You're a qualified idiot. The therapy that's needed is for yourself.
Olympics
- Thread starter Grip220
- Start date
You're pretty stupid and I'm sure you cannot understand the science in this article. The IOC's classification system is basically from sex on a birth certificate. This isn't scientifically accurate and does not take in account hormone levels that are considered normal in males and females. This person is a male, they have normal male hormone levels that females can only achieve by the use of testosterone which is banned in the Olympics. For example my wife's hormone replacement therapy would make her ineligible for any IOC event, even though her hormone levels are below that of this male, and yes he is a male.
This male has normal male hormone levels, levels that cannot be achieved by a woman without using exogenous testosterone. Read the articles explaining it, I've linked them here.
Intentionally. For inclusivity. There are a couple lawsuits against sporting organizations that penalized female athletes for their naturally occurring hormone levels. So perhaps also to avoid unnecessary lawsuits.
"Normal" is a statistical term. It assumes a bell curve. There are always legitimate measurements outside any band that attempts to limit competition to some "normal" range. And it is scientifically impossible to discern a material athletic advantage between the one who naturally falls just within any band and the one who falls just outside it.
In other words, "normal" becomes arbitrary with respect to what is deemed athletic advantage and exclusion. Therefore, using "normal" hormone bands alone would be inherently problematic in addition to being contrary to Olympic ideals.
Hormone levels may be an indicator of potential use of a banned substance. That is how they might be used. Banned substances need to be detected to exclude an athlete as an unfair competitor.
Of course there is a bell curve, however certain levels are beyond the norm. My wife is receiving hormone replacement therapy for menopause. /they raised her test levels to app 230 or so. this is above the normal range and she's IOC ineligible now, lol. Not that she ws and Olympic athlete anyway. The normal range is 9-55 ng/dl, so she's 4X the upper range, but the docs that do this believe that is optimal.
Men range from 315-1000ng/dl. So yeah, you can assume someone with 4X or more of a male hormone such as my wife would have and advantage. At the low end for men, 315, you are are 6X higher. the mid range is app 12X, the high end is near 20X.
So they are accounting for this.
Testosterone Levels: Normal Levels by Age, Gender, and More
Learn about healthy and normal hormone and testosterone levels for both men and women—including how to test, symptoms of low testosterone, and treatment.
Normal female testosterone levels by age
Use this testosterone levels by age chart for females to see if you should consult your doctor about high or low testosterone
www.singlecare.com
Note doctors who do hormone replacement believe there are health benefits to more optimal levels on the high end of normal.
the judge not lest ye be judged is so misunderstood. If I get the wrong BBQ sauce for my wife, I will be judged by her and God will agree.
XY Athletes in Women’s Olympic Boxing: The Paris 2024 Controversy Explained
The historical, political, and medical context of the Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting cases.
quillette.com
The bottom line is that the IOC is choosing the rights of trans activists over women.
Who is they?
Doctors with their modern medicine (not the IOC)?
"Healthy" in terms of what... minimal risk of adverse side effect to taking medicine that affects the level?
Neither has anything to do with an athlete with a naturally occurring testosterone level above the range modern medicine deems ideal, all other things being equal. So I continue to fail to see the relevance to the two boxers and the IOC's stance.
Best wishes to your wife and her therapy.
Statements on record that the boxer is neither intersex nor trans. From what I read, she was assigned female since birth. So really having trouble understanding the relevance. It's inclusivity. It's not cheating. Fairness is subjective.XY Athletes in Women’s Olympic Boxing: The Paris 2024 Controversy Explained
The historical, political, and medical context of the Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting cases.
The bottom line is that the IOC is choosing the rights of trans activists over women.
Athletes do not have testosterone outside of the normal unless they have certain medical conditions or take exogenous testosterone. It's why there is a range listed.
High testosterone levels can be a sign of an underlying health condition that increases levels of circulating testosterone on the body.
