US conservatives are in a remarkable lather over the results of a women's boxing match between an Algerian and an Italian. The Algerian is Imane Khelif, a journeyman welterweight with a lifetime record of 38-9, who suddenly might or might not be 100% female depending on who you listen to. Here's what happened.
Khelif was born and raised as a girl. She is not trans. No one argues about this.
On March 24, 2023, after reaching the finals of the IBA World Championships in New Delhi, Khelif was disqualified along with another boxer. The next day, the president of the IBA, Umar Kremlev, said: “Based on the results of DNA tests...it was proven that they have XY chromosomes.” No testosterone testing was done at the time, but more recently Kremlev said "There will be no athletes with high levels of testosterone competing in women's boxing championships." Nobody knows quite what this means.
According to IBA board minutes, both boxers had also tested male at the previous year's championships in Istanbul: "[George] Yerolimpos confirmed that IBA has the results from two independent laboratories in two different countries at its disposal, both of which indicate that the athletes do not meet one of the eligibility criteria to continue competing at the Championships."
Shortly afterward, Khelif filed an appeal but later dropped it. That made the IBA's decision legally binding. And since the International Olympic Committee has no gender rules of its own, deferring instead to each sport's governing body, that was that. Khelif wouldn't be able to compete at the Olympics.
Except for one thing: Thanks to a series of bribery and officiating scandals, the IOC broke off ties with the IBA in 2023. This meant that qualification for the Olympics defaulted to IOC rules, and there aren't any. They declared that both Khelif and the other boxer were eligible since they had no reason of their own to disqualify them.
So what's the deal? No one knows for sure. The IBA has been very cagey about what test they administered and has refused to clarify things. Nor have they explained why Khelif was allowed to compete in the first place if she had supposedly failed a test the year before.
Bottom line: The IBA says something is amiss, but it's too corrupt to be trusted and is refusing to provide any testing details. Plus Kremlev is sort of a known bigot who tweeted a couple of days ago that the Olympic Games are "outright sodomy." On the other hand, Khelif had the opportunity to appeal and decided not to. There are lots of possible reasons for this, but obviously one of them is that she knows she'd lose.
In any case, nobody seems to care very much about this except for Kremlev and Republicans in the US. The other boxers have just shrugged about it. It's not clear if we'll ever know more.
The Kremlin is like Disney. They know their demo--right wing republicans--and keep filling the trough that's always licked clean. They started, or stoked, that Last Supper nonsense and now this.
"In any case, nobody seems to care very much about this except for Kremlev and Republicans in the US"
And nobody should care. Nothing, absolutely nothing, hinges on who is allowed to play or win trophies in elite-level sports. It's by its very nature trivial. The whole thing is entertainment, so sure, have fun getting involved in it, but in the final calculus, this matters roughly the same as the debate about whether or not Marvel casing RDJ as Doctor Doom is a good move. It's like debating which Shakespeare play or episode of the Simpsons is "best": potentially an enjoyable pastime, but fundamentially unimportant.
Yet conservatives get all in a lather about trans people and sports. I'm convinced that it's just basically comfortable people choosing a new way to wave a red flag because what else are they going to have fun complaining about?
"And nobody should care. ..."
If liberals didn't care there would be no controversy, the conservative position would be adopted. So both sides care.
It’s possible that “both sides care” enough to bitch about it, and yet there could also be 100-200m people in the middle who don’t care about it at all. You know, like how 147 Yelp reviews of a restaurant in Amarillo, TX, might suggest that “both sides are bitterly divided on whether the food there is great or terrible”… while another 329,999,853 Americans have never even been to Amarillo, TX much less eaten at the restaurant. Most people would say “who the fuck cares if both sides deeply care” in that example, and the same might be true about Americans’ opinions on Italian-Algerian women’s boxing outcomes.
".. and the same might be true about Americans’ opinions on Italian-Algerian women’s boxing outcomes."
It's getting a lot of coverage if only 147 people care about it. I expect it is substantially more.
Coverage of and interest in an issue are quite often well correlated. But I would not assume the direction of causation. It can go either way.
No, the position is that nobody should care about it (it isn't actually bothersome to anyone unless you're a bigot) and therefore that there shouldn't be codified bigotry.
Notably, 'liberals' aren't in this mix. It's a woman who wants to compete, and the majority of her compatriots want her to compete.
They care about different things. As you well know and fuck off troll.
jimmy shear wants the left to unilaterally disarm, much as the head of the heritage foundation, kevin roberts, has promised a bloodless result to the new civil war (if the left allows it).
For people to say they “don’t care” does not mean allowing evil to have its way. …. In case I’m not clear, your position is not “conservative“, it’s evil.
Well, to the extent that one side cares that the existing rules are followed, and the other side cares that ZOMG TRANS with almost no evidence, then it's true that both sides care. But "care" doesn't mean the same thing for each side.
If I'm playing poker with you and you suddenly turn the table over and start shouting about "woke" art and how queens should be banned because they aren't really females (no reproductive organs, right?), then "both sides care," but it doesn't mean the same thing, right?
Gotta disagree. Elite-level sports matter a lot to a lot of people and they shape our images of ourselves individually and collectively. They are not trivial.
And yes, a lot of this particular thing is Conservatives waiving the bloody flag and trying to make a thing of something that should not really be a thing. But nonetheless, it is significant in that as tawdry and perhaps cynical as it is, it is part of the larger debate in our society about gender identification. Which is far from settled.
"Elite-level sports matter a lot to a lot of people and they shape our images of ourselves individually and collectively. They are not trivial."
Just because a lot of people enjoy a type of entertainment--and even enjoy using said entertainment to "shape [their] images"-- does not make that entertainment important. By all means, enjoy watching sports, enjoy chatting with folks about this or that olympic event, but don't pretend that any of it really matters, or that damn fools yammering about this or that contestant being sufficiently female to punch some other lady boxer are doing anything other than passing the time (whether they realize it or not).
At the end of the day, a small handful of elite freaks will have participated in some elite-freak athletic games, and an even smaller handful of them--none of whom you will ever meet--will get medals. Some people will have fun watching it (maybe even find it inspirational in some form or another), but there's nothing more fundamentally important about it than that.
Exactly. The correct reaction to Republicans being stupid about this shit is to just say "nobody fucking cares, shut the fuck up."
Nobody is being harmed here, ESPECIALLY in this case where it's pretty damn clear that it's all made up.
Well, the competitors do, and most of them don't want to be hamstrung by expensive and invasive testing regimes.
+1
That's why the previous testing standards were abandoned. And at the point where the middle school or high school age daughter of a conservative loudmouth is required to have a stranger examine her lady parts before being allowed to participate in a sporting event or enter a women's bathroom, the demand for "proof" will be modified.
FWIW, Wikipedia has a good entry on the history of sex verification and the problems with chromosome testing, as well as problems with androgen levels, etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports]
For a not inconsiderable number of people college sport scholarships are a key to an education. For elite level well why do we even have women's sports? Because physically even the most elite women cannot compete against men. Serena Williams for example would be completely unknown if tennis did not divide by sex. As a matter of policy yeah fine but its not trivial because sport isn't trivial.
Thank you for writing this up. I’ve been very confused about what the heck this was about
why thank kevin?
his post answered no questions. said nothing, really.
if anything, his embrace of the "ambiguity" of the situation only served to boost conservatives jaqqingoff over it.
You forgot to mention who won the match. I assume it was Khelif. Is she eligible to go forward? And what is the IBA (International Boxing Association, maybe)? And does the IBA have any credibility? And why are U.S. conservatives defending it?
And so on. Don't conservatives have anything better to do? They must lead dreary lives.
You forgot to mention who won the match.
Yes, Khelif won. The Italian boxer quit after 46 seconds. Today, she said that she didn't quit because of the intersex controversy, and that Khelif was a legitimate contender. Whether she's telling the truth about why she forfeited, who knows. Fortunately for the controversy mongers, the Hungarians have said they are going to protest her inclusion.
Is she eligible to go forward?
Yes. The IOC not only cleared her to compete, they have been very vocal the last couple of days loudly telling everyone that she is going to remain eligible.
And what is the IBA (International Boxing Association, maybe)?
Correct.
And does the IBA have any credibility?
The IBA makes FIFA look honest, fair, and above board. (If you don't know what FIFA is, it's the notoriously corrupt body that runs international soccer.)
And why are U.S. conservatives defending it?
Because it allows them to display their hatred for transpeople by pretending that they care about women's sports, despite the fact that this particular case has nothing to do with being trans.
Don't conservatives have anything better to do?
Probably not.
They must lead dreary lives.
They have children and are miserable.
Yes the other boxer quit 46 seconds in. She immediately butter into tears and yelled, “this is unjust”. Afterwards she said she’d never been hit so hard and that it wouldn’t have been safe for her to continue.
It’s tragic that all the work she has put in for the Olympics came a such and abrupt and unjust end.
Like in every 1-on-1 sport, fifty percent of those competing lose to a player of superior ability and/or luck. There's nothing "unjust" about it -- even Carini later took back what she said and apologized to Khelif. Carini really should be happy she didn't face one of the several boxers who had defeated Khelif in earlier matches.
All is well, a champion prevailed.
Think about it, this is what would have happened at Olympia.
Just like all those poor, poor swimmers Katy Ledecky left 10 seconds behind in her wake. Or all the female gymnasts Simone Biles absolutely wiped the floor with. Will no one think of *their* feelings?
As for Carini, as Mike Tyson once said, everyone thinks they know what they're doing until someone punches you in the face.
Such a tragedy for transphobes like you.
You'd think from the reactions that Khelif was undefeated and annihilates every woman she faces. Except, her record is actually 9-5, and she has only KO'ed five opponents. If Carini has never been hit that hard, she needs to face tougher competition before competing in the Olympics. (This also isn't the first time that Carini has quit a match inside the first two minutes.)
A former champion amateur boxer, Amy Broadhurst, had a tweet saying that Khelif is female, and is fine in competition. Some idiot responded by asking how Broadhurst would feel if she had to face Khelif and be outclassed. Someone else pointed out that Broadhurst has faced Khelif, beating her in the 2022 IBA championship.
Carini might have just been unlucky with the hit - people are saying she dropped her guard and allowed a stronger hit than normal to occur.
Part of the skill in boxing is not getting hit.
You are lying about what she yelled, Atticus.
Also, you support murderers and policies that raise the mortality rate during infancy and pregnancy.
No, he isn't.
When your defense in a boxing match is to keep your hands at or below shoulder level, the odds of getting punched in the face are very, very high. That's not unjust, that's boxing. As someone who has been punched in the face in a boxing ring, I have some knowledge of this.
the mary decker-slaney piece.
did the guidette take a fall for some conservative griftbucks?
The IBA, previously known as the AIBA (the first A dropped off when the stopped using french) was the governing body for international boxing til 2016. As Kevin mentions, they were suspended and then permanently kicked to the curb for overwhelming corruption.
"The other boxers have just shrugged about it"? Like the woman who forfeited, in tears, after less than two minutes in the ring with Khelif? Um, OK.
The shortest KO in women's boxing history is seven seconds.
Carini would later apologize for her actions and what she'd said earlier.
That says,
For the purpose of what?
The IBA is Russian, so they're obviously trying to cause trouble wherever they can, in whatever way they can.
Which again highlights my point of why the Olympics are a waste of time. If Russia and China can insert their chaos into it, the system only perpetuates a mechanism to spread disinfo/propaganda.
Khelif probably underwent male puberty. This person should not be competing against women. Here's an explainer. https://x.com/fondofbeetles/status/1819402288789590246?s=46&t=n5aT7rYlze2UgFxCg6_HqA
Note - this is also why the photo in the blog post is misleading. Khelif would have looked 100% female before puberty. After, different story.
If she were some type of terminator like boxer just pulverizing opponents this may have some merit, as it happened in reality her career has been pretty average, with no discernable great or even average power, so you and all the right wingers throwing a tantrum are just exposing how f'ing clueless and bigoted you are.
It's also worth nothing that this is the 2nd time in the Italian fighter's amateur career that she quits a fight within a minute or two of the fight starting. Getting punched in the nose can sting quite a bit even if done by someone with mild power, and some people just aren't cut out to tolerate that kind of discomfort or pain.
Khelif was born a woman, developed as a woman, and has been a woman all her life, and as is often the case, bigots just enjoy destroying the lives of people they've never met or know anything about just because they don't conform to some stupid preconcieved notion in their head.
Khelif's record or skill is not relevant. What's relevant is Khelif's maleness. Khelif experienced male puberty, with all of the physical advantages that confers.
Facts are not bigotry. Sports are segregated by sex. Khelif is male and should be barred from female sports.
What maleness? There is no evidence whatsoever of anything you claim. What male puberty?
Fact, she has been fighting since 2018 in IBA sanctioned tournaments and not once did they nor anyone else objected or accused her of not being female.
Fact, since 2019 the IBA corruption and favortism to fighters from certain nations (The IBA is Russian operated) became so high that they were not allowed to oversee boxing at the 2020 Olympics. When given the chance to reform and clean house allowing more transparency and accountability, they refused, which is why the IOC has now cut all ties with them.
Fact, as per the own IBA, both fighters passed all their required tests when they arrived in India for the 2023 tournament. During the tournament at the request of a nameless designate they conducted some unspecified testing for which they never provided any actual results. To this day they haven't even acknowledged the test done.
Fact, the decision to disqualify them came solely from the IBA CEO. After the fact he got the IBA board to agree with him providing no evidence of anything. No mention of what test was done, when, by whom, no mention of the person who requested it. They actually had to rewrite their rules to make this decision fit the action already taken.
Fact, the IBA CEO has changed his story about what test they failed. Originally he mentioned elevated testosterone, but then IBA said there was actually no testosterone test done. The only mention of XY chromosomes came from a comment he made on Telgram. At no point has he or IBA mentioned this in their official communications. They didn't even mention it in the meeting where the board ratified the CEO decision to disqualify them.
Your turn, what facts do you have?
I think you are confused about the definition of "evidence." Khalif's appearance is an element of evidence. So is the IBA's judgment. Why would they lie?
"We haven't observed every step of a chromosomal test" is not the same as "there is no evidence whatsoever."
Please point to which test was done, where, when, by whom, and what where the results.
Until you can answer each one of those, there is no evidence no matter what your bigoted behind thinks.
As I said elsewhere on this thread:
"No evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Evidence" is a cumulative process. Just because no one took video of a chromosomal test doesn't mean that people who observe the events can't conclude that male puberty isn't the most likely outcome in these cases.
This. The only “evidence” of Khelif having XY chromosomes is a single tweet by Kremlev, a Russian oligarch who controls the IBA. He personally disqualified Khelif after she defeated a Russian boxer in 2023, thus allowing the Russian to advance in her place. The probable reason she dropped her appeal was she realized that she’d be appealing to the same guy.
She's not a male. Look, if you're such an ignorant piece of shit that you can't be arsed to understand basic human biology and understand that sex is bimodal and not binary, I can't help you.
But I can say that people are born with lots of variations. For example, you were born with your head up your ass.
Actually there are 13 known configurations of X and Y according to genetics.org
Most people are XX or XY but there are monosomies (single X gene, single Y is nonviable), trisomies, tetrasomies, and pentasomies.
Hence, bimodal and not binary.
Sex is absolutely binary. Female = large slow gametes. Male = small fast gametes. There is no spectrum between ova and sperm. It's one or the other.
look, everybody, al campanis is here.
Sex is binary. There are two gametes, eggs and sperm. There is no intermediate gamete like a spegg or a sperg that allows for a spectrum of sexes. You can call me names all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you names, you horrid piece of shit. Anyway, intersex people exist. You can be born with characteristics that mix and match. Most people fall into buckets, but not everyone.
The bigger point I'd like to make here is that you have no fucking clue what this woman's genitalia looks like, but you're far too interested in strangers and their naughty bits.
You're a weird fucking weirdo.
Just go touch grass and stop thinking about strangers this way.
This isn't about genitalia, it's about genetics.
I find it difficult to imagine how a person who has neither a penis nor testicles could undergo "male puberty" regardless of how high that person's testosterone levels, given that male puberty involves such obvious markers as spontaneous penile erections and nocturnal emissions (wet dreams).
Given this boxer's chromosome makeup, menstruation also seems unlikely, so the puberty in question may not have been distinctively male or female.
Certain types of intersex conditions lead to the women having internal testicles.
The obstetrician that described this condition to me said such a person was an XY with no testosterone receptors. She also said that undescended testicles don't work, they will get infected and form an abscess that will kill the patient, so that they are removed right after birth, and the patient is described as a girl.
