- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is stupid. There’s no “far right” to purge women… the outcry is whether or not women’s sports are being treated fairly. The whole controversy about this boxing issue started when information was released that this female has failed gender tests in the past. Of course there’s going to be an outcry from people.
The right is notoriously known for the stauch stance of treating women fairly.
Exactly. And the outcry over unfairness in women’s sports is an effort to save it, not destroy it.
Lemmy doesn’t care about fairness. Only about ideology.
According to Lemmy it’s only fair to remove gender based competitions as gender is only a social construct. Fuck all the women who worked hard and dedicated their lives to a single event. Fuck them brutally because we want our ideology to stand victory.
An extended result of the view is that unaltered women does belong in the home pursuing more domestic tasks.
That’s quite the strawman …
Of course it is. Because regarded rethroic demand equally regarded arguments.
That’s weird and doesn’t make sense, but you do you.
-
No, not at all, you’re litterlly just making shit up to whine about.
-
You’re free to go back to reddit to be among people of similar integrity to yourself.
-
Would it make a difference to you if the controversy kicked off because the org that disqualified these two fighters was banned by the IOC from participating in the Olympics for shady stuff? Or if the org has never said why they were disqualified? Or if the guy making the wild claims is the head of the org and a friend of Putin, and the DQ for one fighter happened after she beat an until then undefeated Russian fighter?
You really should look into the background of it. Here’s an AP News link
If they were doing it to help, you’d think they’d actually look into if what they were doing was helping… when you care about someone or something, you put in the effort.
Inane Khelif never ‘failed a gender test’. A single test of unspecified nature and undisclosed method conducted by an unreliable sports governing body has purportedly either revealed higher testosterone levels or XY chromosomes. But due to the unspecified nature the result is neither reproducible nor reliable.
We do not know what is between Imane Khelif’s legs. It is absolutely possible to be XY and be born with a vagina that looks and works like any vagina. They might even have rudimentary (but non-functional) female reproductive organs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
If that is true about Imane Khelif, she may not even have known about it most of her life.
Should all Olympians be genetically tested or just examined to see what’s between their legs? If the former, which event do the women with Swyer Syndrome perform in? How about people with both sets of genitalia? They exist. What about people who are XXY or XYY?
And if you think the latter- please do justify that sort of invasive examination for the purposes of athletic competition. Unpaid athletic competition at that.
Do we need a protected class? If yes, there must be standards and those standards must be either endocrine or genetic or both. Yes they should be tested. Anyone failing the protected class can compete in the open class. It’s really that simple.
What open class? There is no open class at the Olympics. So no it isn’t really that simple.
Really? They prohibit women from competing alongside men?? No thats not the case, women only sports is to prevent males with higher biological advantage from taking over the women’s competition.
Is this an “Air Bud Rule” thing?
Also, we have no idea if Khelif is biologically male. We have one corrupt Russian official saying “well maybe.”
We actually do have a pretty good indicator that she’s biologically female - the fact that her home country, where she still lives, would’ve jailed her if they figured out she was a trans woman before they sent her to the Olympics. Algeria doesn’t allow gender transitioning in any way, and they can and do imprison people who live as a gender other than the one they were born as.
You clearly can’t convince people. Because they just move on to “even if she is biologically female…”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Do you really think it’s fair for a full blown man to fight women in the ring just because he identifies as a woman? Women will get very seriously hurt or possibly killed fighting someone assigned male sex at birth. I have no problem letting them do anything that doesn’t hurt others, but this is a case where I think we need to be more sensible.
If it’s about who might get hurt, maybe we should divide things up by something other than gender. I know plenty of women who could do a ton of damage with their fists and they aren’t even boxers.
It’s one thing to work within the limits of your physique to become stronger, better, etc. It’s another thing to have a totally different physique that gives you a starting point higher than can be achieved naturally by anyone else.
So put those women in a higher class. There are plenty of women with “masculine” physiques… or are you going to claim Brittney Griner is also not a woman?
I don’t think it’s fair to penalize a woman who works all her life to get to a certain level and just make her compete against someone who maybe hasn’t had to work at all because they are physically male. If anything, we need to make a class for people who are physically male but presenting female.
So many sports are entirely about the physique you inherited though. Yes there is some technique to swimming and obviously you have to train hard. But these are just prerequisites, not differentiators. If we start saying that winning because of your physique is no victory, then really half of the events become meaningless. To a large extent, the Olympics does measure inherited traits and I think we ought to recognize that that is its point. If you think back all those centuries, it was very obviously the point to prove that your people are genetically superior to their people.
