Women need to start boycotting sports

[Kathryn]

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

Maybe she sucks. Or maybe the Olympics are super hard. I mean, my ex husband was terrific as a high jumper and made the Olympic trials but never made the Olympics. He held all sorts of records at various schools too, including Clemson!

 

[Godobeyer]

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

Yes she defeated 9 times before.
It's was 2020 tokyo.
Also i think she joined box competition in USA.

Today it's told that she met italian boxers many times, and trained in same city in italy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

Sore loser with no sportsmanship. She should've been disqualified for throwing her down.

 

[GoodAttention]

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

What do you personally consider most probable though?

I think people with DSD who experience male puberty have a very difficult road ahead, regardless of the sport they want to compete in.

Knowing this, we should take steps to ensure that the answer that we hypothesize is also the best one.

Thank you for your discussion, I hope you found it as rewarding as I did.

 

[Augustus]

Knowing this, we should take steps to ensure that the answer that we hypothesize is also the best one.

There is no best answer, just a value judgement of whether inclusion for the few is worth the increased risk of life changing injuries to the many.

Thank you for your discussion, I hope you found it as rewarding as I did.

Thank you too, I enjoyed it

 

[Augustus]

Except it's not confirmed she has male chromosomes

Things that we know:

• She was assigned female at birth, raised as a girl and is perfectly eligible to box at the Olympics. She has done nothing wrong personally. She is not cheating.
• She has a DSD, basically confirmed by an IOC error
• Per the IBA, she was disqualified based on a chromosomal test, not testosterone so is XY.
• She accepted the results of this test when she could have challenged it in the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport and easily proved it wrong if it had been. It would be very strange if someone accepted being banned from a world final based on an obvious and very malicious lie.
• The IOC criticised the test for being "arbitrary" (which it perhaps was), but not for being unreliable or wrong.
• When explicitly asked by Sean Ingle, a Guardian journalist (as you probably know, that's easily the most progressive newspaper in the UK) "These athletes have a DSD, and they've gone through male puberty. Now, I understand that medical details are confidential, I guess. But conceptually, first of all, does the IOC think it's right that anyone who's gone through male puberty should be allowed to compete in the female category boxing whether the safety risks are high?", the IOC spokesman basically danced around it and didn't challenge anything in that statement. He just said they are eligible as their passport says female. Also, unless the journalist was confident in what he said (it likely has been leaked), he would be committing slander and would almost certainly get fired as he works at the Guardian which is notoriously "woke".
• If they have XY chromosomes, contingent on being elite athletes, by far the most probable DSDs are ones that involve male puberty.

Is there absolutely incontrovertible proof? No.

Is it by far the most likely explanation of the evidence? I would have to say it has to be.

I hope she wins as it must be very hard on her. and it will put even more of a spotlight on the IOC rules. They are the problem, not her. The IOC should change their rules for boxing to be in line with other sports. If she was a swimmer or cyclist, she would have to compete in male events (assuming XY). In the most dangerous event, she can compete in women's despite the science being unquestionable regarding the increased risks that this involves. This seems a very strange state of affairs.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Things that we know:

• She was assigned female at birth, raised as a girl and is perfectly eligible to box at the Olympics. She has done nothing wrong personally. She is not cheating.
• She has a DSD, basically confirmed by an IOC error
• Per the IBA, she was disqualified based on a chromosomal test, not testosterone so is XY.
• She accepted the results of this test when she could have challenged it in the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport and easily proved it wrong if it had been. It would be very strange if someone accepted being banned from a world final based on an obvious and very malicious lie.
• The IOC criticised the test for being "arbitrary" (which it perhaps was), but not for being unreliable or wrong.
• When explicitly asked by Sean Ingle, a Guardian journalist (as you probably know, that's easily the most progressive newspaper in the UK) "These athletes have a DSD, and they've gone through male puberty. Now, I understand that medical details are confidential, I guess. But conceptually, first of all, does the IOC think it's right that anyone who's gone through male puberty should be allowed to compete in the female category boxing whether the safety risks are high?", the IOC spokesman basically danced around it and didn't challenge anything in that statement. He just said they are eligible as their passport says female. Also, unless the journalist was confident in what he said (it likely has been leaked), he would be committing slander and would almost certainly get fired as he works at the Guardian which is notoriously "woke".
• If they have XY chromosomes, contingent on being elite athletes, by far the most probable DSDs are ones that involve male puberty.