If one has no testosterone receptors, one cannot benefit from testosterone shots, for instance. If one has no testicles, one cannot produce T on one's own.
The IBA seems deeply suspect.
Have you actually seen any of these intersex athletes and how they move? Because if you had, you would realise that you are talking nonsense.
Their physique and their way of movement would immediately classify them as men if you didn't know anything else about them in advance. To suggest that the high testosterone levels have not affected their physical development is absurd. I'm not sure of the specific cases this doctor was talking about - but what he says is clearly false.
Your statement is bigoted nonsense.
The distinction between male and female is not bigotry.
But intentionally mislabelling the latter as the former is, hence why you keep getting called a bigot.
Wait, what? Classification as male depends not on sexual equipment or on chromosomes, but solely on "physique and way of movement?" That sounds oh-so-scientific. You would have been a big hit at the Marsha Blackburn-Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning.
the i like the way you move piece
The adrenal gland and other glans also produce testosterone. If she is like that south african runner, she would have functioning internal testicles. In that case she would have a mutation in an enzyme that activates testosterone during embryonic development. They would essentially largely go through the development process of a female embryo though the ovaries may still convert to testicles. She would also be taking testosterone supressents to get under the 10nmol/dL threshold to be eligible to compete.
The obstetrician that described this condition to me said such a person was an XY with no testosterone receptors.
What you are describing is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The rumors are that Khelif has a different form of being intersex, though, it needs repeated emphasis that rumors are all we have. The IBA refuses to provide any specifics, at all, as to why they disqualified her.
I'm not an expert on this, but I did do a bunch of research as I have a novel in which the protagonist has AIS.
She also said that undescended testicles don't work, they will get infected and form an abscess that will kill the patient, so that they are removed right after birth, and the patient is described as a girl.
Whether the testes work depends, again, on the specific type of intersex condition the individual has. In AIS, they produce testosterone just like normal testes. Then all of that testosterone just floats around the body doing nothing since it can't bind to anything.
Undescended testes do not mean automatic death. Rather, they have a fairly high probability of becoming cancerous. I do not know how it is treated in other forms of intersex, but those with Complete AIS generally have them removed at some point.
However, they are infrequently removed at birth, because it is rare for AIS or the form of intersexness that Khelif is rumored to have to be diagnosed at birth. It is generally not until at least puberty that is discovered, generally because the person never menstruates. Some individuals don't get diagnosed until much later, and it's undoubtedly the case that some never get diagnosed at all.
The IBA seems deeply suspect.
That much is true. There is no reason to trust the IBA on this, especially since they refuse to say what test was administered or what the results were. At this point, anyone, including Cressida and Atticus who claim to know anything is full of shit.
"It is generally not until at least puberty that is discovered, generally because the person never menstruates."
This bit also lends credence to the belief that the IBA is full of shit, as one of their requirements for female boxers is for them to provide historical data of menstruations, and both boxers they claim failed their undisclosed test had been fighting under their guidelines for years.
I'll repeat that we have no idea what specific intersex condition, if any that Khelif has. With some, menstruation still occurs.
But, yes, the IBA is full of shit, no matter what subject is being discussed.
"anyone who claims to know anything is full of shit"? That's pretty nihilistic. Facts exist separately of the IBA's reputation.
What facts? Put up.or shut up.
This is false. Undescended testes happen all the time, without surgical intervention, in XY intersex conditions. Depending on androgen sensitivity or insensitivity, the patient will undergo male puberty or not. Plenty of these patients are androgen insensitive and develop with a female external phenotype. There would be no issue with such a person competing in female sports, because no male puberty occurred.
from the tweet:
“That’s why they shouldn’t be in female categories. It’s got precisely nothing to do with their external genitalia and what their paperwork says.”
oh really? what an interesting conclusion.
Conservatives one day: "Sex is sex! You're born with a dick or you're not! That settles it!"
Conservatives the next day: "Sex organs don't matter! It's all about testosterone! Or something argle bargle!"
What they really mean: "Some of these female athletes fail to give me wood, so we should ban them!"
or, they give them too much wood.
There is no evidence that she underwent male puberty. Contrary to Kevin's claim there are no rules, the actual rules require female boxers to have testosterone levels less than 10ng/dL during competition and in the 12 months lead up to competition. The lower level for healthy males is 300 ng/dL. So unless she is taking testosterone suppressors, and there is no evidence she is, she couldn't have gone through male puberty.
Kevin is correct that there are no rules on testosterone levels for boxing in the Olympics. The limit you describe is the one that the IBA publishes, and apparently enforces arbitrarily. The IOC itself has no rules, because it leaves that to the governing bodies of each sport. (Yes, this means that the standards are different for different sports in the Olympics.)
Because the IOC, justifiably, stripped the IBA of any place in the Olympics, the IBA limit does not apply. The IOC has not passed any regulations for the case of a sport that effectively has no sanctioning body, though I suspect that will change. The only de jure requirement is to compete as a woman is that you are listed as a woman on your passport.
This isn't about testosterone levels, it's about genetics.
Your citation is a whackadoodle who is simply making crap up.
[tell me you know nothing about this topic without telling me you know nothing about this topic]
Liar and bigot. And we shouldn't have links to hateful speculation.
Hostages make videos claiming they are being treated just fine. I'd be skeptical about the motives behind Carini's apology.
maybe she recanted after the check from the altright scumbag who connived her abandonment cleared. or didn't.
There are lots of possible reasons for this, but obviously one of them is that she knows she'd lose.
Whether or not she would lose an appeal isn't the relevant question. It's whether intersex athletes should be treated as being the sex they've spent their entire lives being treated as.
If you've undergone male puberty, you are male. "be treated as" ≠ "be"
There's zero evidence she underwent male puberty.
Also according to all you miserable bigots what matters is the equipment you are born with, as the never ending criticisms of trans people demonstrate every day.
No, no. The only times that insisting that they be categorized according to their original appearance is when doing so makes their life more difficult. If it makes their life more difficult to declare that they are not categorized by their original appearance, then they are not so categorized.
the gonadal addendum to wilhoit's law.
Have you actually ever seen any of these intersex athletes? If you had, what you say would be clearly absurd.
How the fuck do you know you've "seen" any intersex athletes if people can be intersex without telling you? What an ignorant fuckstick thing to say.
Have you? Please go ahead and list all of them.
And yet all legitimate scientists say that is a load of crap.
Notably, you're a bigot spouting nonsense.
You keep talking about "male puberty". Could you please define that in nice clear operational terms, and explain how a person with female genitalia can undergo it?
It's an intersex condition, also known as a DSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency
That's fascinating, but doesn't answer the question.
I shouldn't have to read this article for you, but here's how it answers the question:
"Affected males exhibit a broad spectrum of presentation including atypical genitalia [such as] female-appearing"
and
"Virilization of genitalia with voice deepening, development of muscle mass occurs at puberty in affected males"
Why appeal a decision made by a private group that has no authority outside their own private competitions?
And where the appeal would be to the corrupt asshole who made the decision in the first place.
Well, J.K. Rowling has this all up in her face so the situation must be desperate.
She gotta do her weekly hatefest.
IMO, it's either misleading or disingenuous to exclusively measure Testosterone levels instead of also measuring Estrogen and total Androgen levels. Everything is relative; drawing conclusions based on limited information is like a blind man trying to determine the species of an animal by touching its ass.
I saw a cartoon a long time ago based on "the blind men and the elephant". One of the blind men did touch the elephants ass and has a horrified look on his face. The caption was: "An elephant is soft and mushy." I think the cartoonist was Sam Gross - a very apt name.
Khelif has fought in numerous bouts with other women and yes, has been defeated in a fair number of them, at least ten losses if memory serves.
That alone should end this "controversy."
No! This is not true - see my lower comment.
Yes, it is true she has lost multiple bouts to other women. Your comment doesn't address this.
https://www.unilad.com/news/sport/olympic-2024-paris-boxer-imane-khelif-nine-losses-817727-20240802
I don't know enough about these issues to expound on whether it could be potentially dangerous for "intersex competitors" (your term) to compete against female athletes. Maybe so!
I'm suggesting that what we know about this particular athlete—based on her recent competitive history—suggests she doesn't possess any unfair advantages.
You think about intersex athletes a lot I bet.
I do, but that's because I wrote a novel about one.