Factors that can raise testosterone levels include:
- acromegaly or Cushing syndrome, which affect the pituitary gland
- benign or cancerous adrenal tumors
- congenital adrenal hyperplasia
- the use of certain medications, such as fluoxymesterone (Halotestin)
- using anabolic steroids
- testosterone supplementation
What causes high testosterone in females, and what are the symptoms?
Screening for testosterone abuse in male athletes using the measurement of urinary LH, a revision of the paradigm - PubMed
The primary screening method for the detection of doping by athletes using synthetic versions of endogenous steroids such as testosterone relies on measurement of the ratio of testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) in urine. In 2005 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) lowered the T/E value at...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Medical Beat: What are T/E ratios? And why do cutoff limits vary? (Updated)
Following UFC 146 headliner Alistair Overeem’s failed drug test, my inbox is full of questions regarding T/E ratios and the like. So maybe it’s time for
mmajunkie.usatoday.com
This explains it quite well, 4:1 catches app 95%, 6:1 gets 99%, 14:1 is crazy. He was using.
Right, so if the MMA guy is using, what does that say about testing protocols if he's not caught?Athletes do not have testosterone outside of the normal unless they have certain medical conditions or take exogenous testosterone. It's why there is a range listed.
High testosterone levels can be a sign of an underlying health condition that increases levels of circulating testosterone on the body.
Factors that can raise testosterone levels include:
Athletes and bodybuilders sometimes use anabolic steroids to improve athletic performance and build muscle mass. Testosterone replacement therapy can treat low testosterone levels.
- acromegaly or Cushing syndrome, which affect the pituitary gland
- benign or cancerous adrenal tumors
- congenital adrenal hyperplasia
- the use of certain medications, such as fluoxymesterone (Halotestin)
- using anabolic steroids
- testosterone supplementation
What causes high testosterone in females, and what are the symptoms?
Screening for testosterone abuse in male athletes using the measurement of urinary LH, a revision of the paradigm - PubMed
The primary screening method for the detection of doping by athletes using synthetic versions of endogenous steroids such as testosterone relies on measurement of the ratio of testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) in urine. In 2005 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) lowered the T/E value at...
Medical Beat: What are T/E ratios? And why do cutoff limits vary? (Updated)
Following UFC 146 headliner Alistair Overeem’s failed drug test, my inbox is full of questions regarding T/E ratios and the like. So maybe it’s time for
This explains it quite well, 4:1 catches app 95%, 6:1 gets 99%, 14:1 is crazy. He was using.
And what does this guy have to do with the female boxers?
Were the IBA test results based on high testosterone greater than the ratio appropriate for females or assertion of a Y chromosome thru some genetic testing?
(That's somewhat rhetorical.)
If I understand the first report, a lower ratio (6:1 to 4:1) did not detect more male cheaters. Furthermore, a male with a naturally lower T/E ratio could cheat (boost testosterone) without triggering an investigation and further testing. Sounds like there's no perfect system.
Last edited:
No that's nonsense. Have you even read the articles I linked? People can have an appearance of being female and be a biological male, normal male profile and all the other stuff that goes with it. Later the testes will descend and most of these people chose to live as males. However physiologically they have all the advantages males have due to greater natural testosterone levels.
Inclusivity has not place in high level sports, they should be exclusive by design based and certain metrics. And having certain things like test levels 5-50 times greater than female competitors means biological males fight other males.
Read the linked articles, I'm not doing your homework for you. They are quite lengthy and should answer any questions you have.
Why is their eligibility for the female category in question?
The International Boxing Association (IBA) issued a statement on 31 July explaining that a “recognized” test had established that Khelif and Lin do not meet the eligibility standards for female competition. The IBA says this was not a testosterone test, which means it’s referring to a genetic test.
Here’s the relevant detail:
“High T” is one of the ways that testosterone levels outside of the female range tend to be described when one is speaking about an athlete in the female category. As you can see from Figure 1, immediately below, male and female T levels diverge at about the age of thirteen. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 below make clear there’s no overlap in male and female T levels after early adolescence. Doping and being male are two ways that an adult athlete might have “high T.”
Figure 1 from “Divergence in Timing and Magnitude of Testosterone Levels Between Male and Female Youths” by Senefeld, Coleman, Johnson et al. JAMA, 7 July 2020.
It’s important to note that the IBA’s statements about Khelif and Lin are doubted by the IOC and others because the IBA has a reputation for being less than reliable, and because the IOC says it hasn’t seen the results of the tests that were the basis for the IBA’s decision to declare them ineligible. Alan Abrahamson reports, however, that the IBA sent them Khelif’s results back in June 2023.
The International Boxing Association (IBA) issued a statement on 31 July explaining that a “recognized” test had established that Khelif and Lin do not meet the eligibility standards for female competition. The IBA says this was not a testosterone test, which means it’s referring to a genetic test.
Here’s the relevant detail:
Officials from the IBA have separately added that both fighters have XY chromosomes and high testosterone (“high T”) levels.
“High T” is one of the ways that testosterone levels outside of the female range tend to be described when one is speaking about an athlete in the female category. As you can see from Figure 1, immediately below, male and female T levels diverge at about the age of thirteen. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 below make clear there’s no overlap in male and female T levels after early adolescence. Doping and being male are two ways that an adult athlete might have “high T.”
It’s important to note that the IBA’s statements about Khelif and Lin are doubted by the IOC and others because the IBA has a reputation for being less than reliable, and because the IOC says it hasn’t seen the results of the tests that were the basis for the IBA’s decision to declare them ineligible. Alan Abrahamson reports, however, that the IBA sent them Khelif’s results back in June 2023.
What are DSD and why does elite sport care about them?
There are many different disorders or differences of sex development (DSD).
Depending on which you’re talking about, they can affect only males, only females, or both. As shown in Figure 2, immediately below, the only DSD of concern to sport affect genetic males who are also androgen sensitive—either fully, e.g. in the case of athletes with 5 alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), or substantially, e.g. in the case of athletes with partial androgen insensitivity (PAIS).
This makes policy sense. The point of the female category is to ensure that females only compete against each other and not against those with male biological advantage, and androgens are the primary driver of sex differences in athletic performance. As rough and insensitive as sex testing has been historically, the basic goal has remained constant.
Figure 2: Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Sex in Sport, 80 Law and Contemporary Problems 63–126 (2017). With additional credit to Jack Senefeld for updating the figure to include regulatory limits in nanomoles.
Athletes with 5-ARD and PAIS have an XY chromosomal complement; they have testes; their testes produce testosterone well outside of the normal female range; their androgen receptors read and process their “high T”; and as a result, their bodies masculinise through childhood and puberty in the ways that matter for sport. Thereafter, their circulating T levels continue to have their usual performance-enhancing effects.
In other words—as shown in Figure 3 below, which compares athletes with 5-ARD to transwomen and sex-typical males and females—their variations from the male norm (such as underdeveloped external genitalia) are irrelevant to athletic performance. When they enter female competition, they carry male advantage.
There are many different disorders or differences of sex development (DSD).
Depending on which you’re talking about, they can affect only males, only females, or both. As shown in Figure 2, immediately below, the only DSD of concern to sport affect genetic males who are also androgen sensitive—either fully, e.g. in the case of athletes with 5 alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), or substantially, e.g. in the case of athletes with partial androgen insensitivity (PAIS).
This makes policy sense. The point of the female category is to ensure that females only compete against each other and not against those with male biological advantage, and androgens are the primary driver of sex differences in athletic performance. As rough and insensitive as sex testing has been historically, the basic goal has remained constant.
Athletes with 5-ARD and PAIS have an XY chromosomal complement; they have testes; their testes produce testosterone well outside of the normal female range; their androgen receptors read and process their “high T”; and as a result, their bodies masculinise through childhood and puberty in the ways that matter for sport. Thereafter, their circulating T levels continue to have their usual performance-enhancing effects.
