Were the allegations actually disproven? What I've read is that the IOC chose not to investigate.
Yes. She's female and was born female.
It's illegal to be transgender in Algeria, and the only complaint came from a Russian boxing body with a history of making suspect claims in the past.
the only complaint came from a Russian boxing body with a history of making suspect claims in the past
And that was only after she defeated a previously undefeated Russian. Sounds an awful lot like sore losers making up excuses.
Sounds an awful lot like sore losers making up excuses.
Or, as they're known in the Olympics, Russians.
This shit is why I say that Russian athletes shouldn't be able to compete even under the Olympic flag. Russia has cheated and lied so many times that it baffles me that the IOC even lets them participate.
Carini apologized Friday for her treatment of Khelif. “I’m sorry for my opponent,” she told Italian outlet La Gazzetta dello Sport. “If the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision.”
"It wasn’t something I intended to do,” Carini said. “Actually, I want to apologize to her and everyone else. I was angry because my Olympics had gone up in smoke,” she said.
So I think that you're missing that this "controversy" started before this year's Olympics began. In 2023, a boxing organization (IBA) based out of Russia flagged Khelif as not passing eligibility after she defeated a previously undefeated Russian boxer. Khelif's disqualification meant the Russian woman kept her undefeated title. I'm lazy & going to copy from Wikipedia here:
The Washington Post stated, "It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting failed [in 2023] to lead to the disqualifications", further writing, "There never has been evidence that [...] Khelif [...] had XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone." The IBA did not reveal the testing methodology, stating the "specifics remain confidential". At the time, Khelif said the ruling meant having "characteristics that mean I can't box with women", but said she was the victim of a "big conspiracy" regarding the disqualification. She initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs. After the appeal, Khelif organised her own independent tests in order to clear her name and return to boxing.
Alright back to my own words here. So the article goes on to say that in July of this year, the IBA said Khelif failed the test, but would not release the specifics about why exactly. The IOC said the ruling was "arbitrary" and "without due process". That is the background that sets the stage for what happened when the Italian quit this year at the Olympics and everyone subsequently lost their shit.
So you are confidently answering people with wrong information, pushing hate against an individual, and your reaction to someone who educated you on the matter is just "thank you"? Maybe don't spread misinformation if you are not certain, and edit your factually wrong comments...
Who am I pushing hate against that doesn't deserve it? The Italian boxer is a transphobe. I linked sources. I don't need to edit because it's not that long of a comment chain and you can see the missing context. That's how conversation works. I don't need to exist to your specifications.
You didn't provide any source about what you are claming. I have seen the interview recording.
She has never said anything at all about the other boxer.
Here is the interview (use a VPN to Italy and translate)
So to answer the question: you are fomenting hate against the Italian boxer with false accusations (at the best of our knowledge):
she didn't start any allegation about Imane
she did not make any remark, let alone any teansfobic remark
You are effectively the equivalent of people who jumped the gun and started calling Imane a man.
Usually when you confidently write wrong information is good practice to rectify with an edit.
Carini apologized Friday for her treatment of Khelif. “I’m sorry for my opponent,” she told Italian outlet La Gazzetta dello Sport. “If the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision.”
"It wasn’t something I intended to do,” Carini said. “Actually, I want to apologize to her and everyone else. I was angry because my Olympics had gone up in smoke,” she said.
She didn't start any allegation. You are spreading miainformation.
The quote you cited is from days after, and she apologized for the case that was created, but she didn't start any of it. Her interview after the match was 10 seconds...
She did add validity to the accusations and made it worse. So what if she apologized? She should still be banned AMD she should apologize anyway.
How did she add validity? She simply quit a match and said it was due to pain. People picked it up and made a case on top of, which is not her responsibility. Once that happened, she apologized for it.
She didn't start any allegation. You are spreading miainformation.
The quote you cited is from days after, and she apologized for the case that was created, but she didn't start any of it. Her interview after the match was 10 seconds...
The claim is not that she was initially considered to be a man by the Algerian government and then changed her public identity to that of a woman, but rather that she has some sort of intersex condition that elevates her testosterone levels into the masculine range.
All Olympians are genetic outliers. Do you really want to be the DNA police? Then every Michael Phelps medal should be returned because that man is naturally different from the rest of us. But he's a man so we're not talking about him.
Seriously. Phelps is pretty much genetically ideal for a swimmer, but nobody claimed it was "UnfAiR!!" when he swept the board multiple olympics in a row, garnering more gold medals than anyone in history, before or since.
One female boxer looks a bit "too" muscular and the bigots are up in arms. Fucking assholes.
And Khelif lost plenty of bouts in her career, but somehow, those aren’t relevant because, “I know a man when I see one.”
I actually encountered someone a couple of days ago herr on Lemmy that said it was unfair of Phelps to compete because he was too genetically superior. It was bizarre. Course it was on a thread about Phelps criticizing Chinese athletes who were doping so I imagine it was just a tankie trying his best.
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
And Simone Biles is arguably the greatest athlete of all time.
She's obviously the greatest American gymnast of all time. I don't know if you can go much further than that. Larisa Latynina makes it rather hard to win the argument for greatest gymnast of all time let alone greatest Olympic athlete.
Agree to disagree
So not all that arguable after all I guess.
I mean, there's about 15 different news articles all explaining why Biles is the greatest athlete. There's absolutely none for the person you listed, who has more Olympic medals but not a harder routine or more worldwide medals. It didn't really seem like you were being serious with your argument tbh.
Biles leapt 12ft in the air. She is 4'8". She has 5 different gymnastics maneuvers named after her.
Eta: ig it was you who didn't want an argument. You lost quick..I was right, it wasn't a serious argument. You just wanted to be racist or smth
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
She doesn't. Phelps when he was 15 made a time 9 seconds slower than the record established during these Olympic games (although in 25m pool) by Ledecky in the 1500m. He, still at 15, swam 5 seconds faster than the 800m time Katie Ledecky just did in this Olympics (although in 25m pool), only 2 seconds slower than the record she established in 2016. See this.
Despite Phelps being a completely different athlete, not training for it, it's quite reasonable to assume that once he was not a teenager anymore he could easily beat Katie (especially since long distance swimming requires maturity and experience to dose energy etc.). I think this reinforces the obvious fact that men do have advantages, and I really don't see the point of trying to deny it.
If you want even more info, look at juniors (under 18) records:
for 1500m a 16 years old swam more than 30seconds faster than Ledecky's record.
for 800m another 16 years old swam more than 20seconds faster than Ledecky's record.
You would be surprised to see that Ledecky swam faster than Phelps in some events (personal best comparison):
What do you mean source? I have literally posted you a page with the times and compared to the world records she established.
The only example your article shows where she swims faster is the table at the bottom. If you look closer, you will see that for the 800 and 1500 freestyle, the times are exactly the ones in the link I shared. These times compare the world records she did, with a time Phelps did when he was 15 in 2001! The only difference with what I shared is that they took the short course time for the 800, while I used as a reference the long course.
The other which is lower is the 400m freestyle. I didn't quote this, but this is from the same competition in 2001, still when Phelps was 15!
None of these competitions are what Phelps actually swam in his professional career, and how does it make sense to compare times in your peak athletic age (usually mid-20s) vs one-time races from when Phelps was in Junior category?