Is there absolutely incontrovertible proof? No.

Is it by far the most likely explanation of the evidence? I would have to say it has to be.

I hope she wins as it must be very hard on her. and it will put even more of a spotlight on the IOC rules. They are the problem, not her. The IOC should change their rules for boxing to be in line with other sports. If she was a swimmer or cyclist, she would have to compete in male events (assuming XY). In the most dangerous event, she can compete in women's despite the science being unquestionable regarding the increased risks that this involves. This seems a very strange state of affairs.

It is interesting that the Olympic committee refuses to do a chromosome test. They want to base sex solely on the athlete's passport. SMH.

 

[Augustus]

It is interesting that the Olympic committee refuses to do a chromosome test. They want to base sex solely on the athlete's passport. SMH.

There was an interesting press conference when asked about allowing those who had undergone male puberty to fight women.

They said there was no one size fits all approach, and individual sports federations were best placed to choose eligibility rules.

They forgot to note that they were the ones and had explicitly rejected the IBA guidelines. They also forgot to address the fact that they trust Swimming, Cycling, Rugby, etc. to make their own eligibility rules based on the best evidence, and that these all decided that XY DSD lead to unfair advantage and so conduct eligibility screening chromosome tests.

Swimming:

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.

Yet for some reason, this advantage disappears in boxing, a sport where male advantage is probably at its biggest, and where the risks are certainly the greatest.

What I find most disingenuous is people who refuse to accept a simple scientific fact: allowing biological males to fight females as the current rules allow significantly increase the risk of life changing injuries and death. If boxing is conducted under these rules, it is impossible that we do not see an increased number of life changing injuries.

If someone says "I feel it more ethical to subject all female boxers to increased risk of life changing injuries, than it is to exclude a biological male from the women's category" I would respect their honesty.

I would disagree, but it is a subjective moral judgement. Most seem to want to deny basic science and/or go on about Russia and Trump so they can feel good about how inclusive they are without accepting that other women suffering life changing injuries is a price they are happy to pay to for their ethical stance.

 

[icehorse]

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

Very well put.

 

[Kathryn]

It is interesting that the Olympic committee refuses to do a chromosome test. They want to base sex solely on the athlete's passport. SMH.

Which seems weird to me but oh well, I am not in charge.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which seems weird to me but oh well, I am not in charge.

IMHO, it's more than just weird. It's abusive to women athletes.

 

[Augustus]

Very well put.

It amazes me how few people can be intellectually honest about this.

There was this the other day:

President Thomas Bach said earlier on Friday that the IOC "does not like the uncertainty" but suggested there is not a "scientifically solid system" to "identify men and women".

There certainly is though, unless you only care about gender identity rather than sex.

You see it here too, maybe not all but most folk want to feel good about how inclusive they are, but this creates cognitive dissonance with the idea they are supporting an increase in brain injuries caused by males punching females.

So they focus on the feelings of the person, not the rules (and the controversy couldn’t exist unless males were allowed to fight females). Or they try to downplay male advantage with the “Michael Phelps has extra large feet so it’s all unfair” gambit or blame the Russians or the most callous which is to say “they understand it’s a dangerous sport” or some other displacement.

Basically any ad hoc reasoning that allows them to feel they are the ones “on the right side of history” and others are ignorant bigots rather than acknowledging they are advocating for a policy that guarantees life changing injuries resulting from males repeatedly punching females in the face, but the upside of inclusion is worth this cost.

 

[icehorse]

Here's a little more cognitive dissonance: