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

[G R E Y]

How is this logical? Some male DSDs present with female genitalia at birth as I've already explained. That does not mean the athlete does not go through male puberty, despite being brought up or socialized as a girl. The biology of puberty does not get affected regardless of what's on a birth certificate or passport. Again, this is not about trans. This is about biological advantage. OF COURSE a sex test is needed if a male DSD presents in puberty. (Notice how nobody calls for sex tests in male categories...).

A simple cheek swab clarifies so much.

Why are you focusing so much on the test stuff? Nobody even knows what kind of test she took back then, and nobody knows what kind of tests she had to pass to get in the Olympics either. For all we know, she already took cheek swab tests and all sorts of other tests.

All we know for certain is that...

1- The Olympics put athletes in their gender group based on their passports. We know this because they said so in their statement that I assume you didn't read because you haven't addressed anything it said.

2- We know you get a passport from your government. So this boxers passport is given to her by Algeria, which is where she is from.

3- We know that being transgender is illegal in Algeria. So they will only put her biological sex on it. And that if she was trans (or even openly gay) she'd be in jail.

Do you disagree with any of those points?

The whole "this isn't about trans, but about biological advantage" is bad-faith semantics. LeBron James has biological advantages over other male NBA players. Michael Phelps has biological advantages over other swimmers. Simone Biles has biological advantages over other female gymnasts. "Biological advantages" means genetics, after all. Such as height, strength etc.

Furthermore, the "biological advantage" being claimed here is directly due to her supposedly failing a "sex test" as you call it. Which means that she's trans. Although that is proved by my other points to be false, because if she were trans her passport would say she's a man because being trans is illegal in Algeria. And thus, she couldn't compete in the female boxing in the Olympics.

Ok, since that's settled and hopefully explained well enough. I'll go ahead and address your other points.

People don't focus on the sex test stuff for male sports (or male trans people in general) because the stereotype of trans people is men in dresses pretending to be girls, as one of the tweets posted above this post shows. This is used to scare people and make them dislike trans people, which is reflected by the number of anti-trans bills many states have been passing/attempting to pass.

When my state of NC passed a bathroom bill (which made it illegal for trans people to use their chosen genders restroom) the big argument for it was that trans women (or rather, men that would pretend to be women) would go in the women's restrooms and do things they shouldn't be doing. So nobody cares about trans men because they aren't "threatening" or "disguising" like trans women are to certain people.

The "trans sports" stuff is nothing more than a more sophisticated version of that. Pretending to care about something in order to discriminate against people they dislike.

So you may care about women's sports and want to protect their integrity. But you're aligning yourself with people who are simply using sports to further their campaign against trans people. Mind you many of those people are also against women health care and dislike women's sports in general. They most certainly do not care about the integrity of womens sports they don't even like or any biological advantages, of which male trans people could have in certain sports as well such as horseback riding due to their, in theory, smaller size/weight.

Is this a serious point? Why focus on sex tests? And LBJ and Phelps have biological advantages over other males is the supposed proof proof that these don't matter or that they ought not be done? LBJ and Phelps do not have the sex-based advantages over other males that males have over females. I think you mean genetics, ie/longer arms, height, etc. How does this need explaining?

"For all we know' is not an argument. What we DO know is that both boxers failed independent IBA testing for female category eligibility (XX) and either didn't bother appealing or dropped the appeal. The IOC no longer requires sex testing and falling back on a passport rather than science is a rather obvious avoidance of XX or XY (and their DSD offshoots).

Male puberty gives advantages that female puberty does not ever have. For boxing, the average male hits about 150% harder and women's bone density is less than that of men. THIS IS NOT SAFE. Even in the sexes themselves, boxing is further categorized into weight groups for fair fight reasons.

Here's some info about running in comparing males to females:

Read on Twitter

Going through the thread is about different categories of males in running achievement. Now to the females:

Read on Twitter

There's a reason why these categories exist.

I read the IOC statement. And both of the IBA statements. I repeat: neither birth certificates (which can be given upon observing female genitalia though some of the DSDs discussed here do not present until puberty) nor passports do the fighting. The bodies that have gone through puberty do.

Then introducing a trans issue and swerving this in when the plain clear point is fighting fair and safe is just yet again avoiding simple truth and clarity of science and biology.

[G R E Y]

TBH, I thought IOC is not using that. Can you share the source?