If you open the link I shared, you will see that he literally has 1 entry for 1500m, 800m and 400m, all from FINA Swimming World Cup 2000-2001, which is probably before he even specialized. Everything above 400m in swimming is considered long distance, and he is a sprinter instead.
The article you cite is making a point, which is the relative superiority of Katie Ledecky compared to peers, which is fair. When it then talks about swimming speed it turns into complete garbage, because it takes garbage data.
I have genuinely no idea what are you trying to prove, I have showed you with numbers that Katie Ledecky's records are tens of seconds behind even what Juniors do in men's category, once you take athletes that practice the same discipline (long distance swimmers).
I hope this is enough source for you...
So your source and my source both agree that Katie Ledecky beats him on 800m and 1500m?
Are you in bad faith?
Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn't even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?
Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.
There are plenty of sports where being a teenager gives you an advantage over adults. A teen isn't a 5 year old. Per data, I'm correct.
This is honestly an argument that I find very weak. I mean absolutely there are plenty of genetic advantages in general in sport. The problem is that not all sports have categories to isolate competitions for certain parameters. Swimming does not, so you could argue that is unfair by default, but that's what it is right now. Fighting sports generally do have categories, both gender and weight.
If we leave alone gender, if someone had some condition (let's imagine something that doesn't exist) that would result in having muscle mass common for a 80Kg, but in a 70Kg body, that person would probably have an unfair advantage in the 70Kg category because weight is a proxy for muscle mass as well.
The only reasonable argument here is that the boxer, even if she has some genetic condition, still tested within the limits for female boxers. That is pretty much it, which means that whatever condition she has (if any), it's not considered an advantage in the female category according to current standards.
Was it him or Lance Armstrong that ended up getting caught doping? Pretty sure it was the latter, but also recall Phelps getting accused of something. If could've even been something irrelevant like marijuana.
Agree with your point, though.
It was pot for Phelps
And poor Sha'Carri
Lance Was the one that got accu of doping. He never got caught. Just didn't contest charges by the anti doping agency after he retired anyway.
But also, everyone seems to do it in cycling.
I'm pretty sure he was caught. Like proven. It's just they caught like virtually every other cyclist in that same race.
What's interesting is Katie Ledecky can beat him on long distance swims, if we go by their times. So how much of an advantage is gender in many sports at this level? And let's look at disability - Usain Bolt had/has scoliosis, Ledecky has POTS, and many other athletes have "disabling" conditions. So why would intersex get a special category that isn't allowed? It's just transphobia.
Looking at the other comments, you are clearly not here to discuss, but I will make a good faith attempt and play devil's advocate.
The difference between intersex and other conditions you mentioned is that it blurs the lines of a specific set of parameters that are specifically used to create categories between sports. Men and women are not fighting each other for more than anagraphic reasons (I hope we can all agree on this), and if a condition invalidates that distinction (I.e. gives some advantages that men have over a women), then it breaks the boundary of such categories in a similar way as it would be having someone from a heavier category fight in a lighter one (BTW, this is routinely done by having athletes go in terrible dehydration regimes).
Now this has nothing to do with this specific case, as there is no any objective proof for any of this, nor that she is intersex nor that she does have any advantage, but it's purely a way to frame the answer to the question "what's the difference between having scoliosis and being intersex".
Edit:
I will add one more thing, comparing a sprinter to a long-distance swimmer is exactly like comparing someone who runs 100m with those who run marathons. Clearly there is an advantage, considering that Katie Ledecky is an absolute monster, but she would have beaten the 3 worse times only that men did in this Olympics, and that she would have been almost a minute behind the winner, meaning almost 2 full lengths. Of course men have an advantage...also if you took the time from https://www.worldaquatics.com/athletes/1001621/michael-phelps, you probably have seen that he was 15 at the time...
The thing is, other hormones can give advantages too. That people put so much stock into testosterone alone is bad science. That intersex conditions that involve testosterone are so hated is transphobia. Women should be in their neat little boxes and men in theirs and any anatomy that changes that is taboo and should be banned. Like where should an intersex fighter compete? If this woman was intersex and had LOCAH or PCOS or other conditions, should she not be allowed in any division of Olympics?
Why don't we have testosterone classes instead of (or in addition to) weight classes, if it matters so much? All athletes with the same level of testosterone can compete, just like athletes that weigh the same compete against each other. Why dont we organize it that way instead? Isn't that more exact and fair?
I didn't mention testosterone at all. I am not a specialist and I mostly don't care about the details. I specifically talked in functional terms: if whatever condition gives you some advantages that men have, then it breaks the categories that are established. In this way, that condition would be different from -say- having huge feet like Phelps, even if they give you an advantage, because there are no categories based on foot size in swimming.
Everything else is an interesting hypothetical discussion, and maybe one day categories will be based on more parameters. Fact is, today they are like this, rough and using proxies such as gender and weight to make fights that are more-or-less fair.
Well, everyone else here is specifically talking about testosterone. That's the "problematic" chemical. It's relevant because it's a normal endogenous chemical we make and some women naturally make more. It can help with more muscle mass and bone density. That it's testosterone is entirely relevant.
That's like speaking on Gaza and saying "it doesn't matter where it is." Like yes it absolutely matters. The context and specifics matter when discussing complicated topics.
All athletes that beat other athletes have a presumed physical advantage. A physical advantage isn't an issue. It's testosterone that's the issue according to the people bitching about it.
A physical advantage isn’t an issue. It’s testosterone that’s the issue according to the people bitching about it.
No, it's a physical advantages that derive from a condition that renders certain parameters (whatever they are) similar to stronger categories (in this case, men).
If it's just testosterone or a combination of hormones and other things it doesn't matter in the perspective of the discussion I was trying to have (which answered your question, by the way)...
So why would intersex get a special category that isn’t allowed?
I've already provided multiple examples where the physical advantages, resulting from a neurochemical anomaly, exist and no one had an issue. Why is testosterone special? And if testosterone ISN'T special, then why aren't they testing for other enodgenous neurochemicals like lactic acid and banning based on that? Why doesn't this group of lactic acid anomalies get kicked out and refused placement?
Again, it's transphobia.
You are arguing a point I specifically didn't make. So I don't know what to answer you, since none of it has to do with my actual opinion.
Your argument is that intersex conditions blur boundaries for sex in sports. My argument is that these categories are arbitrary and I'm explaining why.
You: the color orange messes with the boundaries we have in place for red and yellow! It can't be involved!
Me: the boundary for yellow and red is arbitrary and visible light exists on a continuum anyway!
But that's literally every condition. Thats everything a top physical athlete has - their entire physique is a physical advantage over others. How is it different than say, Michael Phelps producing less lactic acid which allows him to have greater endurance? Why is lactic acid okay to be different with, but not testosterone? Both are genetic abnormalities that confer an advantage.
The reason is that they can't be transphobic about lactic acid.
So why men and women should compete separately?
If you think they don't, then fine.
If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is "because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women". What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.
Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don't think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it's a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.
I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production.
Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.
You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it's what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn't make the rules and frankly I don't care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it's a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.
There are sports that are designed in a way that give estrogen dominant people advantages. Testosterone isn't an advantage for every sport, and Testosterone in isolation isn't an "advantage men have over women," because it comes with a cost including lower lifespan. Cool that you think that way?
The way many sports are designed gives testosterone dominant people an advantage. That's patriarchy for ya.