In other words—as shown in Figure 3 below, which compares athletes with 5-ARD to transwomen and sex-typical males and females—their variations from the male norm (such as underdeveloped external genitalia) are irrelevant to athletic performance. When they enter female competition, they carry male advantage.
Do Khelif and Lin have DSD that should make them ineligible for the female category?
As I write, there are currently three running versions of the answer to this question.
The first is the one from the—reputedly unreliable IBA—that Khelif and Lin do have DSD that should make them ineligible. That is, the IBA or its representatives have said they’re genetic males with male advantage. The latter generally means their T is bioavailable—they’re not androgen insensitive—and they’ve otherwise masculinised in the ways that matter in the arena.
The second is the one that’s trending on social media and in some press commentary saying—without evidence—that Khelif and Lin are entirely female, XX chromosomes, ovaries, and all. Some concede the point that the athletes’ phenotypes are masculine, but they say that lots of women—a status they tend to read broadly to include transwomen—have masculine phenotypes and so this is just a matter of accepting that premise.
The third seems to be the IOC’s present position if we carefully parse its highly coded pronouncements—that Khelif and Lin may well have XY DSD with male advantage, but because they were identified at birth as female and continue to identify as such, they’re women.
The IOC has spent a lot of time over the last few days lamenting the attacks on Khelif and Lin. We should all be lamenting them—they’re truly awful. Still, this volatile situation is almost entirely of the IOC’s own making. It’s sending impossibly mixed messages that were to be expected given its complicated relationship to sex and gender in sport.
You see, it's not cut and dried.
As I write, there are currently three running versions of the answer to this question.
The first is the one from the—reputedly unreliable IBA—that Khelif and Lin do have DSD that should make them ineligible. That is, the IBA or its representatives have said they’re genetic males with male advantage. The latter generally means their T is bioavailable—they’re not androgen insensitive—and they’ve otherwise masculinised in the ways that matter in the arena.
The second is the one that’s trending on social media and in some press commentary saying—without evidence—that Khelif and Lin are entirely female, XX chromosomes, ovaries, and all. Some concede the point that the athletes’ phenotypes are masculine, but they say that lots of women—a status they tend to read broadly to include transwomen—have masculine phenotypes and so this is just a matter of accepting that premise.
The third seems to be the IOC’s present position if we carefully parse its highly coded pronouncements—that Khelif and Lin may well have XY DSD with male advantage, but because they were identified at birth as female and continue to identify as such, they’re women.
The IOC has spent a lot of time over the last few days lamenting the attacks on Khelif and Lin. We should all be lamenting them—they’re truly awful. Still, this volatile situation is almost entirely of the IOC’s own making. It’s sending impossibly mixed messages that were to be expected given its complicated relationship to sex and gender in sport.
You see, it's not cut and dried.
The third seems to be the IOC’s present position if we carefully parse its highly coded pronouncements—that Khelif and Lin may well have XY DSD with male advantage, but because they were identified at birth as female and continue to identify as such, they’re women.
The IOC has spent a lot of time over the last few days lamenting the attacks on Khelif and Lin. We should all be lamenting them—they’re truly awful. Still, this volatile situation is almost entirely of the IOC’s own making. It’s sending impossibly mixed messages that were to be expected given its complicated relationship to sex and gender in sport.
The IOC wasn’t going to get away with this, of course, once the IBA called it out on its inclusion of Khelif and Lin in the female category. But it had tied its own hands in advance, and because of this—in my opinion—much of what has come out of its spokesperson’s mouth is a combination of “inside baseball” and sleights of hand.
Still, an excellent piece on 2 August by Alex Oller of Inside the Games tells us that knowledgeable reporters who are going with one of the two XY DSD versions of the answer to the question likely aren’t wrong. I recommend you read Oller’s reporting in full (and Inside the Games in general), but in sum:
Formally, the IOC is going with the gender that’s listed in Khelif and Lin’s passports, which undoubtedly say that their legal gender is female. You can think of this as the IOC’s current sex test—it’s using legal gender as a proxy for sex and/or eligibility for the female category.
