2024 Paris Olympics General (non-Basketball/Track & Field) Discussion Thread

[Rich Rane]

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

[a-French-Fan]

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

Come on , that is not so artistic tonight ! No drag queen, no metal group, no Philippe Katherine (the blue naked Schtroumpf)... This a very conventional ceremony until now

[G R E Y]

That wasn't a derail. That was a statement that clearly has implications for all female athletes involved. And it is a heated topic off this board and one that has put great pressure on current IOC leadership. Ignoring it would be head in sand about a key driver for present and future Olympics. You may want to characterize that as derailment so as to not have to address the giant white elephant in the Olympics arena/ring, but rest assured that upcoming IOC leadership will be dealing with it and sort it out.

Oh, it was absolutely a derailment of this thread. Just ask Sealab2024 who asked for this discussion to take place in another thread and all the people like Sofia and Lord Covington who have complained about having to wade through all these arguments to be able to discuss non-Basketball/T&F sports in these Olympics. Multiple people pleaded with you to discuss this issue in its appropriate thread and not here and you ignored everyone.

Saying that I only characterize it as derailment so as to not address the elephant in the room is ridiculous. Did I ever tried to ignore this topic? No, I didn't. In fact, I called you to open a new thread about it. You ignored that as well.

This topic should absolutely be discussed and it should be discussed in its own thread. It deserves its own thread. You are the one that made the choice for this topic to not have its own thread so you could keep derailing and overtaking this particular thread we're in.

Lack of scientific evidence... Is just an incredibly inaccurate assertion. It ignores every post from biologists explaining it clearly.

It is there for all to see. And no amount of needing to rely on ad hominems will swerve away from it.

Neither will Seb Coe be deterred who if hopefully elected will draw a clear line on sex-based tests and categories, as he has done previously.

Either evolutionary and developmental biologists just don't know about T sensitivity in DSDs, or they just like forgot about it when talking about the importance of cheek swabs to exclude male puberty advantage even among DSDs, or the science is, in fact, sound.

Where is your scientific evidence, G R E Y? Seriously. You talk about the science being sound and yet you haven't been able to meet your burden of proof. You haven't been able to prove that these athletes have an unfair biological advantage and should therefore be excluded from competition.

And it's not for lack of trying. You've posted a bazillion tweets and articles trying to support your position (which is a good thing, by the way, trying to present supporting evidence to your claims is a good practice). You haven't been able to meet your burden of proof because you cannot actually do it. There is no scientific consensus on the subject matter. None. And since there's no scientific consensus on the topic, you cannot actually prove that these athletes should be excluded. Not scientifically, at least.

But you don't care about that, do you? Because, despite your claims, the reason why you want to see these athletes excluded from competiton and branded "not real women" has nothing to do with science. It's not science that has led you to this conclusion. You've been led to this conclusion by your own bias.

Because, again, your arguments for exclusion aren't actually based on science. They're based on your own bias.

Evolutionary and developmental biologists Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Zachary Elliott and Carole Hooven et al whose words are clearly written by themselves.

Many of which are here for people to read:
viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793


I reiterate: they all understand their own science
They understand T sensitivity in DSDs (since that's the latest salvo) and are clear it does in fact offer competitive advantage

They all call for sex tests and clear XX category delineation.

You know who else disagrees with you? Dr. Georges Cazola, who came up with IK's training program, and revealed IK did indeed have xy chromosomes, high T, and they were working to lower it in time for Paris. Look it up.

[Slacktard]

Did Daft Punk reunite and show up at the closing ceremony?

[G R E Y]

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

You don't like it?

I thought those moving images across the stadium seating that were like the ancient competition depictions on pottery you see in museums was very cool.

I love the orchestra and choir, too.

[G R E Y]

I don't know who this band is...

[Rich Rane]

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

Come on , that is not so artistic tonight ! No drag queen, no metal group, no Philippe Katherine (the blue naked Schtroumpf)... This a very conventional ceremony until now

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

You don't like it?

I thought those moving images across the stadium seating that were like the ancient competition depictions on pottery you see in museums was very cool.

I love the orchestra and choir, too.

For the Closing Ceremony, I just want a celebration concert and a passing of the torch to the next city. I'm thinking a bigger Superbowl halftime show. Give me holographic Tupac.

[G R E Y]

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

Come on , that is not so artistic tonight ! No drag queen, no metal group, no Philippe Katherine (the blue naked Schtroumpf)... This a very conventional ceremony until now

Holy I hope LA Olympic ceremonies aren't as artistic as these.

You don't like it?

I thought those moving images across the stadium seating that were like the ancient competition depictions on pottery you see in museums was very cool.

I love the orchestra and choir, too.

For the Closing Ceremony, I just want a celebration concert and a passing of the torch to the next city. I'm thinking a bigger Superbowl halftime show. Give me holographic Tupac.

LA is on this for sure.

Yeah I get it. But I guess they want a celebration for everyone in the audience, and the athletes, and to put on a show for the world watching. The spectacle part of spectacular.

[Rich Rane]

Come on , that is not so artistic tonight ! No drag queen, no metal group, no Philippe Katherine (the blue naked Schtroumpf)... This a very conventional ceremony until now

You don't like it?

I thought those moving images across the stadium seating that were like the ancient competition depictions on pottery you see in museums was very cool.

I love the orchestra and choir, too.

For the Closing Ceremony, I just want a celebration concert and a passing of the torch to the next city. I'm thinking a bigger Superbowl halftime show. Give me holographic Tupac.

LA is on this for sure.

Yeah I get it. But I guess they want a celebration for everyone in the audience, and the athletes, and to put on a show for the world watching. The spectacle part of spectacular.

I'm more of a make the artists the spectacle the athletes deserve and the world wants to see. So many American, let alone LA singers, the next Olympics could put together for an amazing show.

[Nuntius]

That wasn't a derail. That was a statement that clearly has implications for all female athletes involved. And it is a heated topic off this board and one that has put great pressure on current IOC leadership. Ignoring it would be head in sand about a key driver for present and future Olympics. You may want to characterize that as derailment so as to not have to address the giant white elephant in the Olympics arena/ring, but rest assured that upcoming IOC leadership will be dealing with it and sort it out.

Oh, it was absolutely a derailment of this thread. Just ask Sealab2024 who asked for this discussion to take place in another thread and all the people like Sofia and Lord Covington who have complained about having to wade through all these arguments to be able to discuss non-Basketball/T&F sports in these Olympics. Multiple people pleaded with you to discuss this issue in its appropriate thread and not here and you ignored everyone.

Saying that I only characterize it as derailment so as to not address the elephant in the room is ridiculous. Did I ever tried to ignore this topic? No, I didn't. In fact, I called you to open a new thread about it. You ignored that as well.

This topic should absolutely be discussed and it should be discussed in its own thread. It deserves its own thread. You are the one that made the choice for this topic to not have its own thread so you could keep derailing and overtaking this particular thread we're in.

Lack of scientific evidence... Is just an incredibly inaccurate assertion. It ignores every post from biologists explaining it clearly.

It is there for all to see. And no amount of needing to rely on ad hominems will swerve away from it.

Neither will Seb Coe be deterred who if hopefully elected will draw a clear line on sex-based tests and categories, as he has done previously.

Either evolutionary and developmental biologists just don't know about T sensitivity in DSDs, or they just like forgot about it when talking about the importance of cheek swabs to exclude male puberty advantage even among DSDs, or the science is, in fact, sound.

Where is your scientific evidence, G R E Y? Seriously. You talk about the science being sound and yet you haven't been able to meet your burden of proof. You haven't been able to prove that these athletes have an unfair biological advantage and should therefore be excluded from competition.

And it's not for lack of trying. You've posted a bazillion tweets and articles trying to support your position (which is a good thing, by the way, trying to present supporting evidence to your claims is a good practice). You haven't been able to meet your burden of proof because you cannot actually do it. There is no scientific consensus on the subject matter. None. And since there's no scientific consensus on the topic, you cannot actually prove that these athletes should be excluded. Not scientifically, at least.

But you don't care about that, do you? Because, despite your claims, the reason why you want to see these athletes excluded from competiton and branded "not real women" has nothing to do with science. It's not science that has led you to this conclusion. You've been led to this conclusion by your own bias.

Because, again, your arguments for exclusion aren't actually based on science. They're based on your own bias.

Evolutionary and developmental biologists Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Zachary Elliott et al whose words are clearly written by themselves.

Many of which are here for people to read:
viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793


I reiterate: they all understand their own science
They understand T sensitivity in DSDs (since that's the latest salvo) and are clear it does in fact offer competitive advantage

They all call for sex tests and clear XX category delineation.