Height isn't that important for swimming or even running - ShaCarri is like 5'1".
Lactic acid is not related to gender, that's my point. But you clearly believe in gender determinism and think sex chromosomes make up a huge part of genetic makeup when it is quite tiny. Women and men have more in common than we have different.
My criticism is that categories based on gender are unscientific. Which you agree with but say you can't be bothered with the details so its good enough. Well, some of us are smart enough to actually analyze this and know enough about medicine to criticize the heuristic of Testosterone as a metric for athletic competitions when there's more involved than just T.
She is a woman who was born a woman and happens to have high testosterone for a woman, just like some people are taller than others. She just happens to be at one end of the testosterone spectrum.
Just because you want baseless rumors to be true doesn't make them true.
Hold on, her testosterone levels are known? I haven't come across them. What are they?
"Higher than average." Hence the upper body muscles being larger that average for a female boxer.
It isn't rocket surgery.
wrong. the IBA said they never did any testosterone tests. feel free to disprove me, but to my knowledge there is 0 evidence even hinting at her having high T
Where did I say anyone tested her?
Oh, they must just have gotten her "hIgEr ThAn AvErAgE" testosterone results from the Olympic village psychic. I must have been silly to assume that saying it's higher than average meant someone tested rather than you just pulling bullshit out of your ass.
You say it like it is a bad thing to acknowledge that people have differences in their biology.
So they're not known.
Why would they ever make that known to the public. Would be a huge invasion of the competitors privacy. Kinda weird.
Its part of wada rules to which the ioc is compliant? Drug test results for these organization are often published, at least they are for my powerlifting org
I haven't seen any evidence that you aren't a Russian bot.
Нет, Я сам Путин.
There seems to be little credible hard evidence on either side, so anyone claiming to know the real truth here is just talking out of their ass.
That's the point I was originally trying to make. This article is written as if the question has been conclusively answered, but it hasn't been.
You're making it sound like whether she's trans is a valid question, which it isn't
Her testosterone treated within the allowed range.
The genetic issue she has is in 1in 600 people. Not exactly rare
There is not really a need to. The allegation comes from the IBA which is unrecognized by the Olympics and is a Russian propaganda organization. A Russian boxer lost to her and an official who is now fired for corruption disqualified her. Her birth certificate and passport say female and her testosterone is within the range for women. You can't just give extra screening to women you don't find attractive.
There is not really a need to.
There is certainly a need to test, but this test (whatever it is) should apply to all women equally and definitively.
and the wba...but what do you care.
You mean another organization that tested her but never told us specifically what the test was, who administered it, who analyzed it and what the results were?
yeah. what was i thinking. they all must be wrong, you must be right. may the testosterone fuel imane end the sport for good for all women.
She wasn't fucking tested for testosterone. And even if she was, women can have high testosterone.
But you and the other white knights telling women they have to prove they're women if they look too masculine will definitely not discourage "real" girls and women from competing. I'm sure that 12-year-old Chinese skateboarder is just dying for someone to tell her she has to prove she has the correct amount of testosterone or the right type of genes or with a genital examination. You and the others want to torture kids and you don't even realize it.
1, trans women are actually at a competitive disadvantage since hormone blockers also nullify the low levels of Testosterone that women produce naturally.
2, of all the fucking countries to suspect of "cheating" by fielding a trans woman, ALGERIA‽
Good points. And everyone should always upvote proper use of an interrobang.
What I'm going to say has nothing to do with the Algerian boxer, she was born a woman and if we started banning athletes from the Olympics whose rare genetics gave them an advantage, there'd be no reason to watch.
trans women are actually at a competitive disadvantage since hormone blockers also nullify the low levels of Testosterone that women produce naturally.
That is objectively false for combat sports. Blockers do not reverse the years of effects that testosterone has on their bodies development, such as skeletal structure and bone density.
I don't understand this insistence on denying reality for the very niche topic of trans women competing in combat sports, it is dangerous.
If you don't believe me, go listen to the interviews of female MMA fighters who Fallon Fox destroyed, and I'm talking like fractured skulls.
I'll preface this with saying I am a contract absolutionist and the boxers in question qualified according to the IOC rules so I 100% support their participation and/or wins. I do want to point out:
Neither of these 2 are trans. They are DSD. Born and raised female their entire lives.
While I agree there are some long term developmental advantages that androgen blockers do not mitigate as far as I can tell all actual Trans athletes that previously qualified failed to do so after taking any requisite blocker regimen which, inconclusively FTR, strongly suggests they do mitigate most of the key advantages here.
That said, I do not agree with the IOC (and/or the relevant preceding governing bodies) being so inclusive for the female competition categories. But for a dysfunction in typical fetal development she would have been AMAB and squeaking into eligibility on a technicality is just a bad look any way you objectively look at it.
Prevalence of AIS in the population: 0.006%
Prevalence of Medallists in the Woman's Welterweight category: 33%
While scientifically inconclusive this statistic supports the need for further hypothesis testing lest 49.994% of the population be relegated obsolete.
I'm aware that the Olympic boxer has DSD, and that it's prevalent in an outsized portion of female combat sports athletes. I'm still of the opinion that they should not be discriminated against for using their genetic condition to their advantage in becoming a world class athlete. I see this as no different from how Michael Phelps has a condition where he produces a lot less lactic acid.
If you were implying that the Olympics should start genetic testing of athletes and screening them for these types of conditions, I am entirely against that, see my previous response.
Did you miss the part where I was very clearly and specifically talking about the case of trans women combat sports athletes? Those who had male levels of testosterone during their body's development and who then transitioned.
This is a very niche subject, but for some reason people like the user I was responding to, insist on pretending that puberty as a male doesn't matter if the adult athlete is on blockers, and that it does not give them an advantage in a combat sport. I'm not so much concerned about the advantage itself, as I am about the inherent danger to the other participants.
Striking blows from a musculature developed in male levels of testosterone, present an outsized risk of death, or permanent injury, to a female fighter/boxer. A risk that is significantly higher than the normal risks associated with combat sports.
I know nothing of this boxer, but a Trans boxer would have several advantages outside of hormone levels. Physically, males are much better suited for boxing than females. They have larger hearts, lungs, longer arms, bigger hands, and hips more in line to directly send power from punching and keep in balance. Muscle and mass aside, men are better suited at punching, and those advantages don't go away with hormone blockers.
As to hormone therapy, do you think a professional m2f Trans athlete is going to be taking enough blockers to be towards the lower end of female testosterone, or taking just enough to be in the high end? This is a completely separate argument from the first point I've made, but im just curious as to why you would assume it nullifies all the testosterone. You have to have some in order to live. Your bones will go to shit, your heart won't work right, and you won't be able to make enough blood cells. Along with muscle loss, fatigue, and other issues. Hormone therapy will not take you down to 0 testosterone.
The claim is not that she is taking hormone blockers, and not that whatever condition she may have is known to the Algerian government or even to herself.
Bro please just fucking stop being such an insistent dumbass.
The article says the IOC honored what was on her passport. I don't think there was any valid concern raised, it was just the Russian body doing Russian things.
Yes, they chose not to investigate. I suppose one might call the allegations unfounded, but without evidence to the contrary they can't reasonably be called false.
The whole world:
"There is no evidence that shes is anything but a natural born woman. It's clear this is fabricated outrage."