The IOC has also said it has not seen anything to indicate that what’s in Khelif and Lin’s passports isn’t consistent with their sex. The IBA’s statements say otherwise, of course, but the IOC says it can’t trust the IBA’s statements on this because of the “arbitrary” procedure that yielded them.
At the same time, on the substance, the IOC has acknowledged that after Khelif’s first win on Thursday, it scrubbed from its own website the notation that at least Khelif—if not also Lin—has high T. To explain this, it said in part that T levels don’t matter, that lots of females also have high T. This is intentionally misleading.
Female athletes with high T—including those with polycystic ovaries—have T levels towards the top of the female range, not outside of the female range or inside the male range. Their sex is not in doubt. As I explained above, “high T” in an athlete who seeks to compete in the female category is code in international sports for either doping with exogenous androgens or being biologically male with bioavailable endogenous androgens. There’s no indication that either Khelif or Lin is doping.
As an aside, the reason many federations and the IOC itself for years used T as a proxy for sex is that it’s an excellent one: neither ovaries nor adrenal glands produce T in the male range, only testes do. If you’re looking for biological sex rather than legal gender, it’s certainly more accurate than a passport.
The IOC has spent a lot of time over the last few days lamenting the attacks on Khelif and Lin. We should all be lamenting them—they’re truly awful. Still, this volatile situation is almost entirely of the IOC’s own making. It’s sending impossibly mixed messages that were to be expected given its complicated relationship to sex and gender in sport.
- In June, the IOC issued a language guide that disallows the use of sex-based language to describe athletes at the Games and that requires the treatment of gender diverse XY athletes who identify as women to be unequivocal: they are women.
- This language guide follows from the positions the IOC took in 2021 that gender diverse XY athletes should not be considered to have male advantage in the arena simply because they’re male, and that male T levels shouldn’t be disqualifying—despite their scientifically well-understood role as the primary driver of the performance gap between the best males and the best females.
The IOC wasn’t going to get away with this, of course, once the IBA called it out on its inclusion of Khelif and Lin in the female category. But it had tied its own hands in advance, and because of this—in my opinion—much of what has come out of its spokesperson’s mouth is a combination of “inside baseball” and sleights of hand.
Still, an excellent piece on 2 August by Alex Oller of Inside the Games tells us that knowledgeable reporters who are going with one of the two XY DSD versions of the answer to the question likely aren’t wrong. I recommend you read Oller’s reporting in full (and Inside the Games in general), but in sum:
Formally, the IOC is going with the gender that’s listed in Khelif and Lin’s passports, which undoubtedly say that their legal gender is female. You can think of this as the IOC’s current sex test—it’s using legal gender as a proxy for sex and/or eligibility for the female category.
The IOC has also said it has not seen anything to indicate that what’s in Khelif and Lin’s passports isn’t consistent with their sex. The IBA’s statements say otherwise, of course, but the IOC says it can’t trust the IBA’s statements on this because of the “arbitrary” procedure that yielded them.
At the same time, on the substance, the IOC has acknowledged that after Khelif’s first win on Thursday, it scrubbed from its own website the notation that at least Khelif—if not also Lin—has high T. To explain this, it said in part that T levels don’t matter, that lots of females also have high T. This is intentionally misleading.
Female athletes with high T—including those with polycystic ovaries—have T levels towards the top of the female range, not outside of the female range or inside the male range. Their sex is not in doubt. As I explained above, “high T” in an athlete who seeks to compete in the female category is code in international sports for either doping with exogenous androgens or being biologically male with bioavailable endogenous androgens. There’s no indication that either Khelif or Lin is doping.
As an aside, the reason many federations and the IOC itself for years used T as a proxy for sex is that it’s an excellent one: neither ovaries nor adrenal glands produce T in the male range, only testes do. If you’re looking for biological sex rather than legal gender, it’s certainly more accurate than a passport.