They do understand their own science, yes. And they also understand that there is no scientific consensus that justifies their stance.

Of course, the lack of scientific consensus doesn't stop them from calling for the exclusion of these athletes. But that has more to do with their own biases than it has to do with actual science. There's a reason why you have to resort to scientists with specific political leanings, after all. These political leanings are the key in informing their stance on this topic, it's not the science.

You know who else disagrees with you? Dr. Georges Cazola, who came up with IK's training program, and revealed IK did indeed have xy chromosomes, high T, and they were working to lower it in time for Paris. Look it up.

You're talking about this interview, right?

https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/exclusif-jo-2024-imane-khelif-a-ete-aneantie-de-decouvrir-d-un-seul-coup-qu-elle-pourrait-ne-pas-etre-une-fille-09-08-2024-2567609_26.php

The interview in which Georges Cazorla said the following:

Le Point: What happens after this thunderclap announcement?
Georges Cazorla: After the 2023 World Championships, where she was disqualified, I took the lead by contacting a renowned endocrinologist from the Parisian University Hospital, Kremlin-Bicêtre, who examined her. He confirmed that Imane is indeed a woman, despite her karyotype and her testosterone level. He said: "There is a problem with her hormones, with her chromosomes, but she is a woman." That's all that mattered to us. We then worked with a doctor based in Algeria to monitor and regulate Imane's testosterone level, which is currently within the female norm. Tests clearly show that all her muscular and other qualities have been diminishing since then. Currently, she can be compared on a muscular and biological level to a woman-woman-woman.

This is what you're talking about, right? This is what you're trying to use as the evidence that she should be excluded? That's absolutely hilarious

[DrModesty]

People such as this boxer should obviously be competing at the Paralympics. That is where athletes who have anomalous physical/medical conditions have a place where they can compete with their contemporaries.

[G R E Y]

Oh, it was absolutely a derailment of this thread. Just ask Sealab2024 who asked for this discussion to take place in another thread and all the people like Sofia and Lord Covington who have complained about having to wade through all these arguments to be able to discuss non-Basketball/T&F sports in these Olympics. Multiple people pleaded with you to discuss this issue in its appropriate thread and not here and you ignored everyone.

Saying that I only characterize it as derailment so as to not address the elephant in the room is ridiculous. Did I ever tried to ignore this topic? No, I didn't. In fact, I called you to open a new thread about it. You ignored that as well.

This topic should absolutely be discussed and it should be discussed in its own thread. It deserves its own thread. You are the one that made the choice for this topic to not have its own thread so you could keep derailing and overtaking this particular thread we're in.



Where is your scientific evidence, G R E Y? Seriously. You talk about the science being sound and yet you haven't been able to meet your burden of proof. You haven't been able to prove that these athletes have an unfair biological advantage and should therefore be excluded from competition.

And it's not for lack of trying. You've posted a bazillion tweets and articles trying to support your position (which is a good thing, by the way, trying to present supporting evidence to your claims is a good practice). You haven't been able to meet your burden of proof because you cannot actually do it. There is no scientific consensus on the subject matter. None. And since there's no scientific consensus on the topic, you cannot actually prove that these athletes should be excluded. Not scientifically, at least.

But you don't care about that, do you? Because, despite your claims, the reason why you want to see these athletes excluded from competiton and branded "not real women" has nothing to do with science. It's not science that has led you to this conclusion. You've been led to this conclusion by your own bias.

Because, again, your arguments for exclusion aren't actually based on science. They're based on your own bias.

Evolutionary and developmental biologists Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Zachary Elliott et al whose words are clearly written by themselves.

Many of which are here for people to read:
viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793


I reiterate: they all understand their own science
They understand T sensitivity in DSDs (since that's the latest salvo) and are clear it does in fact offer competitive advantage

They all call for sex tests and clear XX category delineation.

They do understand their own science, yes. And they also understand that there is no scientific consensus that justifies their stance.

Of course, the lack of scientific consensus doesn't stop them from calling for the exclusion of these athletes. But that has more to do with their own biases than it has to do with actual science. There's a reason why you have to resort to scientists with specific political leanings, after all. These political leanings are the key in informing their stance on this topic, it's not the science.

You know who else disagrees with you? Dr. Georges Cazola, who came up with IK's training program, and revealed IK did indeed have xy chromosomes, high T, and they were working to lower it in time for Paris. Look it up.