You:
"They didn't provide evidence of no evidence, so I am going to keep believing this fabricated outrage because I like being angry and refuse to stop."
There’s a teacup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. There’s no evidence to the contrary, so it can’t reasonably be called false.
That's not comparable here. Chromosomes and hormone levels are easily testable. (I don't know what the IOC's actual policy is, but I'm sure it's something measurable.)
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Teacups are man-made objects, rocket launches are closely monitored, and no rocket is known to have launched a teapot into that orbit. It isn't absolutely impossible that something very much like a teapot formed there spontaneously, that a teapot was secretly launched there for no apparent reason, or that extraterrestrials placed a teapot there, but again there is evidence that these events are very unlikely to have happened. Russell's goal was to illustrate that the burden of proof should be on the one making unfalsifiable claims, but he didn't pick a good example - the lack of a plausible mechanism for the teapot to arrive in that orbit was even stronger evidence before spaceflight.
There's a manhole cover out there that isn't on a single NASA manifest either.
China launched the teapot on a rideshare rocket that delivered 60 other payloads. It’s top secret, and the US Gov doesn’t want to publicize that the Chinese have developed a space tug capable of inserting a 200g teacup into a mars transfer orbit.
Do you? Because you are making arguments he refuted decades ago.
From your Wikipedia article itself:
Another philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, states that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell's argument. Russell's argument assumes that there is no evidence against the teapot, but Plantinga disagrees:
Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven't. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.
Cool. You read the Wikipedia article. Let me know when you actually read Russell.
I will note that you are the one making claims without evidence about what Russell wrote and by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you.
What claims do you imagine I’m making?
You're claiming that Russell addressed the claim that there is in fact strong evidence against the teapot.
Research the SRY gene. It's why she "failed" a test that wasn't looking for it. She was born female. She is female. Her passport says she's female. The IOC says she's female. The ONLY people making the claim are Russians and their bad science and conservatives and their bad faith.
To be fair, the Russians making the accusations are also malicious.
I suppose one might call the allegations unfounded, but without evidence to the contrary they can't reasonably be called false.
Neither can the allegation that I'm making right now, that you are a pedophile.
Women do not have to prove that they're women. The IBA didn't even say what test they gave her who administered it and who analyzed it. All they said was it wasn't for testosterone.
Is that true? I've never thought about how it works for Olympics. But it's completely self reported? If that's true it does seem open to abuse.
She was born a girl. Do you really think Algeria, of all places, would be okay with a “male” athlete competing as a woman?
I don't know anything about that, but that's not what I was asking
That is all the IOC requires. Why should they require anything else?
It’s quite common to test for testosterone. For one because synthetic testosterone is on the doping list. That’s also why the IBA test is so suspicious. If her testosterone was at male levels, that should have been discovered way earlier with a doping test.
Again, the fake Russian test failed her for an unknown test but said the test WASN'T about testosterone. The gender thing has nothing to do with Russia.
Russian official fails her for unknown reasons not repeated to testosterone.
Transphobes call her a male for unknown reasons.
Imane is tested for doping as frequently as other competitors.
Yep. They won't say what the test was, they won't say who administered it and they won't say what the results were.
I said to someone else who was arguing that it must have been a legitimate test, "what if the test was an official walking into a room with her, saying, 'I know a man when I see one,' and walking out?" Because that could absolutely have been the test. We have zero clue apart from it not being a testosterone test.
It's weird how people are filling in details into the Russian test. Russia was just salty their undefeated girl lost.
It's clear as mud when I look at ioc website. I am not sure you or prior poster are correct though. It appears there are suppossed to be some regulations about who can participate in the women's category and that it may vary between sports. The new guidelines seem very nontransparant. If completely unregulated there is the opportunity for abuse. Your question of why is akin to asking why not simply allow athletes to self report if they are doping or not and simply allow them to participate without testing as long as they say they aren't.
Okay, so how would you define 'woman' so that it is universal enough to fit all types of women even if you don't include people who have 'boy' on their birth certificate?
Because there is no evidence Khelif is anything but a woman with a lot of strength and physical advantages as a boxer. Are we going to test Brittney Griner to see if she's a woman too?
I'm not on the ioc bro. I'm curious from someone that understands the policy to learn more about it as these are interesting topics. You clearly aren't the person to talk to though. I'm not interested in opinions.
Too bad opinion is all you're going to get for who qualifies as a woman to box other women since there's not one single organization and also no hard biological definition for what counts as "woman." But the IOC goes by what is on your birth certificate and passport. You may not like that they do that, but that doesn't really change what I said initially about what they say qualifies.
Why don't you think that I like that? What is your source for that being the only criteria that is used and why are you ignoring the fact that they do say the criteria varies by event. You can have your opinions, but please don't try to superimposr any onto me.
Again, it's not my opinion, it's the IOC's.
This isn't a complicated case. She was born a female with female genitalia and has a passport issued as female and self reports as female. She is not transgender. What else is needed but to test for doping? Half of all women have higher than average testosterone levels, that is how averages work. Many top athletes are anomalies of some sort.
The IOC did create a framework for transgender athletes but that doesn't apply to her. The fascists are just trying to smear her and paint her as a cheater and "other" like fascists do.
Half of all women have higher than average testosterone levels, that is how averages work.
I agree with your point and with what you said, but I want to clarify something:
That's not how averages work. That's how median works. For example:
-Person A: 4 units testosterone
-Person B: 4 units testosterone
-Person C: 7 units testosterone
Mean: (4+4+7)/3= 5 units
Median: 4 units
So 2 people would be under the average because one person shoots the average up.
The word average is often used to mean mean, however it can be used less specifically - median is a type of average as well.
From Merriam-Webster definition of average:
1a) a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
Also, things like testosterone levels in a population usually follow a normal distribution, where both mean and median are the same, so the distinction is often meaningless for practical purposes
Still, that's not how the mean or the mode work. And one could argue a group of Olympic athletes is not a big enough population to assume a normal distribution. But yeah, you're also right.
True of course haha. But among top athletes I'd expect the vast majority to be above (or below) average outliers in various metrics.
To add, the allegation was made by the International Boxing Association which is apparently controlled by the Russian plutocrats and gangsters.
It's really a good example that it takes more energy to refute false allegations than to make them.
I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't know how averages and medians work, but thanks for telling us. I believe the person you're replying to was just being sloppy with terminology, as is very common. Their point still stands.
I'll say I didn't know "average" could also mean median and mode as another comment pointed, maybe I wouldn't have commented then.
It's common to be confused over statistics, as they aren't very intuitive, so I just wanted to clarify for whoever needs it.
Wow, where do you work? Where do you live? Have you not have a conversation with a member of the general public? There are people who can barely read. Not understanding statistics and averages is pretty common, and doing a quick summary to make sure everyone is on the same page is pretty good communication.
ssshh, woke facism is a young flower. dont tell the kids to reflect on things. womens boxing has become obsolete by this decision and the opposite of what these idiots that downvoted you happend. ofcourse she won. that is why so many women do want to box her. but those women dont matter as long as the dumb kids can get a kick out of pretending to fight the good fight.
Were the allegations actually disproven? What I've read is that the IOC chose not to investigate.
Yes. She's female and was born female.
It's illegal to be transgender in Algeria, and the only complaint came from a Russian boxing body with a history of making suspect claims in the past.