The IOC has also said that it has given up sex testing because there’s no way to get it right practically and in a nondiscriminatory fashion and because scientifically there’s consensus Khelif and Lin are women.
It is impossible to reconcile the IOC’s statements here, even if you’re an insider. Either they had experts look at the files on the athletes or they didn’t. If they didn’t, there can’t be scientific consensus about anything.
By contrast, the rest is internally consistent. For political reasons in general, not with respect to Khelif and Lin in particular, the IOC doesn’t want to test athletes for sex because, in its view, it’s “impractical”—meaning expensive in the multiple ways it cares about—and “discriminatory” against XY athletes who identify as women.
Why were Khelif and Lin able to compete for years before being barred last year?
Khelif and Lin have been competing internationally in the sport of boxing for several years. They were only barred from global competition in 2023.
Prior to 2022, the International Boxing Association didn’t evaluate biological sex or male advantage with a chromosome or testosterone test. Instead, as the IOC is doing now, it relied on the athletes’ passports as a proxy for sex and/or eligibility for the female category. If an athlete was entered into international competition by their domestic federation in the female category and their identity document said they were female, the IBA accepted that as proof of their eligibility.
According to the IOC, the IBA “suddenly” and “arbitrarily” changed its approach in 2023. The IBA says it started conducting at least some biological tests after the Tokyo Games—at its world championships in 2022—but that it only began excluding ineligible athletes beginning in 2023.
Why is the IOC not the IBA in charge of whether Khelif and Lin compete in Paris?
The Olympic Charter normally leaves it to the international federations to set the eligibility standard for their sports. But as a result of governance failures and corruption scandals, the IOC hasn’t recognised the IBA’s authority to regulate the sport at the Olympic Games since 2019. Instead, competition in Tokyo and Paris has been run by an ad hoc group appointed by the IOC for this purpose. This group rejected the IBA’s biologically-based determination of Khelif and Lin’s sex in favour of the old passport test, which the IOC describes as “the rule in place in 2016.” As noted above, this happens to be consistent with the IOC’s own policy preferences.
How do Olympic Movement politics play into their story?
Olympic Movement politics are a huge factor in this story in at least two ways, both of which I’ve mentioned already.
The first of these is the IOC’s fight with the IBA. The IBA happens to be aligned with the Kremlin, which is separately hostile to the IOC for its stances on doping and the war in Ukraine.
The second is the IOC’s policy choice to align itself with trans-rights advocates and against advocates for a sex-based female category. Here, the IOC is not just at odds with the IBA but also with some of the Olympic Movement’s most important federations like World Athletics and World Aquatics. Unlike the IOC, these federations are determined to prioritise fairness and the preservation of the female category for female athletes.
It is impossible to reconcile the IOC’s statements here, even if you’re an insider. Either they had experts look at the files on the athletes or they didn’t. If they didn’t, there can’t be scientific consensus about anything.
By contrast, the rest is internally consistent. For political reasons in general, not with respect to Khelif and Lin in particular, the IOC doesn’t want to test athletes for sex because, in its view, it’s “impractical”—meaning expensive in the multiple ways it cares about—and “discriminatory” against XY athletes who identify as women.
Why were Khelif and Lin able to compete for years before being barred last year?
Khelif and Lin have been competing internationally in the sport of boxing for several years. They were only barred from global competition in 2023.
Prior to 2022, the International Boxing Association didn’t evaluate biological sex or male advantage with a chromosome or testosterone test. Instead, as the IOC is doing now, it relied on the athletes’ passports as a proxy for sex and/or eligibility for the female category. If an athlete was entered into international competition by their domestic federation in the female category and their identity document said they were female, the IBA accepted that as proof of their eligibility.
According to the IOC, the IBA “suddenly” and “arbitrarily” changed its approach in 2023. The IBA says it started conducting at least some biological tests after the Tokyo Games—at its world championships in 2022—but that it only began excluding ineligible athletes beginning in 2023.