The Olympics have always had a stringent anti-doping regimen. https://olympics.com/athlete365/news/antidoping/anti-doping-at-paris-2024-everything-you-need-to-know-about-pre-games-testing

I know that, but you just specifically said, "for all we know, she already took cheek swab tests". It is a very bold claim while everyone is criticizing IOC for rejecting to do so. That very sentence makes your arguments very strong, but it needs to have a source right? Thus, since you claim that as known fact, I am asking again: what is the source of IOC requesting cheek swab tests, and she took that test?

IOC stopped doing cheek swab sex tests in 2000. This is no longer a requirement to be eligible to compete.

[Nuntius]

So a civil rights lawyer and Richard Dawkins, the latter who's dedicated his entire career to biology. If you have trouble with their wording (or Reduxx which you've previously said was transphobic) why ignore the other completely neutral wording of the tweets provided in the previous response from Hinton and Hooven?

Your argument was that no one ever claimed that either of these two athletes were trans and that I was misrepresenting the position set out by yourself and the tweets you posted. My retort to that argument was to point out two tweets that you posted (one by Hogshead and one by Dawkins) that DID make that exact claim.

Hilton and Hoover, on the other hand, made no such claim. Therefore, why would I accuse them of making a claim that they never made?

You've said the same thing about Semenya

Yes, I do generally try to be consistent.

(who has a documented DSD that only males have, and does therefore in fact compete with a biological advantage - do you therefore agree that running in the female category shouldn't be allowed?) as you are about Khalif and Yu-ting. While it's not polite to say, how someone has been brought up or socialized is secondary to the biological advantage regardless of upbringing. The biology of puberty still happens. So there must be clearer boundaries for sport.

I have no issue with the existence of boundaries. I simply believe that these boundaries should be based on scientific evidence and peer-reviewed research. They shouldn't be arbitrarily decided by officials with no scientific background neither should be based on societal mores.

And IBA has reiterated their stance on the test findings:

IBA reaffirms the position and removal of boxers from all events, aims to protect female boxers, and condemns both the International Olympic Committee and World Boxing for allowing ineligible athletes to compete

August 1st, 2024

Further to the IBA statement made yesterday evening regarding the removal of ineligible athletes from all IBA female competitions, we reiterate our stance and firm position.

IBA remains committed in ensuring competitive fairness in all of our events, we absolutely condemn the inconsistencies in eligibility to compete in the boxing competition held in the Paris Olympic Games 2024. To reiterate, both Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting post testing, did not meet the required eligibility criteria to compete within the female category of our respective events.

The decision made by IBA on 24 March 2023, was subsequently ratified by the IBA Board of Directors on 25 March 2023. The official record of this decision can be accessed on the IBA website here IBA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes. The urgent nature of the decision was justified, as the safety of our boxers is our top priority.

The disqualification was based on two trustworthy tests conducted on both athletes in two independent laboratories as follows:

Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in Istanbul 2022.
Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi 2023.

For clarification:

Lin Yu-ting did not appeal the IBA’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), thus rendering the decision legally binding.
Imane Khelif initially appealed the decision to CAS but withdrew the appeal during the process, also making the IBA decision legally binding.

Further to the decisions made above, and knowingly allowing Imane Khelif to compete, WORLD BOXING whose sole purpose of existence is to support the Olympic movement, has equally endorsed and reinforced ineligible athletes to compete in their very own recently announced events.

Alarmingly, the WORLD BOXING 2024 USA Boxing International Invitational tournament saw Khelif compete in the finals on the 16th April 2024, with a further outing that took place during the Eindhoven Box Cup, supported by WORLD BOXING that took place on the 18th May 2024.

We absolutely do not understand why any organisation would put a boxer at risk with what could bring a potential serious injury within the ‘Field of Play’ (FOP). The main role of the referee in the ring is to manage the boxer’s safety at all times. How is this reasonably practicable when a boxer fails to meet the eligibility criteria to compete?

The IBA will never support any boxing bouts between the genders, as the organization puts the safety and well-being of our athletes first. We are protecting our women and their rights to compete in the ring against equal rivals, and we will defend and support them in all instances; their hopes and dreams must never be taken away by organisations unwilling to do the right thing under difficult circumstances.

IBA stands by its position and will continue to support all athletes within the spirit of the rules.

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-reaffirms-the-position-and-removal-of-boxers-from-all-events/

Yeah, the IBA doubling down on their position and accusing the IOC and World Boxing isn't a surprise at all. The IOC no longer recognizes them and World Boxing was set up to replace them. They will definitely fight them and if they can find a social issue to latch on and have people support them instead, they will absolutely do it. They are only interested in remaining in power. That's why they're refusing to hold new elections after all.

Keep in mind that the IBA's recognition was suspended by the IOC long before their decision to disqualify the two boxers in question. They were first suspended in 2019, 4 years before that decision was made. So, they were already corrupt long before they made this decision with no due process. This isn't a new thing.