And that was only after she defeated a previously undefeated Russian. Sounds an awful lot like sore losers making up excuses.
Or, as they're known in the Olympics, Russians.
This shit is why I say that Russian athletes shouldn't be able to compete even under the Olympic flag. Russia has cheated and lied so many times that it baffles me that the IOC even lets them participate.
Or it would if their corruption knew any bounds.
Where are you getting this info? It was an Italian boxer named Angela Carini that started these allegations after 1 punch: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/02/sport/who-is-imane-khelif-olympic-boxer-intl
Her complaint was then taken up by transphobic organizations around the world, including Russian ones: https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/40797618/algeria-imane-khelif-wins-olympic-gold-amid-gender-dispute
So I think that you're missing that this "controversy" started before this year's Olympics began. In 2023, a boxing organization (IBA) based out of Russia flagged Khelif as not passing eligibility after she defeated a previously undefeated Russian boxer. Khelif's disqualification meant the Russian woman kept her undefeated title. I'm lazy & going to copy from Wikipedia here:
The Washington Post stated, "It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting failed [in 2023] to lead to the disqualifications", further writing, "There never has been evidence that [...] Khelif [...] had XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone." The IBA did not reveal the testing methodology, stating the "specifics remain confidential". At the time, Khelif said the ruling meant having "characteristics that mean I can't box with women", but said she was the victim of a "big conspiracy" regarding the disqualification. She initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs. After the appeal, Khelif organised her own independent tests in order to clear her name and return to boxing.
Alright back to my own words here. So the article goes on to say that in July of this year, the IBA said Khelif failed the test, but would not release the specifics about why exactly. The IOC said the ruling was "arbitrary" and "without due process". That is the background that sets the stage for what happened when the Italian quit this year at the Olympics and everyone subsequently lost their shit.
Here's the Wikipedia article, though feel free to check out other reputable sites for more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif?wprov=sfla1
Oooh tnank you
So you are confidently answering people with wrong information, pushing hate against an individual, and your reaction to someone who educated you on the matter is just "thank you"? Maybe don't spread misinformation if you are not certain, and edit your factually wrong comments...
Who am I pushing hate against that doesn't deserve it? The Italian boxer is a transphobe. I linked sources. I don't need to edit because it's not that long of a comment chain and you can see the missing context. That's how conversation works. I don't need to exist to your specifications.
You didn't provide any source about what you are claming. I have seen the interview recording. She has never said anything at all about the other boxer.
Here is the interview (use a VPN to Italy and translate)
So to answer the question: you are fomenting hate against the Italian boxer with false accusations (at the best of our knowledge):
You are effectively the equivalent of people who jumped the gun and started calling Imane a man.
Usually when you confidently write wrong information is good practice to rectify with an edit.
Where are you getting this info? It was an Italian boxer named Angela Carini that started these allegations after 1 punch: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/02/sport/who-is-imane-khelif-olympic-boxer-intl
Her complaint was then taken up by transphobic organizations around the world, including Russian ones: https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/40797618/algeria-imane-khelif-wins-olympic-gold-amid-gender-dispute
She didn't start any allegation. You are spreading miainformation.
The quote you cited is from days after, and she apologized for the case that was created, but she didn't start any of it. Her interview after the match was 10 seconds...
She did add validity to the accusations and made it worse. So what if she apologized? She should still be banned AMD she should apologize anyway.
How did she add validity? She simply quit a match and said it was due to pain. People picked it up and made a case on top of, which is not her responsibility. Once that happened, she apologized for it.
She didn't start any allegation. You are spreading miainformation.
The quote you cited is from days after, and she apologized for the case that was created, but she didn't start any of it. Her interview after the match was 10 seconds...
The claim is not that she was initially considered to be a man by the Algerian government and then changed her public identity to that of a woman, but rather that she has some sort of intersex condition that elevates her testosterone levels into the masculine range.
All Olympians are genetic outliers. Do you really want to be the DNA police? Then every Michael Phelps medal should be returned because that man is naturally different from the rest of us. But he's a man so we're not talking about him.
https://www.biography.com/athletes/michael-phelp-perfect-body-swimming
Seriously. Phelps is pretty much genetically ideal for a swimmer, but nobody claimed it was "UnfAiR!!" when he swept the board multiple olympics in a row, garnering more gold medals than anyone in history, before or since.
One female boxer looks a bit "too" muscular and the bigots are up in arms. Fucking assholes.
And Khelif lost plenty of bouts in her career, but somehow, those aren’t relevant because, “I know a man when I see one.”
I actually encountered someone a couple of days ago herr on Lemmy that said it was unfair of Phelps to compete because he was too genetically superior. It was bizarre. Course it was on a thread about Phelps criticizing Chinese athletes who were doping so I imagine it was just a tankie trying his best.
And yet Katie Ledecky beats Michael Phelps on long distance swims.
And Simone Biles is arguably the greatest athlete of all time.
Here's a source for Katie Ledecky beating Phelps: https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
Simone articles:
https://www.upworthy.com/simone-biles-deserves-goat-status
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNswsHfp/
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/nov/05/simone-biles-world-gymnastics-championships
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/sports/other/simone-biles-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time/ss-BB1qLsIQ
https://asdnext.org/blog/the-return-of-the-greatest-athlete-simone-biles/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/simone-biles-excellence-resistance-greatest-athlete/619149/
https://www.sbnation.com/2019/10/13/20912350/simone-biles-medal-record-gymnastics-greatest-ever
https://www.msn.com/en-my/sports/other/simone-biles-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time/ss-BB1qLzmw
She's obviously the greatest American gymnast of all time. I don't know if you can go much further than that. Larisa Latynina makes it rather hard to win the argument for greatest gymnast of all time let alone greatest Olympic athlete.
Agree to disagree
So not all that arguable after all I guess.
I mean, there's about 15 different news articles all explaining why Biles is the greatest athlete. There's absolutely none for the person you listed, who has more Olympic medals but not a harder routine or more worldwide medals. It didn't really seem like you were being serious with your argument tbh.
Biles leapt 12ft in the air. She is 4'8". She has 5 different gymnastics maneuvers named after her.
Eta: ig it was you who didn't want an argument. You lost quick..I was right, it wasn't a serious argument. You just wanted to be racist or smth
She doesn't. Phelps when he was 15 made a time 9 seconds slower than the record established during these Olympic games (although in 25m pool) by Ledecky in the 1500m. He, still at 15, swam 5 seconds faster than the 800m time Katie Ledecky just did in this Olympics (although in 25m pool), only 2 seconds slower than the record she established in 2016. See this.
Despite Phelps being a completely different athlete, not training for it, it's quite reasonable to assume that once he was not a teenager anymore he could easily beat Katie (especially since long distance swimming requires maturity and experience to dose energy etc.). I think this reinforces the obvious fact that men do have advantages, and I really don't see the point of trying to deny it.
If you want even more info, look at juniors (under 18) records:
for 1500m a 16 years old swam more than 30seconds faster than Ledecky's record.
for 800m another 16 years old swam more than 20seconds faster than Ledecky's record.
Source? According to this article, you're wrong:
https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
What do you mean source? I have literally posted you a page with the times and compared to the world records she established.
