That there is some disagreement as to whether the benefit to athletic advantage is in the same range as other males makes it very unlikely that the benefit is so tiny that it doesn't contribute to a significant advantage.

Given we know typical male advantage in strength sports is 30%, and advantages in boxing likely to be even higher as shown in the punch strength study, they only need a small % of male advantage before the advantage becomes significant.

Thus there there is an overwhelming balance of probabilities that they have significant benefits from undergoing male puberty. Agreed?

Inclusion already has a strong legal precedent and argument.

Legal culpability for exposing people to risk which you are aware of, but are not being open about also has strong legal precedent and argument.

There are numerous current and settled legal cases about head injuries for which ruling bodies have been held responsible for as they did not do enough to prevent them.

It would be moral suicide if the IOC didn't prioritize the ethical inclusion of the many over the questionable safety of a handful.

What is your reasoning behind that? Why would it be "moral suicide" to prioritise the health and safety of the majority over inclusion for a tiny minority? Why do you consider such inclusion to be 'ethical'?

The many are the biological women, not the fraction of a percentage who are biologically male but were incorrectly assigned female at birth due to medical error.

To say the safety is "questionable" rests on some some very dubious logic, it is near certain unless all of the contemporary science is wrong.

1. 5ARD males have normal male levels of testosterone, are not androgen insensitive and undergo a significant male puberty
2. Many, especially in developing countries, are assigned female at birth due to medical error and raised female
3. On reaching puberty and developing the more masculine characteristics typical of male puberty, most socially transition to their biological sex (suggesting change is non-negligible).
4. All experts agree their male puberty gives them athletic advantage: some think identical to other males, others think it may possibly be reduced in some way.
5. Males have elite performance advantage ranging from 10-30%+ in sports due to both male puberty and circulating testosterone
6. This advantage is higher in strength based sports - world records show this clearly
7. Male punch advantage is very significant - the hardest hitting woman studied punched less hard than the weakest male in the cited study
8. Being hit significantly harder significantly increases the risk of injury

What would you say the increased risk is "questionable" rather than "highly probable"?

 

[GoodAttention]

It discusses male advantage. 5ARD males have normal male levels of testosterone, have undergone male puberty and are not androgen insensitive and are considered to have male advantage (either full or partial).

Considered is not observed.

The fact that you conclude any advantage is either "fullly" or "partial" means you accept the question is yet to be answered.

The reason the question hasn't been answered is because there is insufficient date to make the conclusion.

(1) Do people with DSD experience "full" or "partial" puberty?

Imo that was an unscientific and medically unethical fudge. The worst of both worlds. It doesn't create fairness and forces unnecessary medical intervention onto reluctant parties.

Unfortunately there is no way to square the circle, you can allow people with male advantage to compete in women's sports but they will always have a significant advantage.

You have to choose fairness/safety or inclusion to be the main goal and then be honest about it

Yes, but at least they came to a conclusion, which was quantifying the advantage for circulating testosterone at 3%, AND recognizing people with DSD to compete as women.

The IAAF gave an answer to the question that was specific for people with DSD and that was sufficient for a court to decide upon.

Ultimately our discussion is a legal one, the science provides support for one side or the other. Sometimes the worst of both worlds is the correct answer from a legal perspective.

(2) The IAAF considers people with DSD who undergo male puberty as women.

This is entirely backwards. All of the quality evidence exists already. CAS has already ruled that significant ad

The only thing you are quibbling about is whether 5ARD male boxers benefit significantly from puberty.

Cavemen knew males had a performance advantage, by your logic, no one could assume there was significant male advantage until a sports scientist ran some lab tests. Until then it was just "inference".

The IAAF and the Castor Semenya case sets the precedent on what will be considered, which is some form of scientific approach that is specific to DSD. IAAF did that, and whilst we can both agree that the processes in which they did is questionable, it was sufficient for CAS to accept.

Hence, this is now the benchmark, meaning IF boxing wants to put up a case for denying people with DSD to participate then they need to bring some reasoning. The reasoning NEEDS to be specific for people with DSD, NOT inferred from studies that discuss changes in puberty in a male population group that is too broad.