You pick and choose and target some poorly worded tweets and swerve around the science (ie/ of Hinton and Hooven, and yes, even Dawkins), and then conflate that with imputing motives onto me. My purpose in bringing up this issue is fair and safe competition for women, and sex tests for clear boundaries. That's it. Anything else is a red herring distracting from the issue of fairness and safety.

I do believe that your purpose in bringing up this issue is indeed fair and safe competition for women. You've been posting here for a long time and I do know that you follow women's sports. So, yeah, I don't doubt that your love for women's sports is what has led you to this stance.

But the majority of the sources you're using and the people whose tweets you're posting? They don't share your passion for women's sports. They probably do not follow them as much as you do. What they do share is a political agenda. Even when they use more benign language, their political agenda is still pretty obvious.

Emma Hilton? She has a link to sex-matters.org right on her Twitter bio. Sex Matters is a gender critical advocacy group. Helen Joyce, author of "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality", is the organization's Director of Advocacy. To pretend that they are unbiased on this topic is folly.

Carole Hooven? She is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Reduxx? Just opening the article you linked shows a sidebar filled with articles with titles that go like this:

"Trans-identified male did X", "trans-identified male did Y", "trans activist accused of Z".

It's basically like Breitbart, only that they focus on trans people instead of immigrants.

Those are all sources with political motivations. Those are all sources that are trying to spin a political narrative. They do not actually care about women's sports. They care about furthering their political narrative.

I am NOT imputing motives on you. I am clarifying what the motives of your sources are. There is a difference. If I was trying to impute motives on you, I would have called you out on those motives by now. I would have called you transphobic. But I haven't. Instead, what I have done is to repeatedly call the sources you're using transphobic. The only thing I'm accusing you of is helping them out by pushing their agenda on this forum (not that the GB needs an excuse to be transphobic or misogynistic).

You won't accept independent tests that the IBA has reiterated are independently verified as valid and the IOC is not doing cheek swab sex tests. I hope the mounting pressure on the IOC results in cheek swabs being used again. I'm fine with accepting those results.

You're asking me to take the IBA, a corrupt organization, at their word. Sorry but I won't do that. They will have to procure some kind of evidence to their claims before I can accept them. Some kind of corroboration and verification. Their word is not enough.

[Slacktard]

TBH, I thought IOC is not using that. Can you share the source?

The Olympics have always had a stringent anti-doping regimen. https://olympics.com/athlete365/news/antidoping/anti-doping-at-paris-2024-everything-you-need-to-know-about-pre-games-testing

I wouldn't say 'always had'. There's a suspicious amount of track and field records that still stand from Eastern European countries in the 80s that were later revealed to have had state-sponsored doping programs. It lingers a lot more on the female track and field side where there's like 7 or 8 track and field records. 400m distances, 800m distances (400m/800m relays) and then some jumping records that all go back to Eastern European countries.

Despite seeing athletes generally improve each generation, for some reason those records still stand.

I think there has been a real push over the last decade or two (especially the recent few Olympics) to be more stringent with testing for PEDs/masking agents/etc...

Although sometimes the punishments are still suspicious since the Olympics will often leave enforcement up to a countries governing body. It's how that Russian figure skater was initially allowed to compete before being declared ineligible in the winter Olympics a few years back.

But the VERY SAME drug found in that Russian skater was detected in more than *HALF* of the 2021 Chinese swim team. They were allowed to compete in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics after the Chinese investigation said it was something 'tainted in the food' that led to the results. Sure Jan. Musta been a spy sprinkling a little heart medication into the stew like Dave Chappelle talking about cops sprinkling some crack.

[Sealab2024]

I've literally had to find a different site, sign up and introduce myself in order to get away from this and simply chat about the Olympic games.

[madskillz8]

I've literally had to find a different site, sign up and introduce myself in order to get away from this and simply chat about the Olympic games.

Thanks for contributing to the Olympics related discussion with that important info.

[Nuntius]

As far as I read your posts in the last two pages, that's where your whole argument stands. "calling these woman are men". Well, I never said that, sorry. Better try to find actual arguments to reply a post, instead of using what some bigots says. I don't know them, I didn't read what they say, and if some -say a Republican- saying the same argument with me, that does not make me a bigot or republican, I guess. I was reading the thread like always and just chimed in to reply that extremely absurd "the boxer lost to a woman before, it is a biggest sign of being a woman" post. I never said she's man, he's a woman, or whatever.