Why is the IOC not the IBA in charge of whether Khelif and Lin compete in Paris?
The Olympic Charter normally leaves it to the international federations to set the eligibility standard for their sports. But as a result of governance failures and corruption scandals, the IOC hasn’t recognised the IBA’s authority to regulate the sport at the Olympic Games since 2019. Instead, competition in Tokyo and Paris has been run by an ad hoc group appointed by the IOC for this purpose. This group rejected the IBA’s biologically-based determination of Khelif and Lin’s sex in favour of the old passport test, which the IOC describes as “the rule in place in 2016.” As noted above, this happens to be consistent with the IOC’s own policy preferences.
How do Olympic Movement politics play into their story?
Olympic Movement politics are a huge factor in this story in at least two ways, both of which I’ve mentioned already.
The first of these is the IOC’s fight with the IBA. The IBA happens to be aligned with the Kremlin, which is separately hostile to the IOC for its stances on doping and the war in Ukraine.
The second is the IOC’s policy choice to align itself with trans-rights advocates and against advocates for a sex-based female category. Here, the IOC is not just at odds with the IBA but also with some of the Olympic Movement’s most important federations like World Athletics and World Aquatics. Unlike the IOC, these federations are determined to prioritise fairness and the preservation of the female category for female athletes.
Where do we go from here?
The Khelif and Lin cases demonstrate that everyone loses out when the eligibility rules are not firmly set in a way that’s consistent with the goals of the competition category. The firestorm this issue regularly and predictably causes, and the consequent damage to the organisations and athletes involved, should catalyse change. Continuing to push the matter away—as the IBA and other federations, including most prominently FIFA, have done over the years—only means that further ugly controversies will arise in the future.
I will close by reiterating the three basic points that I and other experts in girls’ and women’s sport have been making for a long time.
First, the female category in elite sport has no raison d’être apart from the biological sex differences that lead to sex differences in performance and the gap between the top male and female athletes. The suggestion that we could choose to rationalise the category differently—for instance, on the basis of self-declared gender identity—or that we could make increasingly numerous exceptions in the interests of inclusion (as the IOC seems to have done to allow Khelif and Lin to compete in Paris) has no legs outside of certain progressive enclaves.
Second, any eligibility standard—like the IOC’s framework—that denies or disregards sex-linked biology is necessarily category-defeating.
Finally, federations that are committed to the female category and to one-for-one equality for their female athletes must step up and do two things. They must craft evidence-based rules and then stick to them consistently. And they must seriously embrace other opportunities to welcome gender diversity within their sports.
From my experience in lifting I can usually tell who is using based on build and how much they're lifting. And knowing them personally. It's very easy to see the effects of anabolic use on women, they are masculinized. Biological men have variances and it gets stickier but you can have an idea.
The IOC doesn't want to bother with testing due to the cost and other reason which seem to be internal politics, not accuracy and safety for the athletes. They don't care about their athletes, they care about the bottom line.
The Khelif and Lin cases demonstrate that everyone loses out when the eligibility rules are not firmly set in a way that’s consistent with the goals of the competition category. The firestorm this issue regularly and predictably causes, and the consequent damage to the organisations and athletes involved, should catalyse change. Continuing to push the matter away—as the IBA and other federations, including most prominently FIFA, have done over the years—only means that further ugly controversies will arise in the future.
I will close by reiterating the three basic points that I and other experts in girls’ and women’s sport have been making for a long time.
First, the female category in elite sport has no raison d’être apart from the biological sex differences that lead to sex differences in performance and the gap between the top male and female athletes. The suggestion that we could choose to rationalise the category differently—for instance, on the basis of self-declared gender identity—or that we could make increasingly numerous exceptions in the interests of inclusion (as the IOC seems to have done to allow Khelif and Lin to compete in Paris) has no legs outside of certain progressive enclaves.
Second, any eligibility standard—like the IOC’s framework—that denies or disregards sex-linked biology is necessarily category-defeating.