This is not my logic, this is how you would need to present your argument should you have to go to court and defend your position.

(3) The IAAF does not consider any advantage a person with DSD who experienced male puberty to be significant enough for exclusion.

The assumption is that a male with normal levels of testosterone, without androgen insensitivity and who has undergone male puberty with visible and measurable development of secondary sex characteristics and increased muscle mass has benefitted from male puberty.

All experts agreed that 5ARD led to athletic advantage v biological women. That DSD individuals are significantly overrepresented in women's sport, adds weight to this.

They did not agree if that was full benefit or reduced in some way. That there is some disagreement as to whether the benefit to athletic advantage is in the same range as other males makes it very unlikely that the benefit is so tiny that it doesn't contribute to a significant advantage.

I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from, which is, what happens when the question goes to court? Will assumptions and unanswered questions be accepted? I can guarentee they will not, so it is in everyones interests that such questions are answered to the best of everyones ability.

My point is, this is even more important now given the argument about some people with DSD undergoing male puberty is considered irrelevant by the IAAF as to whether they can be considered to compete as women.

This question has already been answered, which is YES they can.

(4) CAS has accepted the IAAF argument, and in doing so also recognizes that people with DSD who undergo puberty can be considered women.

Given we know typical male advantage in strength sports is 30%, and advantages in boxing likely to be even higher as shown in the punch strength study, they only need a small % of male advantage before the advantage becomes significant.

Thus there there is an overwhelming balance of probabilities that they have significant benefits from undergoing male puberty. Agreed?

I don't think you understand the black hole in your argument that needs to be filled, which is confirming that people who undergo "partial" male puberty will have the same linear advantages in strength as those who undergo "full" male puberty.

The assumption you are making is, partial is a percentage of full, therefore advantage must be a percentage also. This is a signficantly flawed argument, because there is no evidence to say that it should be considered correct, and especially when the IAAF considers there is NO advantage, or if there is any advantage, it is INSIGNIFICANT.

Remember, it doesn't matter if we think the IAAF science is wrong, because anyone who wants to defend against your balance of probabilities argument will only need to quote the IAAF, in addition to brining into question your theory about inferring percentage of advantage based on non-specific data sets.

(5) Does "partial" male puberty confer the same advantages noted in studies as "full" male puberty?

Legal culpability for exposing people to risk which you are aware of, but are not being open about also has strong legal precedent and argument.

There are numerous current and settled legal cases about head injuries for which ruling bodies have been held responsible for as they did not do enough to prevent them.



What is your reasoning behind that? Why would it be "moral suicide" to prioritise the health and safety of the majority over inclusion for a tiny minority? Why do you consider such inclusion to be 'ethical'?

The better way to describe my reasoning would be "legal suicide".

Inclusivity is the motto of the games, and the IOC has its own framework which prioritizes human rights. All humans.

Therefore, its legal liability is far, far higher to be exclude people based on assumptions and theories. The IOC would lose every day of the week. However the question about safety, and it is still a question, is a legal battle where their risk is far, far less.

(6) Does the IOC face more liability in a "class action" case regarding exclusion and human rights, or in a potential case or cases regarding personal injury in a boxing match?

The many are the biological women, not the fraction of a percentage who are biologically male but were incorrectly assigned female at birth due to medical error.

To say the safety is "questionable" rests on some some very dubious logic, it is near certain unless all of the contemporary science is wrong.

1. 5ARD males have normal male levels of testosterone, are not androgen insensitive and undergo a significant male puberty
2. Many, especially in developing countries, are assigned female at birth due to medical error and raised female
3. On reaching puberty and developing the more masculine characteristics typical of male puberty, most socially transition to their biological sex (suggesting change is non-negligible).
4. All experts agree their male puberty gives them athletic advantage: some think identical to other males, others think it may possibly be reduced in some way.
5. Males have elite performance advantage ranging from 10-30%+ in sports due to both male puberty and circulating testosterone
6. This advantage is higher in strength based sports - world records show this clearly
7. Male punch advantage is very significant - the hardest hitting woman studied punched less hard than the weakest male in the cited study
8. Being hit significantly harder significantly increases the risk of injury

What would you say the increased risk is "questionable" rather than "highly probable"?