However, if you want to care about my own view on the topic, instead of accusing me what some bigots say, my point is clear:
if there is a genetic or similar issue that causes a person performs like a man, and there is way to measure that, they shouldn't be competing in women's category. And I think, there should be enough measures to make that distinction (seeing IBOs announcement and reading few related news); however, it seems like IOC simply rejects taking these measures with a very French "laissez faire laissez passer" approach. Unless you are ok with women's sport would be dominated by people with different genetical anomalies that cause sex-related outcomes, that's an important discussion topic because this "freedom-promoting" approach would eventually be a nail in the coffin of women's sports. Rejecting the discussion of taking such measures is a bold and controversial decision.

What political agenda???, you asked.

The political agenda is to use Olympics as a tool to promote your beliefs, even though you know it will create a lot of unnecessary distraction and stole the spotlight from athletes who are literally spending years to be there. Director/curator of opening ceremony himself said his aim was to promote "inclusion" (read it as identity politics) with the theme of opening ceremony. You historically expect these ceremonies to promote the natural beauties and history of the country but of course they are free to make it the way they want. They wanted to make political with "inclusion" theme, and wanted to create controversies by "excluding" Christian people in a very provoking way (read it as a very French way, although it is satirical). Look I am a 100% non-religious person, and you are smart enough to expect I wasn't Christian in any part of my life, but it is an evident political agenda. It is a choice. Don't tell me they are surprised when that opening ceremony caused a stir, they indeed wanted that, it is a very French way... And IMHO they had every right to make it political, because, you know, freedom of expression, but just not act like there is no political agenda even when top names say there is an agenda. IOC's decision about these previously banned boxers were 100% in line with that agenda, again in a very French way, to create a hot discussion outside of the ring. I just think it is not fair to stole the spotlight from athletes at the expense of promoting your political agenda.

They had enough time to address the issue before the Olympics. Instead, it seems like they preferred to use the shiny spotlights of the Olympics to create a controversy on the issue they cared about.

If you don't see the political agenda maybe you are the one with a political agenda like being anti-republican or anti-religious people? (I am just trying to play your accusation game, I don't think you have a political agenda. at very best, I don't know you enough to accuse you with anything...)

It looks like we're talking past each other here so let's clarify a couple of things:

1) I never made the ""the boxer lost to a woman before, it is a biggest sign of being a woman" argument.

2) I never accused you of what some bigots say.

3) What I did accuse you of was whether you wanted this discussion to continue unopposed and with only one view-point being heard.

And there's a reason why I made this particular accusation.

Both Tim Lehrbach and myself decided to drop this topic after Sealab2024's request. We both agreed that the intricacies of this topic are more suited to the CA board than they are to this topic whose stated goal is to discuss the less popular Olympic sports. But G R E Y didn't drop the topic. She continued posting about it and the result was that for however many pages, only one side of the debate was heard.

Since the topic was never dropped, I decided to reply today and publicly wonder how is that fair. Why should only one side be represented in this discussion while the other side stays silent. And you decided to attack that very post.

Note here that this was the first time that we've interacted in this thread. I wasn't the one who wrote the post that pulled you into this discussion.

So, yeah, it's not a surprise that I accussed you of whether you wanted this discussion to continue unopposed. It seems like a fair question after your initial reply, doesn't it?

Now, about the rest of your post. The opening ceremony and the IOC's decisions are not related, imo. They are two separate issues. When it comes to the opening ceremony, my thoughts are well-documented in this thread. I discussed this topic extensively earlier in this thread both with G R E Y and SonicMcMahon.

As for the IOC's decision about the boxers in question it's important to note the following:

The boxers in question were never banned from IOC events. The IOC has never banned them. World Boxing hasn't banned them either. Only the IBA has banned them and since the IBA isn't recognized by the IOC then the IBA's ban on them doesn't really hold any water for the IOC. That's possibly why the athletes in question didn't appeal the IBA ban either. They know that it doesn't matter since the IBA is discredited.

Last but not least, I have never pretended that I'm some kind of neutral observer with no political opinions of their own. I absolutely have my own political opinions and those opinions will naturally make me side with one side over the other on any given political issue. Everyone has a political opinion and that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a particular political agenda to push.

[Nuntius]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=AtPRYYXAIqrFGO95b7YfIA

Thank you for posting the IOC statement, dockingsched. There are two parts of the statement that I'd like to highlight. The first part is this:

These two athletes were the victims of a sudden and arbitrary decision by the IBA. Towards the end of the IBA World Championships in 2023, they were suddenly disqualified without any due process.