Idle observation here is that in many of our states, Khelif would be absolutely *required* to use women's facilities and compete in women's sports based on sex designated at birth, because that's a fundamental irreducible and unchangeable fact of human existence. And yet the kind of people responsible for those laws now say that isn't how these things should be decided and she isn't at all eligible to compete in women's sports. So simple-minded me is a little confused about what's fungible and when.
+1
This is why Mr Trump's total ban on Muslims entering America is such a virtuous idea. It will prevent sordid arguments like the one you've mentioned.
I found it very amusing that a boxer threw in the towel because her opponent hit her too hard and it wasn't fair. Mike Tyson's opponents could have tried the same ruse, but they were unconscious.
As far as I'm concerned, anything which brings the "sport" of boxing into disrepute is to be applauded. Go Imane!
Boxing isn’t something worthy of comment.
it's the sport of kings!
Kevin,
I'm sorry but you REALLY obviously haven't been following this. There are reasons to be concerned about the physical danger issue in intersex competitors in fighting sports. And this is not about trans - nobody ever said it was, it is about intersex competitors with two sets of genitals (XY not XX chromosones) and high testosterone levels and male muscular development. I've seen reports that they can punch with 50% more power than other competitors in their weight class. The question is "what are female categories for in elite sport?" - not "what gender do the competitors think they are?". They are two completely different questions. And the footballer ("soccer" for barbarians) Barbra Banda raises exactly the same issues.
Initially, *lots* of people argued she was trans, including JK Rowling and Charlie Kirk. That only fell apart after photos of her as a young girl surfaced and commentators pointed out the idea of Algeria sending a trans athlete to the Olympics is absurd.
There isn’t hard evidence that there is *anything* unique about Khelif. All we have is the word of a known bigot who coerced a disgraced organization into issuing an unconventional ban after Khelif had competed without complaint for years. That, and a lot of speculation from people like you.
Your “reports” that she can “punch with 50% more power than other competitors” are wholly invented. She’s never been tested in this manner, and if she had an advantage that significant, it would have been noticed by experts and commentators years ago. Her record isn’t extraordinary.
Literally no one actually involved with the competition is concerned about this—not the judges, the referees, or her fellow boxers—just amateur endocrinologists such as yourself. That alone should be enough to convince you to drop it.
I didn't invent that intersexual athletes (in general) can punch with up to 50% more power than XY women - I heard that on television - not sure of the source - but it was from a generally serious and reliable source - public German television. But if it is true, it is completely relevant. And you are avoiding the issue. If physical men can compete in women's sports - then why do we have women's sports categories? Specifics cases are not particularly relevant to the general question.
And remember a general rule is - what can be abused WILL be abused.
Again, you have no idea if she is, in fact, "intersexual."
"I heard on television--not sure of the source" isn't much better than inventing the claim yourself. There have been exactly zero serious studies on the relative punching power of "intersexual" boxers.
What makes you sure that other competitors are concerned? None have said so, and they've competed against Khelif for a decade without complaint or incident. Even the Italian woman who lost to Khelif has confessed that she regrets her earlier remarks and admits that of course Khelif should be allowed to compete. What gives you these secret insights into the unspoken feelings of elite level amateur boxers?
I heard on TV, not sure the source, that Jim B 55 enjoys the company of goats. If you know what I mean.
i heard that he's one of the men who stare at goatse.
I didn't invent that intersexual athletes (in general) can punch with up to 50% more power than XY women
The phrase "up to" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that first sentence.
And remember a general rule is - what can be abused WILL be abused.
I'm sure that we are going to have a tsunami of people making sure that they are born intersex so that they can compete in women's sports.
What uninformed people (like Kirk) with no knowledge say is not particularly relevant. And no other competitors ARE concerned. Just wait to after the games - before the events are concluded, nobody will want to talk about it (for what should be obvious reasons).
What you say is not particularly relevant, Jim, you're lying to cover for other liars,
JK Rowling never argued that Khalif was trans. Rowling opposes male people competing in women's sports.
If Khalif can't punch with the power of a male, that's on Khalif, but Khalif is male.
"There are reasons to be concerned about the physical danger issue in intersex competitors in fighting sports." That's a bald face lie. The amount of damage a male can do is pretty much the same whether hitting a female or another male. "nobody ever said it was" Actually just about 100% of foxnews viewer believe it is about trans. You seem to want to pretend that conservative media isn't 100% lies. " and high testosterone levels" The olympic boxing eligibility rules requires woman boxers to have 3% of the lower health limit for male testosterone in the 12 months preceding the competition. So your claim it is about dangerous high levels of testosterone is entirely because you are a dishonorable liar.
There is no evidence for this supposed danger, and bigots spouting nonsensical arguments who clearly know nothing about how broad the category 'intersex' really is add nothing to the conversation.
Indeed, in her 51 fights, Khelif has exactly 6 knockout victories. The idea that she is some sort of out-of-control wrecking machine is supported by no actual evidence.
And she's been defeated in the ring nine times! All nine times by women (obviously).
Huh look at that, Kevin’s been transphobic in the past, and now his comments are infested with transphobe conspiracy theorists. I’m shocked to find gambling going on here.
the tuesday lunch at the panera in irvine piece.
And - just in case somebody doesn't understand what I am saying in terms of policy.
1. This is only relevant for elite sport
2. International Sport bodies should decide the rules not governments.
And to make a suggestion that may be clear - either a testosterone limit or a chromosome test (or both) seem to be sensible possibilities with modern technology. But, it is about time there was a properly testable and definitive definition of the female category decided upon. Before this escalates. The current situation cannot continue. (And maybe the "men's" category could become an all other's category.) Nobody should be completely excluded.
They are subject to testosterone limits during and for the 12 months preceeding the competition. The testosterone limit that these boxers are subject to is 10ng/dL. The normal male range is 300-1000ng/dL
Which is a ridiculously low limit, by the way.
I have a counter offer:
Go fuck yourself and stop obsessing about other people's genitals.
Dumbasses like this guy sound exactly like the turds who argued against black athletes being allowed to compete.
Yes, that's exactly comparable. [eyeroll]
the fast twitch muscles piece.
1. This is only relevant for elite sport
This reveals that your claims to be concerned about safety are bullshit. If it was danger to women that really motivates you, you would be more concerned about that danger at lower levels of competition. That you are not means that you are a bigot trying to obscure that you are.
2. International Sport bodies should decide the rules not governments.
Then it's a good thing that the governing bodies of each sport set the rules, and governments have nothing to do with it. If you do not understand this, you have no business commenting on this thread.
If he was concerned about danger he'd be objecting to boxing at all.
It's been a long time since I've seen such drivel posted by people who know little or nothing about a subject. If only we had some kind of information superhighway where one could easily obtain information by just searching, say, "female with xy chromosomes".
The most common form of this is Swyer syndrome, but there are others. I'm not going to bother posting a complete description. Look it up.
There's a whole bunch, from chimerism in genetic traits to differing numbers of pairs. And additional testosterone may or may not come from that at all, as while gonadal hormones is the major source it's not the only source on the body.
Add to that there are conditions which reduce the effects of specific hormones as well, such as androgen insensitivity, which is why average human hormone levels do not match up directly to hormone levels and expressed features on an individual basis.
I think conservatives are simply trying to force liberals into positions many will find indefensible, such as that growing up as a boy does not confer unfair advantages in sports above those who grew up as girls, or that it's enough to wear a dress and say "I'm a woman, dear" to compete in women's sports.
Just don't take the bait. It shouldn't be political football (no pun intended) anyway. Transgender participation in sports is a complicated matter best left to sporting organizations. And when those are international, national politicians have nothing to say. If the IOC wants to organize a swim contest between people having a mole on their little toe, it is free to do so.
I think what we know about this is that the IBA is a Russian organization that is just trying to fuck with Algeria because Algeria opposes Russian interventions in Africa, and this is exactly the kind of carefully focused single-issue hysteria mongering that's characteristic of Russian propaganda campaigns.
I think that's entirely the issue here.
+1
"Shortly afterward, Khelif filed an appeal but later dropped it. That made the IBA's decision legally binding."The IBA hasn't been the international governing body for boxing since 2016. They were removed for massive levels of corruption. So no ruling by this body has any impact on the olympics. "And since the International Olympic Committee has no gender rules of its own" (it has recommendations which are binding when no international governing body, as in this case, exists) "deferring instead to each sport's governing body, that was that. Khelif wouldn't be able to compete at the Olympics." 100% false. " IOC broke off ties with the IBA in 2023. " It has been since 2016b that the IBA ceased to be in charge of international boxing. (They were only indefinitely suspended between 2016 and 2023, but the suspension was resolved into an permanent ban in 2023.