Questionable because of the reason (5) I mentioned above, since I don't use balance of probabilities.

I would expect that all boxers understand they enter the sport at their own risk, regardless of who they are fighting.

 

[Augustus]

Does the IOC face more liability in a "class action" case regarding exclusion and human rights, or in a potential case or cases regarding personal injury in a boxing match?

Almost certainly the latter in a US court would be my guess.

Also, neither boxer challenged the judgement at CAS.

If it was a slam dunk easy win, I’m sure some lawyers would have seen a great opportunity to make a quick buck.

2) The IAAF considers people with DSD who undergo male puberty as women.

Gender ≠ sex

Unfortunately, the IOC says that sports should be treated on a case by case basis. What the IAAF judge is irrelevant to boxing per the IOC.

They say the governing bodies are best placed to make that decision.

They then engaged in a power struggle with the IBA and rejected their decision that biological sex is the key factor in eligibility.

Also, and again unfortunately for your argument, cas is a court of arbitration, which does not set legal precedent as litigation could, even within the cas system.

An arbiter is generally not obliged to follow similar cases as each case is bespoke and is an agreement between the consenting parties.

1) Do people with DSD experience "full" or "partial" puberty?

Whether it is full or partial, it is significant and confers athletic advantage as per the unanimous expert consensus.

Testosterone is fully available and at normal levels, only one component associated with genital development, DHT, is lacking.

The Overwhelming balance of probabilities is a significant advantage in boxing and thus a significantly increased risk.

The reasoning NEEDS to be specific for people with DSD, NOT inferred from studies that discuss changes in puberty in a male population group that is too broad

Why does it? What is your evidence that overwhelming balance of probability is insufficient reason to restrict participation on safety grounds?

A civil case for injury based on negligence would only require balance of probabilities.

(3) The IAAF does not consider any advantage a person with DSD who experienced male puberty to be significant enough for exclusion

If circulating testosterone is 3% of advantage you can just look at the world records to see the rest.

For the 800m the rest is around 8-9% for male puberty.

Even 1/3 of that would be significant.

I would expect that all boxers understand they enter the sport at their own risk, regardless of who they are fighting.

Same can be said of any sport. Didn’t protect their governing bodies from legal liability.

The assumption you are making is, partial is a percentage of full, therefore advantage must be a percentage also.

That is the assumption the experts are making. Significant make advantage whether directly proportional or not.

What do you personally consider most probable though?

 

[We Never Know]

I was reading today about the woman olympic boxer who walked off in pain after only 46 seconds and openly cried. This was not some pansy woman. She was a world class boxer. She was forced to compete against someone who had male chromosomes.

I can't blame her. I did Kung Fu for seven years at a school that had only two women, so we had no choice but to spar with men. I'll tell you, after seven years, I got pretty good, but never stopped taking a beating from the guys. After seven years, I was still scared to spar. They HURT me. I think I became a better sparrer because I was forced to spar with those far better than me. But was it a level playing field? Absolutely not.

I personally have absolutely nothing against trans women. I think in general, society need to be far more tolerant of them. But what's happening in women's sports takes it to an extreme that is insane.

Forcing women in sports to compete against biological males is not right. Males are not only stronger, but they have thicker bones, larger hearts, larger lungs, greater hemoglobin levels, and are taller and have longer limbs. There is no way that the best women can compete against the best men.

Dare I use the M word? Yes. This is misogyny. They are disappearing women.

View attachment 95003

Bulgarian Boxer Staneva’s ‘XX’ Sign After Losing To Lin Yu-Ting Escalates Olympic Gender Debate

Olympics gender storm escalates after boxer’s post-fight gesture

Olympics gender storm escalates after boxer’s post-fight gesture

www-foxsports-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

So they should mesure the hormone levels.
In this case what you suggest. Put her with male boxing?
Or ban her.
Or make it mixed sports and end all this discussion!
But sure most of medsls probably goes to males or women like Iman

She competed in the 2000 Tokyo games and didn't win any medals.