This is the correct answer. Divide competitors up by class, skill level, or anything else besides perceived sexual anatomy.
Do you really think it’s fair for a full blown man to fight women in the ring just because he identifies as a woman?
Can you cite an example of this?
No I can’t because there’s no data to go off of. I’m honestly unclear as to whether it’s a valid issue or not. Even in this case where the data we have seems to indicate there’s an issue, the data doesn’t seem entirely trustable. Anyone claiming complete certainty in this environment with no evidence is clearly just blindly pushing an agenda in bad faith.
It seems odd that you’ve based multiple comments here on that example then, I think.
Did you actually read said comments? I’ve said this multiple times. It’s basically the thesis of my statements.
Boxing has weight classes. As do most other martial arts.
The problem is not a 50kg men fighting a 70kg women in terms of injuries and power imbalance. And in that set up the women most likely wins. The problem is the typical situation of a 80-100 kg men smacking down on a 50-60kg women. And that is the image the demagogues try to conjure.
So if your full blown men is a 60kg feather to be able to compete against another 60kg women, the whole trope falls apart.
A man with the same body weight as a woman would still inherently have more upper body strength and higher ability to gain it as that’s just how men are built vs women. It’s still not a fair way of setting intersex classes.
I mean if they’re doing the exact same rigor and type of training, eating the exact same diet, have had the exact same level of boxing experience and fought the exact same opponents at the same skill level, then yes there would be an advantage to whoever is assigned male
deleted by creator
Boxers and wrestlers have weight classes because weight confers a massive advantage and almost predetermines the outcome of the match. You might as well just award someone for weighing more, because skill can only overcome it to a point.
I would prefer if competitive classes were determined by things like weight which are universal and obvious and non-invasive to measure. However I don’t know if that works for everything. Hormones do in fact confer major advantages, as chemical doping does. Should we not test for doping either?
I do think it’s actually more invasive to try to measure if someone “lives as a woman” than it is to measure what’s in their blood. How do you even begin to define that, and aren’t you engaging in prescriptive sexism as soon as you start? I can tell that your suggestion comes from a place of wanting to support women and their autonomy but I don’t think you thought it through at all, at least not in the context of competitive sport. If you don’t care at all about fair sports competition, it’s all super easy. If you do want to enable fair sport competition, you have to actually deal with the complexities and not just fire off leftist slogans.
The determination of who may compete in limited-class sports must be made by rules.
It’s not a matter of who you or I think is a woman who qualifies. Only the governing body of that sport makes that determination.
deleted by creator
That really doesn’t answer my question, it just splits it up between different bodies.
So let’s say it’s just a specific governing body of a sport? I’ll reword it with a minor changes:
Should athletes be genetically tested by that body or just examined to see what’s between their legs? If the former, do the women with Swyer Syndrome perform in the male or female divisions? How about people with both sets of genitalia? They exist. What about people who are XXY or XYY?
And if you think the latter- please do justify that sort of invasive examination for the purposes of athletic competition.
I think you can give a general answer to that question which applies to all members of, at the very least, the boxing league Khelif is in.
That really doesn’t answer my question, it just splits it up between different bodies.
Sorry, that’s just reality.
I can’t give you a general answer that applies to all of women’s sport, and for a specific answer regarding a particular women’s sport, you’ll need to consult with the governing body of that sport, and recognize that body may pander to interests (commercial, or the preferences of its participants and other stakeholders, etc) that have nothing to do with how you prefer to define “woman”.
So just accept that’s how things are and be happy with it? That’s what you’re saying?
I not telling you to accept or be happy with anything. I am saying that if you want women’s sports to work the way you think they should work, you’ll need to go through their governance bodies.
What a terribly passive way to think.
What is a sport? Why does it exist?
It exists because people come together to play it. And maybe because some people are willing to pay for tickets to watch it, or sometimes because powerful people want it (to sell product, to train people in national defense, etc).
If you’re not engaged with any of those stakeholders, you can’t change the sport. Ideas about the limited women’s class of sport will only change if the players & organizers want it to change – or in the rarer case, because the ticket buyers demand change. But many of these sports are not driven by ticket sales, so there is limited opportunity to win hearts and minds.
This isn’t about the external genitalia, not sure why you keep going there. This is about the levels of hormones over an amount of time that is known to impart a muscular advantage. The IOC needs a formula for this to decide who can be in the class. This would not be a determination of who is female.
So it is entirely based on hormones?