The only example your article shows where she swims faster is the table at the bottom. If you look closer, you will see that for the 800 and 1500 freestyle, the times are exactly the ones in the link I shared. These times compare the world records she did, with a time Phelps did when he was 15 in 2001! The only difference with what I shared is that they took the short course time for the 800, while I used as a reference the long course. The other which is lower is the 400m freestyle. I didn't quote this, but this is from the same competition in 2001, still when Phelps was 15! None of these competitions are what Phelps actually swam in his professional career, and how does it make sense to compare times in your peak athletic age (usually mid-20s) vs one-time races from when Phelps was in Junior category?
If you open the link I shared, you will see that he literally has 1 entry for 1500m, 800m and 400m, all from FINA Swimming World Cup 2000-2001, which is probably before he even specialized. Everything above 400m in swimming is considered long distance, and he is a sprinter instead.
The article you cite is making a point, which is the relative superiority of Katie Ledecky compared to peers, which is fair. When it then talks about swimming speed it turns into complete garbage, because it takes garbage data. I have genuinely no idea what are you trying to prove, I have showed you with numbers that Katie Ledecky's records are tens of seconds behind even what Juniors do in men's category, once you take athletes that practice the same discipline (long distance swimmers).
I hope this is enough source for you...
So your source and my source both agree that Katie Ledecky beats him on 800m and 1500m?
Are you in bad faith?
Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn't even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?
Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.
There are plenty of sports where being a teenager gives you an advantage over adults. A teen isn't a 5 year old. Per data, I'm correct.
This is honestly an argument that I find very weak. I mean absolutely there are plenty of genetic advantages in general in sport. The problem is that not all sports have categories to isolate competitions for certain parameters. Swimming does not, so you could argue that is unfair by default, but that's what it is right now. Fighting sports generally do have categories, both gender and weight.
If we leave alone gender, if someone had some condition (let's imagine something that doesn't exist) that would result in having muscle mass common for a 80Kg, but in a 70Kg body, that person would probably have an unfair advantage in the 70Kg category because weight is a proxy for muscle mass as well.
The only reasonable argument here is that the boxer, even if she has some genetic condition, still tested within the limits for female boxers. That is pretty much it, which means that whatever condition she has (if any), it's not considered an advantage in the female category according to current standards.
Was it him or Lance Armstrong that ended up getting caught doping? Pretty sure it was the latter, but also recall Phelps getting accused of something. If could've even been something irrelevant like marijuana.
Agree with your point, though.
It was pot for Phelps
And poor Sha'Carri
Lance Was the one that got accu of doping. He never got caught. Just didn't contest charges by the anti doping agency after he retired anyway.
But also, everyone seems to do it in cycling.
I'm pretty sure he was caught. Like proven. It's just they caught like virtually every other cyclist in that same race.
It was so bad that there are 6 Tours De France without winners because he and so many people behind him were all disqualified.
What's interesting is Katie Ledecky can beat him on long distance swims, if we go by their times. So how much of an advantage is gender in many sports at this level? And let's look at disability - Usain Bolt had/has scoliosis, Ledecky has POTS, and many other athletes have "disabling" conditions. So why would intersex get a special category that isn't allowed? It's just transphobia.
Here’s a source for Katie Ledecky beating Phelps: https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-olympics-news-swimming-news-is-katie-ledecky-faster-than-michael-phelps-answering-the-burning-question-of-the-swimming-community-before-us-olympic-trials/
Looking at the other comments, you are clearly not here to discuss, but I will make a good faith attempt and play devil's advocate.
The difference between intersex and other conditions you mentioned is that it blurs the lines of a specific set of parameters that are specifically used to create categories between sports. Men and women are not fighting each other for more than anagraphic reasons (I hope we can all agree on this), and if a condition invalidates that distinction (I.e. gives some advantages that men have over a women), then it breaks the boundary of such categories in a similar way as it would be having someone from a heavier category fight in a lighter one (BTW, this is routinely done by having athletes go in terrible dehydration regimes).
Now this has nothing to do with this specific case, as there is no any objective proof for any of this, nor that she is intersex nor that she does have any advantage, but it's purely a way to frame the answer to the question "what's the difference between having scoliosis and being intersex".
Edit:
I will add one more thing, comparing a sprinter to a long-distance swimmer is exactly like comparing someone who runs 100m with those who run marathons. Clearly there is an advantage, considering that Katie Ledecky is an absolute monster, but she would have beaten the 3 worse times only that men did in this Olympics, and that she would have been almost a minute behind the winner, meaning almost 2 full lengths. Of course men have an advantage...also if you took the time from https://www.worldaquatics.com/athletes/1001621/michael-phelps, you probably have seen that he was 15 at the time...
The thing is, other hormones can give advantages too. That people put so much stock into testosterone alone is bad science. That intersex conditions that involve testosterone are so hated is transphobia. Women should be in their neat little boxes and men in theirs and any anatomy that changes that is taboo and should be banned. Like where should an intersex fighter compete? If this woman was intersex and had LOCAH or PCOS or other conditions, should she not be allowed in any division of Olympics?
Why don't we have testosterone classes instead of (or in addition to) weight classes, if it matters so much? All athletes with the same level of testosterone can compete, just like athletes that weigh the same compete against each other. Why dont we organize it that way instead? Isn't that more exact and fair?
I didn't mention testosterone at all. I am not a specialist and I mostly don't care about the details. I specifically talked in functional terms: if whatever condition gives you some advantages that men have, then it breaks the categories that are established. In this way, that condition would be different from -say- having huge feet like Phelps, even if they give you an advantage, because there are no categories based on foot size in swimming.
Everything else is an interesting hypothetical discussion, and maybe one day categories will be based on more parameters. Fact is, today they are like this, rough and using proxies such as gender and weight to make fights that are more-or-less fair.
Well, everyone else here is specifically talking about testosterone. That's the "problematic" chemical. It's relevant because it's a normal endogenous chemical we make and some women naturally make more. It can help with more muscle mass and bone density. That it's testosterone is entirely relevant.
That's like speaking on Gaza and saying "it doesn't matter where it is." Like yes it absolutely matters. The context and specifics matter when discussing complicated topics.
All athletes that beat other athletes have a presumed physical advantage. A physical advantage isn't an issue. It's testosterone that's the issue according to the people bitching about it.
No, it's a physical advantages that derive from a condition that renders certain parameters (whatever they are) similar to stronger categories (in this case, men).
If it's just testosterone or a combination of hormones and other things it doesn't matter in the perspective of the discussion I was trying to have (which answered your question, by the way)...
I've already provided multiple examples where the physical advantages, resulting from a neurochemical anomaly, exist and no one had an issue. Why is testosterone special? And if testosterone ISN'T special, then why aren't they testing for other enodgenous neurochemicals like lactic acid and banning based on that? Why doesn't this group of lactic acid anomalies get kicked out and refused placement?
Again, it's transphobia.
You are arguing a point I specifically didn't make. So I don't know what to answer you, since none of it has to do with my actual opinion.
Your argument is that intersex conditions blur boundaries for sex in sports. My argument is that these categories are arbitrary and I'm explaining why.
You: the color orange messes with the boundaries we have in place for red and yellow! It can't be involved!
Me: the boundary for yellow and red is arbitrary and visible light exists on a continuum anyway!
But that's literally every condition. Thats everything a top physical athlete has - their entire physique is a physical advantage over others. How is it different than say, Michael Phelps producing less lactic acid which allows him to have greater endurance? Why is lactic acid okay to be different with, but not testosterone? Both are genetic abnormalities that confer an advantage.