I think I went through three male puberties, just as a reference point.
I went through one every time I saw Mrs. Peel in "The Avengers".
Felt the same way about Wanda Maximoff. Just something about her.
Me too. …. “We’re needed.”
One of my siblings has an in-law that I see on Facebook, and that in-law's reaction I think sums up a good fraction of the conservative on line reaction to this. She's outraged by Khelif's presence in the games, because it takes away spots from deserving, "real" women, like her daughter who plays collegiate softball. God bless Trump, because he's going to put a stop to men playing women's sports!
(She hasn't yet realized that her daughter is a lesbian; that's going to be interesting when she finally figures that out.)
Now, how an Algerian Olympian in boxing affects a college student on a softball scholarship at a 2nd Tier program, I'm not sure. But it does.
Just like immigrants are taking our jobs. The immigrants who cut my lawn each week are just taking jobs from some 'merican! that would do it instead. It's all a zero sum game. I don't got me mine, because some freak got it instead!
Maybe this all has more to do with a young woman boxer (!) who is a person of color and may possibly be Muslim? Those possibilities are enough to get the R’s exercised. If there is anything unfair about all this, it’s the rush to “other” her to discount her abilities. She and her family must be very upset by all the loose talk about her. It not only degrades her as an athlete and a person, it also makes her a target for Muslim extremists.
i also think it's the trans last supper foofaraw not taking off.
this is just more spaghetti on the wall by american reactionaries & their allies in europe (viki orban, sweet giorgia blackshirt. putin).
"Maybe this all has more to do with a young woman boxer (!) who is a person of color and may possibly be Muslim?"
I think there is definitely a racial component to this. The IBA had disqualified 2 boxers at that 2023 tournament, Khelif from Algeria, and Yu-Ting from Taiwan. Yet the ire of rightwingers and bigots focused on the Algerian fighter because she dared to make the white Italian boxer cry who then quickly started the "I was afraid for my life" excuses immediately after she lost.
And she probably was! She screwed up and got hit hard. Sometimes you gotta know when to throw in the cards.
...and with boxing, you're betting with your brain, which is why I prefer cards.
During the last round of intersex hysteria at the Olympics, it was exclusively African and Indian runners who were targeted. The IAAF, the governing body for track and field, put into place testosterone limits and said that, in order to compete, a woman had to have a testosterone level below 5 nmol/L. If they were over that, they needed to take testosterone reducers. They later changed it so that only intersex women had to meet this target.
But, oddly enough, out of all of the events the IAAF governs, the only ones this applies to just happen to be the events that Caster Semenya competes in: running between 400 and 1600 meters. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
These comments are almost uniformly appallingly ignorant. Please read this, folks: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/a-simple-cheek-swab-can-protect-female-boxers-0fkdgv6st#selection-2343.0-2343.178
Also: Lefties (and I am one) should really reconsider throwing around rhetoric like "you bigoted piece of shit." It's bullying and it's unpersuasive.
There's a reason people around here have been calling you a bigoted POS. Let me explain:
I have often told Republicans that if they find out that the people sitting next to them at a Trump rally are white supremacists, that should make them reconsider whether they have chosen the correct side.
I, myself, support trans rights in every area EXCEPT sports. I have argued, quite recently, that trans women should not be allowed to compete against cis women. But who do I see making that argument here? You, Atticus, and Jim B 55.
And now I am reconsidering whether I have chosen the correct side.
Nothing in the case is about trans people, but please continue to fall all over yourself demonstrating how virtuous you are.
Heh. And here you are pretending trans and DSDs are totally separate issues. Your track record discussing trans issues is well-known around here - it is why people call you a bigot - and your commentary on DSDs is totally predictable based on your trans positions.
Your commentary really has made me reconsider my position on trans women in sports.
Do you actually calibrate your positions in relation to commenters on Jabberwocking? That's something, I guess.
I'm not *pretending* anything: trans and DSDs are not the same thing.
Protect them from... what, though? There's no evidence that 'a simple cheek swab' is accurate enough to not have false positives. There's no evidence that there are any athletes in any danger since there's so few intersex athletes in the first place! Let alone any doing so much better or harder at the sport to signify a danger at all.
The cheek swab is a necessary first step. There are XY conditions that don't cause a male advantage, but the swab would put in motion the needed testing to ensure fairness.
I recommend highly this primer.
https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/?ref=quillette-weekly-newsletter
The key question to my mind is the type of DSD, if any, that Khelif and Lin Yu-ting have. Here's how I would frame the issue, FWIW:
1.) The distinction between male and female sex categories is important and just. This distinction creates a space for fair competition among folks who have not experienced puberty in which the key androgen is testosterone (male puberty for short).
2.) The key issue is whether Khelif and/or Lin Yu-ting have realized the sports-advantage of male puberty. If they have, it would be unfair for them to compete in the women's category.
3.) A key qualification is that a necessary condition of realizing the sports-advantage of male puberty is a threshold level of receptivity to testosterone.
4.) There are DSDs in which a person lacks characteristically male genitalia at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone at typical male levels and is fully receptive to the effects of testosterone. E.g. 5-ARD
5.) The claim is that Khelif and Yiu-ting have a DSD of the kind described in 4. So, they might well have believed for much of theiir life that they are female, but nonetheless they have experienced the advantages of male puberty.
6.) If 5 is true, it would be unfair to allow them to compete in the women's category.
7.) Kevin is right that we don't have clear public evidence that they are male. Ditto for what I take to be the key issue: Did they realize the sports-advantage of male puberty?
Anyone who says 'male puberty' is this way is a bigot who knows nothing about the topic.
Because it's a meaningless phrase that will drop on a dime.
There is no evidence Khelif or Yu-ting underwent 'male puberty'. There's no evidence provided of a failed test, either, since the IBA didn't reveal it, and only challenged her after she won her match. And even if they could fail a testosterone or genetic test - and they are not the same nor mutually fungible - that doesn't mean they went through a 'male puberty'.
So your statements are inconsistent and bigoted.
What do you mean it is a meaningless phrase that will drop on a dime? I attempted a definition above? Is that meaningless, what's wrong about it. Namely, it is the puberty where the key androgen is testosterone. I refer to it as male puberty because, except in a very small percentage of cases, any human biological male (someone whose reproductive system is oriented toward small rather than large gametes) goes through puberty of this kind.
Where have I gone wrong?
On your point about evidence,, I explicitly noted that there isn't public evidence on this very question. So we agree there.
"Male puberty" is not a meaningless phrase. You can toss around the word "bigot" all you want, but androgen sensitivity leads to athletic advantage.
And "no evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Evidence" is a cumulative process. Just because no one took video of a chromosomal test doesn't mean that people who observe the events can't conclude that male puberty isn't the most likely outcome in these cases.
"Male puberty" is not a meaningless phrase. You can toss around the word "bigot" all you want, but androgen sensitivity leads to athletic advantage.
Show us the evidence. In fact, evidence that high levels of natural testosterone provide a significant advantage to female athletes has been quite hard to come by.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hormone-levels-are-being-used-to-discriminate-against-female-athletes/
Just because no one took video of a chromosomal test doesn't mean that people who observe the events can't conclude that male puberty isn't the most likely outcome in these cases.
Fine, we have the evidence of the unsubstantiated word of a known corrupt liar, in a situation in which he had incentive to lie.
Happy now?
This isn't about hormones, it's about genetics.
Points 2 and 6 are highly debatable value judgements. One could just as well argue that it's unfair for exceedingly tall people to compete in basketball. Having a DSD that makes one exceptionally athletic is not necessarily unfair.
Do you agree that there should be a woman's and man's category for sports competitions?
If so, what is the basis for that distinction?
I believe that in many cases, there should (e.g., tennis, weightlifting boxing, football etc.). And the key basis for that distinction is whether one has gone through puberty where the key androgen is testosterone. For it is unfair to pit athletes who have that advantage against athletes who do not.
What's your view? Should we have these categories of competition and why?
"Do you agree that there should be a woman's and man's category for sports competitions?
If so, what is the basis for that distinction?"