I guess in that case, men with hypogonadism would fight women. Right?
In that case, maybe they shouldn’t classify it between “men” and “women” classes.
I think the thing we are trying to regulate is the muscular advantage imparted by certain hormones over certain periods of time. Whether the person being measured has been labeled male or female doesn’t make any difference.
Again, in that case, let’s not classify it between men and women.
If it is about hormones, why then also not test for growth hormone (GH)? People with more than average GH might have longer legs, giving them an advantage in certain sports. There is also Adrenaline, Cortisone, etc. also giving certain advantages. Maybe we should try to cancel out ALL natural variations, to make the competitions more fair. In the end, we can only allow exact clones from each other to compete to each other. And end up with competitions which equal to throwing a dice, because nobody can be truly be “the best” anymore, which can be defined as “possessing the best set of natural variations that makes this person a born winner”.
I think the debate is about what a reasonable class is. I don’t think that an appendage, or identity for that matter, is a reasonable proxy for capability class. In my mind you really have to go one of two ways.
You either make everything class-less (think UFC 1) where all weights, sizes, abilities, genetics compete for a singular title
Or
You make science-based classes, based around whatever the best proxy for capabilities are (testosterone, chromosomes, height, weight, body fat percentage, some combination of the former, etc)
If you use nothing as a proxy, there would be a lot of people unable to compete but it would at least be unequivocally “fair”. If you use science-based capability classes you would have a wider range of “fair-ish” competitions, but there might be some weird overlap where some men, some women, and those in-between bridge accepted norms.
If you use nothing as a proxy, there would be a lot of people unable to compete but it would at least be unequivocally “fair”.
The thing is there’s always going to be people unable to compete. I don’t have the ability to compete in the Olympics, and that’s OK. I’m not asking for them to make a class for people like me specifically.
I don’t know what the “right” solution is, but my opinion has always been that the premier class should be unrestricted and anyone can compete. Whether we have subdivisions is another question, and then what those subdivisions should be is another. Is gender/sex the correct subdivision, or should it be something else? There are many women who can kick my ass despite being a 6’ tall man. Gender/sex is not a definitive proxy for capability.
YY is also a thing I believe
At least one X is required because it contains instructions to make very crucial stuff, while Y contains a bunch of switches turning things on and off.
Oh right, I think I was confusing that with Jacobs syndrome
If only there was some sort of search you could perform before spreading misinformation. One day such a technology may exist…
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
And put the cis women that they’re harassing in it??
This is not a trans issue, she’s a cis woman
I was listening on NPR about how women were checked for femininity and given a card after an official go to see their reproductive organs for Olympic sports. Fun times!
Do they also do Olympic penis inspection day for the make athletes?
Way back in the day, you wouldn’t have to do this.
every event was the dick and balls inspection event
And this was before your razor had six blades. Probably only two or three at most.
shit, the greeks had it right
the olympic genital inspector seems like a job for weirdos (deragatory)
It would be interesting for statistical analysis of our evolution, and for fun, to measure every one’s penis and be given a male card:
Name: Robert Schmidt Soft penis size: 3" Soft curvature= downward Hard penis size: 5.75"… He keeps saying 7" Hard curvature= left up Right ball r1= 1.5" Right ball r1= 1" Left ball r1= 3" Left ball r1= 1.5" Semen color= 270, 265, 256 Semen quantity= 10ml Semen smell= standard musky 275 Semen motility= 50% above average Semen morphology= 10% at average Semen taste= pineapple and onion Penis elastic modulii data…
IMO this reflects the conservative mindset that everything is black and white and that if they believe it then it will manifest itself as truth. Even if they have to force it to be so in a convoluted and hypocritical way.
What I think is that nature gives some people the mutation that could save humanity one day. The ability for XX and XX to make a XY if all the XY are unavailable. Mother Nature shows this is a rule in many of the other species on this planet.
Black and white is how both sides see it, but coming from different directions. Neither are willing to admit that there are nuances in anything.
There not only two sides though…
I mean, generally, yes you’re right. The devolution of political discourse has seen to everything being boiled down to one side vs the other. But in this particular case, the argument from the left/people arguing against the right’s weird obsession with “masculine women,” isn’t a black vs white issue. It’s a “whatever we don’t like is wrong” vs “what are you even talking about.”
Yeah, it’s still a two-sided issue, because absolutely everything is. That’s just how we’ve been conditioned (in the US, that is. Our two party system is particularly vitriolic and stupid). But hat doesn’t necessarily make it a black/white issue.