You're talking about this interview, right?

https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/exclusif-jo-2024-imane-khelif-a-ete-aneantie-de-decouvrir-d-un-seul-coup-qu-elle-pourrait-ne-pas-etre-une-fille-09-08-2024-2567609_26.php

The interview in which Georges Cazorla said the following:

Le Point: What happens after this thunderclap announcement?
Georges Cazorla: After the 2023 World Championships, where she was disqualified, I took the lead by contacting a renowned endocrinologist from the Parisian University Hospital, Kremlin-Bicêtre, who examined her. He confirmed that Imane is indeed a woman, despite her karyotype and her testosterone level. He said: "There is a problem with her hormones, with her chromosomes, but she is a woman." That's all that mattered to us. We then worked with a doctor based in Algeria to monitor and regulate Imane's testosterone level, which is currently within the female norm. Tests clearly show that all her muscular and other qualities have been diminishing since then. Currently, she can be compared on a muscular and biological level to a woman-woman-woman.

This is what you're talking about, right? This is what you're trying to use as the evidence that she should be excluded? That's absolutely hilarious

Saying there is no consensus among the scientists without showing any evidence disputing the biology doesn't stand even the slightest scrutiny. All listed are in favour of a single cheek swab for sex test.

As for IK trainer- do you understand what problem with chromosomes and problem with testosterone and needing to regulate the latter actually means? I think not. This plus the two failed sex tests and withdrawing appeal is a preponderance of evidence against XX inclusion.

As to T in DSD, I've posted this before:

Read on Twitter

Seb Coe will get it sorted should he lead IOC. And then we'll see the impact of a clear XX category.

[G R E Y]

For the Closing Ceremony, I just want a celebration concert and a passing of the torch to the next city. I'm thinking a bigger Superbowl halftime show. Give me holographic Tupac.

LA is on this for sure.

Yeah I get it. But I guess they want a celebration for everyone in the audience, and the athletes, and to put on a show for the world watching. The spectacle part of spectacular.

I'm more of a make the artists the spectacle the athletes deserve and the world wants to see. So many American, let alone LA singers, the next Olympics could put together for an amazing show.

Yeah to be honest I have no idea who the bands and singers were. That's a good thing in terms of exposure to something new. But agree with your point, too.

[Buckets22]

Embiid should've accompanied the mayor of LA on stage lol

[G R E Y]

Beautiful choir!

Always gives me a lump in my throat

[Nuntius]

Just because of your political motivations, which can be seen from a mile. And huge props to G R E Y for not taking the bait. Huge props to Nuntius, Doctor MJ and others who were able to discuss on such a sensitive and polarizing topic in a best way possible.

You were NOT civil in this discussion. Unless, of course, you believe that calling someone a joke (like you did back in post #543) is being civil. Neither was Mavrelous civil. And neither has G R E Y been civil in this thread with her constant accusations towards, well, everyone who disagrees with her.

Well, ever since all of your initial arguments are either refuted or shown to be wrong including all these Russian things, your discussion quality has visibly dropped - and checking last few pages now I can see G R E Y and Marvelous independently addressing that. You had very strong anti-Russian bias and associated political agenda while the subject has nothing to do with how much you hate Russia, but was actually the competitive advantage of sexual differences. Yet you still acted like others have political agendas even though G R E Y was talking about the biology all the time - perfectly in line with the subject. Maybe you should at least question yourself once before accusing people , especially when two different posters are calling out during the same day with your discussion quality getting lower.

At this point you were discussing for sake of discussion. Reading last few pages, all I can see that you started to cherry-pick some minor details in posts you were replying to and structuring most of your reply on that. That's why I didn't reply your last post - please come back and read my post and your reply about peer-reviewed research on the subject few weeks later to see how hard you were trying to find something to disagree. You will be surprised that how you even confronted me about the number of research papers on what you were specifically looking for even though I was just talking about there exist lots of research on the associated area (which simultaneously includes intersex, testosterone, athlete, performance keywords ) since you initially thought not many.

I never said that the discussion quality was always great. It absolutely wasn't. But for every weak G R E Y argument, I saw at least two weak Nuntius arguments since you literally defended something for 10 pages insistently, which was obvious that you were irrationally biased on the issue, just to finally admit you were wrong all the time. It happened and half of your arguments were indeed wrong.