Finally, federations that are committed to the female category and to one-for-one equality for their female athletes must step up and do two things. They must craft evidence-based rules and then stick to them consistently. And they must seriously embrace other opportunities to welcome gender diversity within their sports.
From my experience in lifting I can usually tell who is using based on build and how much they're lifting. And knowing them personally. It's very easy to see the effects of anabolic use on women, they are masculinized. Biological men have variances and it gets stickier but you can have an idea.
The IOC doesn't want to bother with testing due to the cost and other reason which seem to be internal politics, not accuracy and safety for the athletes. They don't care about their athletes, they care about the bottom line.
at these olympics we have
1. a bunch of chinese athletes that failed PED tests last olympics and have never been punished, but are still competing
2. a dutch athlete that served 13 months for raping a 12 year old, but is still competing
3. 2 boxers that are abiding by the same rules now that they did last olympics when 1 of them competed entirely without controversy
it is incredible (but completely unsurprising) which of those issues gets pages upon pages of comments and which are completely ignored
the power of social media amplification
1. a bunch of chinese athletes that failed PED tests last olympics and have never been punished, but are still competing
2. a dutch athlete that served 13 months for raping a 12 year old, but is still competing
3. 2 boxers that are abiding by the same rules now that they did last olympics when 1 of them competed entirely without controversy
it is incredible (but completely unsurprising) which of those issues gets pages upon pages of comments and which are completely ignored
the power of social media amplification
Just stating a fact. Not using it for an excuse for not succeeding. BTW, I do quite well. I have succeeded.
2 of the points everyone agrees upon, so......, duh.
Couldn't you fill in the blank on this? Hatred for religious people is open, blatant, and intense, and more than just progressives are in denial. That hatred also extends to one religion against another. As a Christian who has worked with a lot of nonreligious people, I haven't seen so much of this personally, but it has become a proxy for our bigger political differences. Wish the Olympics could be a time when we put these things aside for a couple of weeks.
Last edited:
Although the boxer in question has identified as female since birth, it is now circulating that he/she has since been diagnosed with "XXXY Syndrome". Now, there is so much misinformation going on around this topic so far, that I am not going to take that as 100%, but, scientifically speaking, that is a "male" syndrome, if he/she does in fact have that condition...
They are conditions. There are females with xy and males with xx which is not the norm. I believe females with xy is schwyers? and males with xx starts with a k. Then there are super males that have xyy.
You're out of luck though. Everyone in this thread is an expert in genetics so if you're asking basic questions you are going to get eaten alive. (That was sarcasm)
Last edited:
Your "facts" are self serving whiney bitching.. no one gives a rats ass how or who you worship.
I have read quite a bit about "XXXY Syndrome" specifically. In this case, the SRY gene(normally the key defining medical factor for being classified as a human male) is "functional", but often not "working" at the "normal" range for a vast majority of males. It is my understanding that the medical community has identified it as a very rare "male syndrome"....
Again, I say this not knowing if that is indeed a true diagnosis for said Olympic boxer, or yet another piece of misinformation surrounding this fiasco...
Some people think they’re being discriminated against when they’re not allowed to discriminate against others.
Here is the definitive answer. Could Trump reach down the pants and grab her by the pussy. If he can, girl. If he can't, boy.
No one huh? Seems to me that the opening ceremony went out of its way to offend Christians. Christians are being persecuted and murdered daily world-wide. In the USA, it is ALWAYS hunting season. Even Obama demonized them.
Wow.. paranoid much? Crazy how much you strive to be a victim. As Lying Donnie Sexual Abuser loves to say... SAD!
I'm not victim and don't claim to be one. Victim's give in and quit. I keep on marching forward tackling bigotry as I go. You are one of the bigots.
Can you provide some examples of Christian persecution in the United States?
Wow. Christian hunting season? You sound delusional. Keep your religion in the church and you won’t hear a peep out of the vast majority. Attempt to replace our republic with a theocracy and that power grab will be challenged.
Trying soooo hard to claim the mantel of victim. You go girl.
