There are "men" on this sub who want women to accept the situation as it is. Ordering women how they are supposed to feel and live is the new liberal

Honestly wasn't expecting Algeria to be okay with this, not as surprising coming from the IOC though.

The IOC is likely saying it's "not a transgender issue" because Imane Khelif isn't transgender; she's intersex. It appears that she has some kind of intersex condition akin to Swyer Syndrome in which women can have an XY chromosomal combination and naturally elevated levels of testosterone while also having female typical genitalia. This is a very similar situation to the South African runner Caster Semenya, as Imane Khelif has lived her whole life as a girl/woman. She's never transitioned, never has lived as a boy/man, and has been legally documented as a girl/woman her whole life in Algeria. Running is one thing, and a combat sport another--so I get why this can bring up strong opinions from people.

Cursory look online says that Khelif's boxing record out of 14 matches is 9 wins and 5 losses. So, she's certainly taken losses against other women and is not at an unfair advantage to the point of being unbeatable. For instance, she lost in the quarterfinals in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

All this to say, it's a complex issue and I don't pretend to know the answer or what should be done that maximizes fairness and sport.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 1 2024 09:14am

Hopefully I don’t meet them in public, they wouldn’t like me at all. I’ve met a customer that was trans and he told me stories about how much he hated his family. All I heard were signs of abuse and mental disorder.



I suspect that this horrible movement will be all over news, sports and events so that they would trick young children believing this crap. Undergoing surgery basically removes their genetics(females have to stop T hormone injection just to get their fertility back but that makes them less of a man) from the gene pool and a lot of them can’t feel pleasure because of the mutilation.

It seems you're right, she's not transgender but has a genetic condition resulting in testosterone levels normally seen in men. The only restrictions at the time are for 400m to 1-mile events. Previous Olympics had other athletes with the same type of condition change categories to 200m in order to avoid restrictions. That part makes no sense to me, especially for combat sports.

in a general sense i'd say any biological woman who produces testosterone at a male level should be banned for an unfair advantage. the olympics imo should have a blanket policy, the same level of fairness in speed walking that there is in boxing. case by case basis is just a liability for continued controversy taking away from the integrity of the games. but on that same token the blanket policy needs to be set for the worst case, which is likely combat sports.

ive also read there are 2 boxers in this controversy, im curious if both are intersex, which is exceedingly rare. but not unlikely that such individuals are naturally funneled into sports by their abilities.

elsewise "fairness" is setting T levels to an intersex females natural range, then we get all the women pumped up on T. slipper slope.

but if they're not willing to make a general call im shocked they let it slide in a combat sport. just seems like a gaffe.

That person has got XY - DNA. You might classify the person as naturally occurring male to female transgender. It still shouldn't distract from the unfair advantages XY- body build and elevated testosterone levels bring to the table. A sport is divided in categories with clear rules, so the outcome would be competitive and fair. If you have someone at a total disadvantage, that's not sports anymore but a show, a shitshow, I may add. In case of combat sports, you endanger the physical well-being of the other party. The Olympics are no place for such a farce, although after the opening I wouldn't expect much from them.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Aug 1 2024 09:53am

They allowed Heather Swanson into the tournament?

I think one of the prevailing arguments is that sport is inherently unfair and that people have various kinds of genetic or biological advantages, so where do we draw that line so that people aren't occluded from participating for factors outside of their control or influence? People will often cite Michael Phelps as an example from this vantage point, given that he has an atypical wingspan, is double-jointed in his ankles, and reportedly produces half the lactic acid of other athletes--all things some people reference as aiding his competitive advantage that distinguishes him and his physiology from his competitors*.

*It is fiercely debated whether this angle has merit. I make no claims one way or another; simply bringing up the argument.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 1 2024 10:14am

The line was already drawn at male vs. female. Testosterone production seems like a good way of assigning those inbetween to either category.

Michael Phelps had a great wingspan for his height (6'7" at 6'4"), but it still falls into the expected values. Having testosterone levels comparable to men (10-35 nmol/L) when the standard for women is usually below 2nmol/L seems like a much bigger advantage than 3" of wingspan.