I’m just saying how it has to be, not how it is now.
Who cares, Djokovic is the GOAT :)
Obviously women are only allowed to compete if they have six children and do the fundie baby voice just right.
I feel I’m gonna regret asking but what, pray tell, is the “fundie baby voice” you speak of?
Exactly what it sounds like. Women who adopt an unnaturally high pitched voice (especially) around men as a way to signal a creepy form of submissiveness and youth that conservative men value.
I was correct, this is information I did not explicitly need and find yucky. Thanks!
Why isn’t this labeled as an opinion piece? There’s nothing in here to substantiate the headline and almost no journalism. I’m not used to work like this from The Intercept.
Can you explain a bit more? I just finished the article and I came to the opposite conclusion.
There’s a single quote of half a sentence from the New York Post, other than that where is the “right wing campaign”? Referencing Twitter and quoting other journalists does not equal journalism. Moreover, I see no reference at all to women being “purged” from women’s sports. This story is 98% opinion and 2% facts.
I feel like you’re just being wilfully ignorant and hyperbolic. These days I don’t have the energy for folks like you.
The far right prime minister of Italy attacked Khelif saying that it’s an injustice that she was allowed to compete, and far right politicians all over the world have started calling her a man flat out.
deleted by creator
Nobody claimed they were smart.
I don’t think it’s on purpose really, it’s just that sports is like the only case where being a trans woman could be a benefit, so it’s a critical part of the right wing attacks on trans people.
But then they just look crazy when they see there are more CIS child molesters than trans women in the Olympics, like surely if it was appropriate to be so mad about trans women dominating in sports you would have them showing up in the Olympics.
So they just had to invent a situation, and if it wasn’t the CIS woman they decided on, they would have found someone else.
deleted by creator
And transphobic selfrightious “feminists” like Rowling fell right into that trap. Bravo, you played yourself.
I think the transphobic trend inherited a lot of its energy from the anti-gay currents I watched my entire life, and which largely had the breath kicked out of them when gay marriage became recognized around the country.
Not all of the anti-gay current was about policing women’s bodies. Thats in there. But it’s also about what they call deviance. They have strict roles for people and you can’t keep anyone focused on their strict roles when anyone has absolute freedom to flout them. I don’t even think they care what trans and gay people are doing in other places. They care about their own authority to command their children how to be, and they think this authority is undermined if anyone out there can live a happy life in defiance of it.
That includes policing women’s bodies but is not limited to it. Things like making sure your sons have short haircuts and work hard at practicing sports are in there too. It’s about policing people generally. Blows my mind how they think the Left are waging a culture war when all we are doing is busting out of the cages they try to keep everyone in.
Imane Khelif, Lin Yu-ting or any woman’s testosterone levels give no more an advantage than Michael Phelps height, wingspan, hand/feet size and his body producing less lactic acid that shortened his recovery time. Yet nobody was screaming from their high horse about Phelps domination in the pool.
“The IOC insisted this week that no scientific or political consensus exists on gender and fairness issues. It gave updated guidance to sports governing bodies in 2021.” Source
Right wingnuts can go fuck themselves.
The more I think of it, it’s just an insoluble problem. Sex is not black and white. It is legitimately complicated, biologically. Yet if we don’t segregate sports, men will very broadly dominate women. All I can think is that every sport is going to need weight classes and possible hormone level classes within which people can compete. There’s a basic desire to measure skill, not just biological gifts. But that is obviously not going to work for swimming or whatever where skill is more of a prerequisite than a differentiator. I really couldn’t give a fuck about competitive sports and I’m glad because wow it’s going to be hard to keep doing.
Also, the body that DQed her in 2023 apparently ONLY found out “she was trans” (which she isn’t) after she had fought 9 other matches under the same federation, with testing before each one - her defeating a Russian boxer and immediately being DQed after that match, while fighting under the auspices of a Russian boxing federation, is totally coincidence, I’m sure.
No surprises here. You cannot be having babies and making sandwiches if you are doing sports.
As a stay at home Dad, I also find time to cook and play basketball in the local rec League. I personally think women should leave all that stuff to men and get back to work.
As a homemaking executive and full time single dad with no support, I also find time to cook and hike. I personally think women should leave all that stuff to men and get back to work and sugar momma me bc I’m tired.
Former SAH dad here too. Never got into sports, bit I hung with the SCA crowd.
I told my husband he must now be this dramatic when we’re out of onions or what is he even doing with his life?
I mean… it’s only fair lmao