Until recently I would have answered the first question, "Yes. Duh."
But you are correct to pose the second question, and that is where the problems arise. Gender is a bimodal distribution, not a binary one, and people who don't fit neatly into either category should have a right to compete. Is that a higher priority than protecting female athletes from competitors with native hormonal advantages? That question should be a subject of debate. I'm not yet sure of my position, though at this moment I am leaning towards letting people with DSDs compete.
Cool. I hear you. FWIW, my view at the moment is that, although it will no doubt be difficult for folks with DSDs in which they were mistakenly categorized as female at birth but nonetheless have the advantage of male puberty, fairness requires not allowing them to compete in the women's categories. The thought being that the basis for this distinction is male-puberty conferred advantage, and it would be unfair to make exceptions even in cases of these DSDs. Also, it really matters what the nature of the DSD is--having XY chromosomes isn't the determinant. It is having androgenic puberty and male-typical receptivity to testosterone during puberty. That is the determinant irrespective of whether one has XY chromosomes. So, in my view, someone with XY chromosomes and a DSD that short circuits the androgenic effects of male puberty should be allowed to compete in the female category. That's why it matters (I think) what specific type of DSD, if any, Khelif and Yiu-ting have.
. . . it will no doubt be difficult for folks with DSDs in which they were mistakenly categorized as female at birth . . .
This is where your argument goes off the rails. People with DSD's aren't mistakenly categorized as anything.
Good point. That's needlessly tendentious. Let me rephrase. Although it will be difficult for folks with DSDs that lead to their categorization as female at birth but nonetheless experience androgenic puberty, fairness (and oftentimes safety as well) requires not allowing such folks to compete in women's categories.
I'm still waiting for some sort of citation demonstrating that fairness demands any such thing.
See below. I think you've gotten the burden of proof the wrong way around. And I do cite studies that address this, although I see that you don't find them persuasive. Fair enough.
1) Okay so far.
2) The key issue is whether this specific genetic advantage is one that we will ban, while allowing a vast number of others. The number of people we are worried about is vanishingly small. (It's entertaining, in a grim way, watching the transphobes twist themselves into knots claiming both that the number of transgender people is so small that defending them is unimportant, and also so enormous that allowing them to participate in women's athletics will make it impossible for women they deem "normal" to compete.)
My take is that someone who has been considered to be female their entire life should be allowed to compete as a woman, whatever intersex condition she might have. This is no more unfair than women who are abnormally large and strong without being intersex have. The same is true of transwomen who have undergone hormone replacement therapy for at least a year.
It's also important to note that the link between naturally high testosterone levels in women and increased athletic performance is very tenuous. Studies involving individuals who take anabolic steroids, or other PEDs, don't tell us anything about that, because the body metabolizes the natural testosterone it produces differently than it does supplemental testosterone.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hormone-levels-are-being-used-to-discriminate-against-female-athletes/
3) As I said, this isn't actually proven. It seems like a plausible hypothesis, but it hasn't really been tested.
4) True as far as it goes.
5) Again, not proven.
6) This is an opinion, not a fact.
I think you are miconstruing the key issue. It isn't whether they are trans. The issue is whether they've gone through male puberty, thereby accruing the physical advantages that are the very basis of sorting sports competition into two main categories (men and women). So, for example, if these boxers were trans men (and hence, hadn't gone through male puberty) there would be no issue.But the concern is that they have gone through male puberty, and have accrued the male advantage in strking power. The worry is that this isn't only unfair, it is unsafe for the competitor who has not gone through male puberty.
I think you are miconstruing the key issue. It isn't whether they are trans.
No, I understand the key issue just fine.
The issue is whether they've gone through male puberty, thereby accruing the physical advantages that are the very basis of sorting sports competition into two main categories (men and women).
That's what you think the key issue is. I disagree.
You didn't answer my question: what makes this different than the enormous genetic advantages that other women athletes have? Every elite level athlete has genetic advantages over most people.
I will repeat what I think the key issue is: have these women really thought of themselves as female for their whole lives, in the case of the intersex, or have they demonstrated that they really are transgender by undergoing hormone replacement therapy? If the answer to either of those questions is, "Yes," then they compete as a woman.
As I said the number of people to whom this would apply is tiny. It will not destroy women's athletics. I say that as someone who has a deep commitment to women's athletics, expressed through having had season tickets for University of Minnesota women's hockey for 15 years and the softball team for 7. A lot of the people wading into this never cared about women's sports at all until they could exploit it to express hostility to the transgendered and intersex.
Given the tiny number of cases involved, I see no reason whatsoever to start telling people that their entire identity is irrelevant and should be excluded.
So, for example, if these boxers were trans men (and hence, hadn't gone through male puberty) there would be no issue.
And here, you demonstrate that you don't really know the issue. Transmen, at least those on hormone replacement therapy, are banned from elite sports altogether, because they are taking testosterone supplements. Your position is a "heads you lose, tails you lose" mess. Transwomen are treated as who they were identified as at birth, and their hormone therapy is ignored, while, for transmen, their hormone therapy is all that matters.
But the concern is that they have gone through male puberty, and have accrued the male advantage in strking power.
So, should we ban women that are much stronger than average? Or who can hit much harder? Please tell me why you think that those genetic advantages are fine, but this one must be excluded. And the extent to which an intersex boxer can have an advantage in boxing is limited by weight categories.
The worry is that this isn't only unfair, it is unsafe for the competitor who has not gone through male puberty.
No more so than it is dangerous to face really big and strong women. As I've said above, Khelif's 51 bouts have led to just 6 knockouts. The evidence that it is dangerous to fight her, more dangerous than facing other opponents, just doesn't exist.
"You didn't answer my question: what makes this different than the enormous genetic advantages that other women athletes have? Every elite level athlete has genetic advantages over most people."
Ok. Here's my answer. This advantage is the basis for distinguishing between men and women's sports categories in general. That's why we have these categories. If we did not make this distinction, given the dimorphic nature of the species, women as a class would have no outlet to compete in most sports, especially so in any sport that advantages explosive power.
Do you think we should have these two categories: women's and men's? If so, what is your view of the basis of the distinction?
"So, should we ban women that are much stronger than average? Or who can hit much harder? Please tell me why you think that those genetic advantages are fine, but this one must be excluded. And the extent to which an intersex boxer can have an advantage in boxing is limited by weight categories."
Do you think a boxing league that was individuated on the basis of weight but not sex would be safe for females? I certainly think it would not, which why my view is that boxing should be regulated both by weight and sex class (more precisely who has and has not gone through male puberty).
This advantage is the basis for distinguishing between men and women's sports categories in general.
No, that's what you want the distinguishing basis to be. There are other ways to do it.
If we did not make this distinction, given the dimorphic nature of the species, women as a class would have no outlet to compete in most sports, especially so in any sport that advantages explosive power.
This is 100% false. There are not enough intersex and transgendered people who are also elite level athletes to make any meaningful difference to destroy women's opportunities in sports. You are making bullshit claims to create a panic.
Do you think we should have these two categories: women's and men's? If so, what is your view of the basis of the distinction?
I will repeat what I think the key issue is: have these women really thought of themselves as female for their whole lives, in the case of the intersex, or have they demonstrated that they really are transgender by undergoing hormone replacement therapy? If the answer to either of those questions is, "Yes," then they compete as a woman.
Maybe you should actually read what other people write, with the goal of comprehension, because I already answered this. Here is a direct quote from my last comment:
I will repeat what I think the key issue is: have these women really thought of themselves as female for their whole lives, in the case of the intersex, or have they demonstrated that they really are transgender by undergoing hormone replacement therapy? If the answer to either of those questions is, "Yes," then they compete as a woman.
Do you think a boxing league that was individuated on the basis of weight but not sex would be safe for females?
No boxing league is safe for anyone. Making that the standard means, again, that you do not know what you are talking about.
But, no, a league in which those who are intersex and raised entirely as girls and the transgendered who have been on hormone replacement therapy would not be meaningfully more dangerous for other women. Again, there aren't enough of them to really matter, and precisely zero evidence that those few people fall outside the range that those with XX chromosomes create. Imane Khelif is, in fact, evidence that you are wrong. Again, she has only six knockouts in her entire career. That's a rate slightly below what Amy Broadhurst, who defeated Khelif in the 2022 World Championships, has.
You keep making this hypothetical assertion that allowing intersex individuals to compete makes it more dangerous for other women. Do you have any data to support this assertion?