The reason is that they can't be transphobic about lactic acid.
So why men and women should compete separately? If you think they don't, then fine. If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is "because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women". What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.
Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don't think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it's a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.
I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production. Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.
You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it's what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn't make the rules and frankly I don't care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it's a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.
There are sports that are designed in a way that give estrogen dominant people advantages. Testosterone isn't an advantage for every sport, and Testosterone in isolation isn't an "advantage men have over women," because it comes with a cost including lower lifespan. Cool that you think that way?
The way many sports are designed gives testosterone dominant people an advantage. That's patriarchy for ya.
Height isn't that important for swimming or even running - ShaCarri is like 5'1".
Lactic acid is not related to gender, that's my point. But you clearly believe in gender determinism and think sex chromosomes make up a huge part of genetic makeup when it is quite tiny. Women and men have more in common than we have different.
My criticism is that categories based on gender are unscientific. Which you agree with but say you can't be bothered with the details so its good enough. Well, some of us are smart enough to actually analyze this and know enough about medicine to criticize the heuristic of Testosterone as a metric for athletic competitions when there's more involved than just T.
She is a woman who was born a woman and happens to have high testosterone for a woman, just like some people are taller than others. She just happens to be at one end of the testosterone spectrum.
Just because you want baseless rumors to be true doesn't make them true.
Hold on, her testosterone levels are known? I haven't come across them. What are they?
"Higher than average." Hence the upper body muscles being larger that average for a female boxer.
It isn't rocket surgery.
wrong. the IBA said they never did any testosterone tests. feel free to disprove me, but to my knowledge there is 0 evidence even hinting at her having high T
Where did I say anyone tested her?
Oh, they must just have gotten her "hIgEr ThAn AvErAgE" testosterone results from the Olympic village psychic. I must have been silly to assume that saying it's higher than average meant someone tested rather than you just pulling bullshit out of your ass.
You say it like it is a bad thing to acknowledge that people have differences in their biology.
So they're not known.
Why would they ever make that known to the public. Would be a huge invasion of the competitors privacy. Kinda weird.
Its part of wada rules to which the ioc is compliant? Drug test results for these organization are often published, at least they are for my powerlifting org
I haven't seen any evidence that you aren't a Russian bot.
Нет, Я сам Путин.
There seems to be little credible hard evidence on either side, so anyone claiming to know the real truth here is just talking out of their ass.
That's the point I was originally trying to make. This article is written as if the question has been conclusively answered, but it hasn't been.
You're making it sound like whether she's trans is a valid question, which it isn't
Her testosterone treated within the allowed range.
The genetic issue she has is in 1in 600 people. Not exactly rare
There is not really a need to. The allegation comes from the IBA which is unrecognized by the Olympics and is a Russian propaganda organization. A Russian boxer lost to her and an official who is now fired for corruption disqualified her. Her birth certificate and passport say female and her testosterone is within the range for women. You can't just give extra screening to women you don't find attractive.
There is certainly a need to test, but this test (whatever it is) should apply to all women equally and definitively.
and the wba...but what do you care.
You mean another organization that tested her but never told us specifically what the test was, who administered it, who analyzed it and what the results were?
yeah. what was i thinking. they all must be wrong, you must be right. may the testosterone fuel imane end the sport for good for all women.
She wasn't fucking tested for testosterone. And even if she was, women can have high testosterone.
But you and the other white knights telling women they have to prove they're women if they look too masculine will definitely not discourage "real" girls and women from competing. I'm sure that 12-year-old Chinese skateboarder is just dying for someone to tell her she has to prove she has the correct amount of testosterone or the right type of genes or with a genital examination. You and the others want to torture kids and you don't even realize it.
1, trans women are actually at a competitive disadvantage since hormone blockers also nullify the low levels of Testosterone that women produce naturally.
2, of all the fucking countries to suspect of "cheating" by fielding a trans woman, ALGERIA‽
Good points. And everyone should always upvote proper use of an interrobang.
I always downvote it.
What I'm going to say has nothing to do with the Algerian boxer, she was born a woman and if we started banning athletes from the Olympics whose rare genetics gave them an advantage, there'd be no reason to watch.
That is objectively false for combat sports. Blockers do not reverse the years of effects that testosterone has on their bodies development, such as skeletal structure and bone density.
I don't understand this insistence on denying reality for the very niche topic of trans women competing in combat sports, it is dangerous.
If you don't believe me, go listen to the interviews of female MMA fighters who Fallon Fox destroyed, and I'm talking like fractured skulls.
I'll preface this with saying I am a contract absolutionist and the boxers in question qualified according to the IOC rules so I 100% support their participation and/or wins. I do want to point out:
Neither of these 2 are trans. They are DSD. Born and raised female their entire lives.
While I agree there are some long term developmental advantages that androgen blockers do not mitigate as far as I can tell all actual Trans athletes that previously qualified failed to do so after taking any requisite blocker regimen which, inconclusively FTR, strongly suggests they do mitigate most of the key advantages here.
That said, I do not agree with the IOC (and/or the relevant preceding governing bodies) being so inclusive for the female competition categories. But for a dysfunction in typical fetal development she would have been AMAB and squeaking into eligibility on a technicality is just a bad look any way you objectively look at it.
Prevalence of AIS in the population: 0.006%
Prevalence of Medallists in the Woman's Welterweight category: 33%
While scientifically inconclusive this statistic supports the need for further hypothesis testing lest 49.994% of the population be relegated obsolete.
I'm aware that the Olympic boxer has DSD, and that it's prevalent in an outsized portion of female combat sports athletes. I'm still of the opinion that they should not be discriminated against for using their genetic condition to their advantage in becoming a world class athlete. I see this as no different from how Michael Phelps has a condition where he produces a lot less lactic acid.
If you were implying that the Olympics should start genetic testing of athletes and screening them for these types of conditions, I am entirely against that, see my previous response.
Did you miss the part where I was very clearly and specifically talking about the case of trans women combat sports athletes? Those who had male levels of testosterone during their body's development and who then transitioned.
This is a very niche subject, but for some reason people like the user I was responding to, insist on pretending that puberty as a male doesn't matter if the adult athlete is on blockers, and that it does not give them an advantage in a combat sport. I'm not so much concerned about the advantage itself, as I am about the inherent danger to the other participants.
Striking blows from a musculature developed in male levels of testosterone, present an outsized risk of death, or permanent injury, to a female fighter/boxer. A risk that is significantly higher than the normal risks associated with combat sports.
I know nothing of this boxer, but a Trans boxer would have several advantages outside of hormone levels. Physically, males are much better suited for boxing than females. They have larger hearts, lungs, longer arms, bigger hands, and hips more in line to directly send power from punching and keep in balance. Muscle and mass aside, men are better suited at punching, and those advantages don't go away with hormone blockers.
As to hormone therapy, do you think a professional m2f Trans athlete is going to be taking enough blockers to be towards the lower end of female testosterone, or taking just enough to be in the high end? This is a completely separate argument from the first point I've made, but im just curious as to why you would assume it nullifies all the testosterone. You have to have some in order to live. Your bones will go to shit, your heart won't work right, and you won't be able to make enough blood cells. Along with muscle loss, fatigue, and other issues. Hormone therapy will not take you down to 0 testosterone.