Still, I am respectful enough to give props for civil discussion even though I found your argument quality getting lower and lower. When people are not civil enough while discussing such a controversial topic on the the internet, it is impossible to continue for 45 pages. Even though there are provoking and derailing attempts by the people who had no intention of taking part of the ongoing discussion, which I already called out (another is just called out by a mod), we were able to continue the discussion for that long, over a week or two. You were here long enough to know that it is not possible to held a discussion if both sides are not civil enough in such a controversial subject. And if all you can find is to 2-3 posts that you considered "non-civil", including I'm saying "you're a joke", it actually proves that the whole discussion were indeed very civil, not the other way around.

Accusing me of anti-Russian bias makes zero sense whatsoever. I never attributed any negative quality on Russian people based on their ethnicity. I never generalized Russian people or attributed any stereotype towards them. My issues with Kremlev (or Putin, for that matter) is entirely about their actions, not their ethnicity.

If you check my post history, you will see that I have repeatedly said that Russian people shouldn't be blamed for the actions of their government (especially when you take into account the fact that there were so many anti-war protests at the outset of this war). You will also see that this has been a consistent stance of mine throughout all of the discussions I've had on these topics on the Current Affairs. The people of a country shouldn't be blamed for the actions of their government and leaders. Assigning collective blame just leads to more pain and suffering.

So, yeah, your accusation here is ridiculous and is not based in anything that took place in this thread.

I have a question for you since you don't find me civil (yet you didnt stop replying my posts that actually quotes other users):

Do you know how long the same topic survived in the Current Affairs board, which actually exists for that kind of discussions?

Let me save you a time: Two hours and one page, before getting locked with tons of reports in that short span.

But you are now accusing people here with being not civil. Good Also, let me say that: setting a standard of being civil with Doctor MJ, who is by far the best poster I have ever seen on the internet (discussion boards, reddit etc) is not fair to us, and not much different than saying players other than Messi are not soccer players at all.

I don't need your props, appreciation, or anything, and it is clear that you are losing your cool when saw your arguments are not actually true. However, I think it is not a good look that you are calling me out this way just after I gave you huge props for defending your ideas without provoking and derailing attempts, which I call a civil discussion. But that's ok, I am not mad, because nobody is perfect. Not me, not you. Sometimes I find myself sending more aggressive posts, while I am dealing some stressful situation in my daily life. It is also not cool. All I think is it is always hard to find such a discussion on a controversial subject. But you should better learn about handshaking with your opponent after a high-tension game, instead of going to locker room and start sending offensive tweets on your opponents who just appreciated you in the end-of-the-game interview. That's not a good look on your part.

If that opponent who "appreciated" me in the end-of-the-game interview went on and attacked my teammates, like you did to The Sebastian Express, then I'd have all the reason in the world to stand up for them. It's as simple as that. You cannot attack others and then complain when people respond to those attacks.

Regarding post #543. You personally attacked me by mocking that I said I had numerous papers in good peer-reviewed journals, just before commenting on the reliability of peer-review. You said you didn't mean that - well, I think you obviously did, but I still took your word and added an edit to my post by removing that part in just a minute. such an approach from both sides, and agreeing to disagree when necessary made the discussion took 45 pages long... Not reminding something you bookmarked from 20 pages before, even though I thought we resolved the misunderstanding peacefully. Ironically, you were also the one recently accusing some poster (Mavrelous afair) with not having a good faith in discussion...

And I am not gonna lie, if anyone tries to mock my career and expertise for which I spent so much effort and me & my family made so much sacrifices in our lives, I will respond that. And even then I only said "you're a joke". Still sounds very civil to me, as a response to someone you think he mocked your career and expertise.

I am out. Again, thank you all for the good discussion.

So, to be clear once again.

This was the part of my reply that triggered your ad-hominem attack:

Since you're someone with numerous published papers, you can make that determination.

I haven't published any papers yet so I am not qualified to make any determination on peer-reviewed studies.

That's it. That's all I said.

You chose to interpret this as mockery. It's your choice to interpret something however you want but you also cannot blame others for your own interpretation.

I never mocked you. Acknowledging my own lack of scientific background on the subject matter is not mockery. It really is astounding that I have to make this clarification.

[G R E Y]

Tom Cruise flying in!

Kind of meta but ok lol

[G R E Y]

Is he gonna fly the plane, too?

[G R E Y]

Oh no only parachute out of it.... Lol this is unabashedly Hollywood great.

[G R E Y]

RHCP!