I certainly think it would not . . .
You can think what you like, but without data, there's no reason for the rest of us to change our minds and agree with you.
I'm glad you asked directly. For there is actually lots of data on this.
Here are a couple of links for starters that speak to the issue of whether it would be "meaningfully more dangerous" for a woman to step into the ring with a male, irrespective of whether the male has undergone hormone replacement therapy. There is a great deal of evidence that male puberty makes a huge difference to explosive power and other aspect of male advantage and that HRT does little to change that. See:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38511417/
Note also that many sports associations on the basis of data like this have tightened up their rules accordingly. See this summary of numerous elite sports associations that have done this. The IOC is really out of step in this, for boxing of all things, where there is not only a fairness issue but a safety issue.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/transgender-athletes-ban-rules-olympics-b2529369.html
BTW: Do you know whether Khalif or Yu-ting have undergone HRT? They might well be persons who have realized the benefits of male puberty and who haven't undergone HRT.
Those studies are entirely unpersuasive. Here are several problems with trying to use them as you are:
1) They aren't based upon any data from elite athletes. Indeed, the first of them states:
Whilst available evidence is strong and convincing that strength, skeletal- and muscle-mass derived advantages will largely remain after cross-hormone therapy in transgender women, it is acknowledged that the findings presented here are from healthy adults with regular or even low physical activity levels, and not highly trained athletes.
When you dig into he footnotes, your second study mostly cites the first, and has a similar disclaimer. There is no reason to assume that what is true of much less active people is also true of elite athletes.
2) At no point does either study address the athletic performance of transgendered athletes. They only say that the muscle mass gains of male puberty are at least partially maintained, without ever even trying to assess how actual performance changes with testosterone reduction therapies. The first study says:
Whether this body composition change negatively affects performance results in transgender women endurance athletes remains unknown. It is unclear to what extent the expected increase in body fat could be offset by nutritional and exercise countermeasures, as individual variation is likely to be present.
That means that they are pretty much nonresponsive to the questions I asked.
3) Somewhat related to point 2, all of the focus is on strength and muscle mass. There is no study of endurance, agility, or reaction times. The first study states:
No controlled longitudinal study has explored the effects of testosterone suppression on endurance-based performance. Sex differences in endurance performance are generally smaller than for events relying more on muscle mass and explosive strength.
Muscle mass and strength are far from the only physical traits important for any athletic performance. If they haven't been studied, there is no basis for any conclusion on the question of performance.
It's also worth noting that the authors explicitly state that they are examining only muscle mass, and not any other component of practical strength.
4) One thing that is very striking to someone with some statistical training is that there is no mention of variance anywhere in either writeup. A lot of time is spent presenting the average differences between men and women, and no words at all are used to present the differences within each group. Without that, these studies cannot even begin to answer the question I asked about whether actual intersex and transgendered athletes fall outside the range of other women. It's impossible to assess your claim of increased danger posed to the athletes, or whether or not the competition becomes fair by excluding them.
In general, I have little interest in studies of much of anything that don't even approach questions of variance. Variance is almost always more interesting than expected values.
Do you know whether Khalif or Yu-ting have undergone HRT?
I do not. I also don't particularly care. Unless you can demonstrate that intersex people, in fact, have a performance advantage over other elite athletes and fall outside the range that other women athletes span, those that have spent their entire lives being treated as female should be allowed to compete as females.
HRT is an issue for the transgendered. Again, my primary concern here is that women's athletics be restricted to those who genuinely think of themselves, and are treated as, women. My belief that HRT be required for the transgendered stems primarily from a desire that the individual have shown a commitment to being a woman, to prevent the dreaded phenomenon of males casually deciding to claim that they are transgendered in order to compete, not because I'm as concerned about reducing whatever advantage hey have. Elite athletes all have massive genetic advantages, and I see no reason to single out his particular advantage for exclusion among people who are actually women.
PS. You never answered my question about the sports categories. Do you think we should have men and women's categories in sports? If so, what do you think the rationale for that distinction? What justifies it?
Do you think we should have men and women's categories in sports?
I would think that the entirety of my answers would clue you in on that. I'm a long time fan of women's sports. I also, repeatedly, laid out the criteria that I think should be used to be eligible to participate in women's sports. I have no idea what you think is gained by continuing to press this question.
If so, what do you think the rationale for that distinction? What justifies it?
Because men and women are different. You seem to be assuming, god knows why, that my position inherently means that I think anyone, regardless of gender, should be allowed to compete in women's sports. This is false.
We, as a society, have decided, correctly, that both men and women should be represented in top level athletics. Doing that requires separating men's and women's divisions in almost all sports.
What you don't seem to be grasping is that my belief that intersex and trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports flows from this, rather than denying it. I watch you declaring that some women should be excluded from women's sports because of who they are. I cannot emphasize enough how appalling I find this argument. Women are women. They should be allowed to compete as women.
I might be willing to reconsider if there were actual evidence of a very large advantage accruing to these athletes and there were enough of them to have any impact, beyond the most miniscule, on how many other women had athletic opportunities. Neither is anywhere close to true.
I find the argument to fairness to be ignorant of what elite athletics actually is. Elite female athletes all have massive advantages over those who aren't that are, abstractly, every bit as unfair as the advantages being posited that intersex and transgendered athletes have. Singling out this specific advantage to be banned while accepting all of the others is what is unfair.
You are still dodging the key question/issue. What is the basis for the two main divisions in sports? The answer to that question matters. And your answer is not informative.
Above you say that the rationale for the distinction is that men and women are different. Ok, but how are they different? Red-headed and blonde people are different, but we don't have different sports categories for them because that difference isn't relevant to sports. Why is the male/difference germane to sports categories. You have given no answer for that.
The answer that I and many scientists and sports bodies accept (I cite to some of this above) is that men have a systematic sports advantage due to male puberty. Thus, this distinction is necessary to provide the 50% of the human population that has not gone through male puberty with fair and safe space to compete in athletics--to enjoy all the benefits--emotional, pecuniary, status, and so on--that come with competing. This division is actually novel historically speaking, and it is highly progressive--serving the fairness and safety interests of that 50% who have gone through/will go through female rather than male puberty.
If that is the basis for the distinction between sports categories, then any person that has gone through male puberty should not be permitted to compete in the women's category.
You seem to have two main responses to this.
First, there is no evidence that transwomen on HRT or persons with DSDs that went through male puberty have the advantages of male puberty. To this, I say that you've got the burden the wrong way around. These folks have gone through the process that confers the sports advantage. Where is the evidence that these folks don't have the advantage--that HRT or having the relevant DSD claws back that advantage? The difference between your position and mine is that mine is more sensitive to the interests of the 50% of the planet who have gone through estrogen-based puberty. When in doubt (and I actually think that there is little doubt) about whether making an exception in these cases would be unfair to these interests or pose safety issue for female competitors, my view is that the burden falls on those who would make the exception to the male-puberty based rationale. Are you aware of any decisive findings out there on this issue--whether HRT claws back male advantage or whether DSDs such as 5-ARD short circuits this advantage?
This brings me to what seems to be your second response. The affirmation interests of transwoman or persons with DSDs that have led them to see themselves as female all their lives should be the basis for an exception to rationale for the division (irrespective of whether the advantages of male-puberty are retained). I see the force of this concern, but for a variety of reasons I think this isn't a sufficient basis for making an exception to the key male-puberty based rationale. For the interests in fairness and safety of those who have gone through female puberty matter too, and in my view, these interests are sufficient to outweigh the affirmation interests of transwomen and folks with DSDs such as 5-ARD.
"You are still dodging the key question/issue. What is the basis for the two main divisions in sports?"
Permit me to interject on behalf of Donkey: We have learned in the past few years that the distinction between gender divisions in sports is a far murkier issue than people used to assume. Neither genitalia nor genetics nor hormone levels can be used as a determinant without doing injustice to somebody. So I am tentatively ready to endorse Donkey's proposal, that the determinant should be how a competitor lives in their personal life. If they have been living as female for an extended time, then they compete as women.
Also: your continuing references to safety are not even slightly convincing. Find a better argument.
What is the basis for the two main divisions in sports?
Once again, I've already answered this:
We, as a society, have decided, correctly, that both men and women should be represented in top level athletics. Doing that requires separating men's and women's divisions in almost all sports.