The claim is not that she is taking hormone blockers, and not that whatever condition she may have is known to the Algerian government or even to herself.
Bro please just fucking stop being such an insistent dumbass.
The article says the IOC honored what was on her passport. I don't think there was any valid concern raised, it was just the Russian body doing Russian things.
Yes, they chose not to investigate. I suppose one might call the allegations unfounded, but without evidence to the contrary they can't reasonably be called false.
The whole world:
"There is no evidence that shes is anything but a natural born woman. It's clear this is fabricated outrage."
You:
"They didn't provide evidence of no evidence, so I am going to keep believing this fabricated outrage because I like being angry and refuse to stop."
There’s a teacup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. There’s no evidence to the contrary, so it can’t reasonably be called false.
That's not comparable here. Chromosomes and hormone levels are easily testable. (I don't know what the IOC's actual policy is, but I'm sure it's something measurable.)
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Teacups are man-made objects, rocket launches are closely monitored, and no rocket is known to have launched a teapot into that orbit. It isn't absolutely impossible that something very much like a teapot formed there spontaneously, that a teapot was secretly launched there for no apparent reason, or that extraterrestrials placed a teapot there, but again there is evidence that these events are very unlikely to have happened. Russell's goal was to illustrate that the burden of proof should be on the one making unfalsifiable claims, but he didn't pick a good example - the lack of a plausible mechanism for the teapot to arrive in that orbit was even stronger evidence before spaceflight.
There's a manhole cover out there that isn't on a single NASA manifest either.
That's an urban legend.
Does snopes have anything about a teacup?
China launched the teapot on a rideshare rocket that delivered 60 other payloads. It’s top secret, and the US Gov doesn’t want to publicize that the Chinese have developed a space tug capable of inserting a 200g teacup into a mars transfer orbit.
Seriously, dude?
Reread my post. I understood the reference.
Do you? Because you are making arguments he refuted decades ago.
From your Wikipedia article itself:
Cool. You read the Wikipedia article. Let me know when you actually read Russell.
I will note that you are the one making claims without evidence about what Russell wrote and by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you.
What claims do you imagine I’m making?
You're claiming that Russell addressed the claim that there is in fact strong evidence against the teapot.
Research the SRY gene. It's why she "failed" a test that wasn't looking for it. She was born female. She is female. Her passport says she's female. The IOC says she's female. The ONLY people making the claim are Russians and their bad science and conservatives and their bad faith.
To be fair, the Russians making the accusations are also malicious.
Neither can the allegation that I'm making right now, that you are a pedophile.
Women do not have to prove that they're women. The IBA didn't even say what test they gave her who administered it and who analyzed it. All they said was it wasn't for testosterone.
Is that true? I've never thought about how it works for Olympics. But it's completely self reported? If that's true it does seem open to abuse.
She was born a girl. Do you really think Algeria, of all places, would be okay with a “male” athlete competing as a woman?
I don't know anything about that, but that's not what I was asking
That is all the IOC requires. Why should they require anything else?
It’s quite common to test for testosterone. For one because synthetic testosterone is on the doping list. That’s also why the IBA test is so suspicious. If her testosterone was at male levels, that should have been discovered way earlier with a doping test.
Again, the fake Russian test failed her for an unknown test but said the test WASN'T about testosterone. The gender thing has nothing to do with Russia.
Yep. They won't say what the test was, they won't say who administered it and they won't say what the results were.
I said to someone else who was arguing that it must have been a legitimate test, "what if the test was an official walking into a room with her, saying, 'I know a man when I see one,' and walking out?" Because that could absolutely have been the test. We have zero clue apart from it not being a testosterone test.
It's weird how people are filling in details into the Russian test. Russia was just salty their undefeated girl lost.
It's clear as mud when I look at ioc website. I am not sure you or prior poster are correct though. It appears there are suppossed to be some regulations about who can participate in the women's category and that it may vary between sports. The new guidelines seem very nontransparant. If completely unregulated there is the opportunity for abuse. Your question of why is akin to asking why not simply allow athletes to self report if they are doping or not and simply allow them to participate without testing as long as they say they aren't.
Okay, so how would you define 'woman' so that it is universal enough to fit all types of women even if you don't include people who have 'boy' on their birth certificate?
Because there is no evidence Khelif is anything but a woman with a lot of strength and physical advantages as a boxer. Are we going to test Brittney Griner to see if she's a woman too?
I'm not on the ioc bro. I'm curious from someone that understands the policy to learn more about it as these are interesting topics. You clearly aren't the person to talk to though. I'm not interested in opinions.
Too bad opinion is all you're going to get for who qualifies as a woman to box other women since there's not one single organization and also no hard biological definition for what counts as "woman." But the IOC goes by what is on your birth certificate and passport. You may not like that they do that, but that doesn't really change what I said initially about what they say qualifies.
Why don't you think that I like that? What is your source for that being the only criteria that is used and why are you ignoring the fact that they do say the criteria varies by event. You can have your opinions, but please don't try to superimposr any onto me.
Again, it's not my opinion, it's the IOC's.
This isn't a complicated case. She was born a female with female genitalia and has a passport issued as female and self reports as female. She is not transgender. What else is needed but to test for doping? Half of all women have higher than average testosterone levels, that is how averages work. Many top athletes are anomalies of some sort.
The IOC did create a framework for transgender athletes but that doesn't apply to her. The fascists are just trying to smear her and paint her as a cheater and "other" like fascists do.
I agree with your point and with what you said, but I want to clarify something:
That's not how averages work. That's how median works. For example:
-Person A: 4 units testosterone
-Person B: 4 units testosterone
-Person C: 7 units testosterone
Mean: (4+4+7)/3= 5 units
Median: 4 units
So 2 people would be under the average because one person shoots the average up.
The word average is often used to mean mean, however it can be used less specifically - median is a type of average as well.
From Merriam-Webster definition of average:
1a) a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
Also, things like testosterone levels in a population usually follow a normal distribution, where both mean and median are the same, so the distinction is often meaningless for practical purposes
Still, that's not how the mean or the mode work. And one could argue a group of Olympic athletes is not a big enough population to assume a normal distribution. But yeah, you're also right.
True of course haha. But among top athletes I'd expect the vast majority to be above (or below) average outliers in various metrics.
To add, the allegation was made by the International Boxing Association which is apparently controlled by the Russian plutocrats and gangsters.
It's really a good example that it takes more energy to refute false allegations than to make them.
I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't know how averages and medians work, but thanks for telling us. I believe the person you're replying to was just being sloppy with terminology, as is very common. Their point still stands.
I'll say I didn't know "average" could also mean median and mode as another comment pointed, maybe I wouldn't have commented then.
It's common to be confused over statistics, as they aren't very intuitive, so I just wanted to clarify for whoever needs it.
Wow, where do you work? Where do you live? Have you not have a conversation with a member of the general public? There are people who can barely read. Not understanding statistics and averages is pretty common, and doing a quick summary to make sure everyone is on the same page is pretty good communication.
ssshh, woke facism is a young flower. dont tell the kids to reflect on things. womens boxing has become obsolete by this decision and the opposite of what these idiots that downvoted you happend. ofcourse she won. that is why so many women do want to box her. but those women dont matter as long as the dumb kids can get a kick out of pretending to fight the good fight.