You then spend a lot of persisting in your error in thinking that I don't understand that there is a significant performance difference between men and women. You can stop trying to convince me of that, because, as I've said several times, I know that.
If that is the basis for the distinction between sports categories, then any person that has gone through male puberty should not be permitted to compete in the women's category.
Again, this is an assertion on your part. I fundamentally disagree with it.
First, there is no evidence that transwomen on HRT or persons with DSDs that went through male puberty have the advantages of male puberty.
Except that this is my position only in your imagination. My actual position is that I want some evidence that the advantage provided by going through male puberty produces actual, rather than hypothetical, athletes that fall outside the range of that of other female athletes. This is not so obvious. If there are not intersex or transgendered athletes that do so, your entire argument to fairness falls apart.
I will again ask you to defend excluding this particular genetic advantage while accepting lots of other genetic advantages, when you haven't demonstrated that its a larger advantage than the others. There is no justification for singling out this advantage if women athletes will still have to face other women athletes that have advantages at least as large.
But you seem to being doing a lot of work to avoid addressing this issue.
For the interests in fairness and safety of those who have gone through female puberty matter too, and in my view, these interests are sufficient to outweigh the affirmation interests of transwomen and folks with DSDs such as 5-ARD.
And I see it as you having this exactly backwards. If you are going to exclude women from competing in women's sports on the basis of fairness and safety, you need to demonstrate that they would have an advantage significantly larger than other advantages. If not, then you are simply targeting animus at a vulnerable population without ever making the case that doing so will actually lead to better women's athletics.
But you would rather just make unsupported assertions about it.
This goes to Melancholy Donkey and Five Parrots in response to Five Parrots Response Below on MD's behalf:
Ok Five Parrots and Donkey.
FP says: "So I am tentatively ready to endorse Donkey's proposal, that the determinant should be how a competitor lives in their personal life. If they have been living as female for an extended time, then they compete as women."
Thanks for clarifying your position. The basis for having women's and men's categories is to allow person to compete in the sex-category with which they identify.
My view is that the basis for having women's and mens' categories is to enable persons who have gone through female puberty to have ample and safe opportunities to engage in sports.
Can you then explain why we should allow transmen to compete in the women's category. The rationale I propose would allow that. The rationale you propose does not. For your rationale is to enable people to compete in the sex category with which they identify. What about a transwoman who wants to compete with males. Is that permitted given your rationale? It is not. They would then be competing in a sex-category with which they don't identify.
Alright, I suppose I should just let it go with that. I've said my piece. MD and FP, thanks for the conversation . I'm with Mill on this. It is important to discuss things with folks who disagree with you. For by doing that, you get clearer about your own position, come to understand its meaning and limits, test it, revise if necessary etc.
My view is that the basis for having women's and mens' categories is to enable persons who have gone through female puberty to have ample and safe opportunities to engage in sports.
It is very thoughtful of you to declare that intersex and transgender athletes don't really count as women, because that's exactly what you are saying.
Can you then explain why we should allow transmen to compete in the women's category.
Can you, then, explain why you don't read the comments you respond to? As I've already said, transmen who are on HRT, which is the equivalent of what I advocate for allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports, are not allowed to compete in elite athletics at all. Because they are taking supplemental testosterone, they are banned from competition.
The rationale you propose does not.
Which is fine with me. It means that we are treating transmen as men.
They would then be competing in a sex-category with which they don't identify.
So, you mean a transwoman that doesn't identify as a woman?
Really, you would not allow transmen to pariticipate in the women's category. Well, then there is transman in the Olympics this year whose qualification you would revoke and I would not. He participated in the women's boxing competition.
See https://www.unilad.com/news/sport/olympic-games-trans-athlete-loses-boxing-333296-20240802
Maybe I should have been clearer about my point with transwomen. My rationale would allow transwomen to participate in the men's category. Yours would not.
And no, I'm not saying anything about who counts as women. I'm saying that persons who have gone through male puberty should not be allowed to compete in the womens' category. I'm setting the side the issue whether those folks are women or not. It isn't relevant.
Well, then there is transman in the Olympics this year whose qualification you would revoke and I would not. He participated in the women's boxing competition.
You lying asshole. From your citation:
Bacyadan identifies as a transgender male, but has not started hormone replacement therapy . . .
If you think that I have said that a transman who has not started hormone replacement therapy should not be allowed to compete in women's sports, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.
And no, I'm not saying anything about who counts as women.
Yes, you are. Saying that someone should not be allowed to compete in women's sports because of their chromosomes is saying that they don't really count as a woman. Maybe you're lying to yourself about this, but you are wrong.
I'm setting the side the issue whether those folks are women or not. It isn't relevant.
How very condescending of you.
I do admit I'm having a hard time following your rationale for who gets to compete in which groups. I can't identify what your unifying rationale is.
If I read you right, here are four conclusions you would draw in the following four different kinds of cases:
1.) Transmen who aren't undergoing testosterone hormone replacement therapy [HRT] can compete in the women's division. [I agree with this one.] [Ex Bacyadan]
2.) Transmen undergoing testosterone hormone replacement cannot compete in the women's division. The advantage is too great. Ex: Various Eastern European Olympic competitors in the 1980s. [I agree with this one.]
3.) Transwoman who are undergoing HRT therapy (blocking testosterone effects) can compete despite going through male puberty. The advantage conferred by male puberty is not too great. Ex: Lia Thomas. [ I disagree with this one. Folks like Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete in the women's category because the advantage conferred on her by male puberty is too great.]
4.) Persons with a DSD who have the advantage conferred by male puberty regardless of whether they are on HRT are free to compete in the women's category. Possible example of a case of this kind: Khalef. Certain example: Caster Semenya. [I disagree with this one. Semenya should be excluded and so should Kahlef if she has in fact gone through male puberty. That advantage is too great]
As I mentioned above, I just don't see the unifying principle behind your various judgments.
One thing I would note is that in the two cases in which we disagree, I side with the interests of the group that has gone through female puberty and you side with the interests of the people who have gone through male puberty.
In this same vein, I find it strange that you are so confident that the advantage is too great for transmen undergoing tesosterone HRT but the advantage is not too great for transwomen or persons with DSDs who have gone through male puberty.
I think any contentious comments thread such as this one should be punctuated with the following clip from John Cleese:
https://x.com/JonathanShedler/status/1820517973192515980
today is the day kevin drum finally became a fullgrown altrightist.
a commenter linked to quillette.
I think the bottom line is sports has taken way too long with establishing a standard .
All the talk of DSDs and testosterone and male puberty leads to complicated situations which, in the end, will still be unfair. You can set the testosterone level where you like (at puberty, if you can retrace that), there will still be women who have (had) more than others. What people long for, I think, is not fairness (which doesn't exist in sports anyway, just think of training, nourishment during childhood, available facilities in one's country, genetic advantages) but simplicity. It used to be simple. First there were sports, period. Then male and female sports, period. Transgenderism complicated that but to entirely go down the rabbit hole to where there will be an Olympic category for "people who at puberty had testosterone levels below X" would be a mouthful, difficult to measure and unappealing where once it was "women". (J.K. Rowling, who went down a different rabbit hole alas, did have a point when she mocked the term "people who menstruate".) The IOC perhaps unjustly says "women" when it means "cis women". But at least they know people want these things to be simple.
Also, it seems to be forgotten that testosterone tests were never meant to clarify what "woman" means, but to combat doping.
Seems to just be a mannish female which happens.
There is more to this than politics. I was born a female, and I don't want to be punched in the face by a biological male.
you should be happy that the algerian & taiwanese boxers aren't abab (assigned boi at birth), then.
I think any contentious comments thread such as this one should be punctuated with the following clip from John Cleese:
https://x.com/JonathanShedler/status/1820517973192515980
As Khalif and the other XY boxer (Lin) have made their way through the Olympic trials, the defeated female opponents are making the X sign with their index fingers. This is an acknowledgment that Khalif and Lin are not female and do not have XX chromosomes, and that the competition is therefore unfair. So it is not accurate to state that the female athletes have made no protest about this situation.
It should be noted that other sports authorities, other than boxing, *have* excluded XY androgen-sensitive athletes from the women's competition. The only reason these two athletes are making headlines is that boxing hasn't made that exclusion in the Olympics. It's total nonsense to argue that allowing XY androgen-sensitive athletes into the women's competition is some kind of social justice imperative. Boxing is an outlier.