According to the IBA minutes available on their website, this decision was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established and reflected in the IBA Regulations. The minutes also say that the IBA should “establish a clear procedure on gender testing”.

So, according to the IOC, the IBA's decision to disqualify Khelif and Yu-ting was a) the decision of a single individual and b) taken without any due process.

That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the IOC doesn't consider the IBA fit to organize Olympic events. Its leadership doesn't seem to respect due process, they recently decided to NOT hold new elections for president and they, generally, seem quite corrupt.

Oh and the IBA Secretary General and CEO mentioned in that article? That's Chris Roberts, a former boxer and also a former officer in the British Army.

Oh, and speaking of his army career. The unit that Roberts served in was under investigation after the death of a 26-year old Iraqi hotel receptionist that was beaten to death while in British military custody.

Here's an article about it:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-war-british-army-top-honour-soldier-karate-chopped-detainees

Here are excerpts from this article:

The British military nominated a former soldier for one of the UK's highest honours for services to army boxing even after an official inquiry labelled him “shameful” for his involvement in assaulting Iraqi detainees in Basra in 2003.

Chris Roberts, a physical training instructor in the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, was found to have karate chopped at least one detainee and “kicked probably three more” by the inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa and the abuse of other prisoners on a British base in the southern Iraqi city.

Roberts, who held the rank of Staff Sergeant at the time, denied involvement in the violence against Mousa and nine other detainees.

But in his report into the episode, published in 2011, Judge William Gage said he did not accept Roberts’ denial and found him to be a “very unsatisfactory witness”.

Gage said Roberts’ conduct represented a “shameful and serious breach of discipline” and “very substantial breaches of duty”.

“There can be no possible excuse or mitigation for what I find he did,” Gage said.

Roberts nonetheless remained in the army until 2020 and was promoted to the rank of major.

The three-year inquiry into Baha Mousa’s death found that the 26-year-old hotel receptionist had been violently beaten to death in British military custody in September 2003.

It said British soldiers had inflicted "gratuitous violence" on nine other men detained with Mousa and had used five interrogation techniques banned by the British government and illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians from murder, torture, and brutality.

The inquiry found that the Ministry of Defence was guilty of "corporate failure" by failing to uphold its own rules relating to the interrogation of detainees.

Gage added that the abuse meted out by the first Queen's Lancashire Regiment was not a one-off but dismissed claims there was a “culture of violence” within the unit.

Roberts, whose duties in Basra included acting as Mendonca’s personal protection officer, was not one of the seven soldiers who faced a court martial.

But the inquiry found he had “taught an arrest and restraint technique which was very similar to the method of restraint used by Payne on Baha Mousa”.

Gage described the technique as “kneeling on [the prisoner’s] back and pulling his arms behind him”.

In evidence to the inquiry, Roberts said he had taught arrest and restraint techniques, including putting a knee in the back of a prisoner when they are face down on the ground as part of the battalion’s pre-deployment training.

In his final report, Gage said several soldiers alleged that Roberts was involved in violence against the detainees. But he said he had found some of these soldiers to be poor or unreliable witnesses.

Gage concluded: “I do not accept his denial that he was not involved in any violence. I find that [Staff Seargeant] Roberts karate chopped at least one detainee… and kicked probably three.”

Roberts told the inquiry he had visited Baha Mousa’s family after his death in his capacity as Mendonca’s personal bodyguard.

So, yeah. It does look like Roberts has some skeletons in his closet as well.

As for the second part that I'd like to highlight, it's this one right here:

Eligibility rules should not be changed during ongoing competition, and any rule change must follow appropriate processes and should be based on scientific evidence.

This. The bolded part x1000. The rules should be based around the available scientific evidence. Not the culture war BS that some people are pushing.

Try again:

Read on Twitter

Independent tests.

So, can someone view the results of these tests and independently verify and corroborate their results?

[Nuntius]

Oh and the IBA Secretary General and CEO mentioned in that article? That's Chris Roberts, a former boxer and also a former officer in the British Army.

Oh, and speaking of his army career. The unit that Roberts served in was under investigation after the death of a 26-year old Iraqi hotel receptionist that was beaten to death while in British military custody.

Oh, if you've started going back 30 years to find some questionable things in the CV of IBA secretary as a sign of IBA's tests are not reliable, you are running out of reasonable arguments, I guess. Especially when the very same IOC committee you are defending just allowed a convicted child-rapist to compete in the Olympics. I am not saying it is a sign of IOC's test are invalid, I am just addressing your hypocrisy in this discussion.

Roberts' questionable past isn't a sign of the IBA's tests not being reliable. I wasn't bringing up his past in an attempt to discredit the tests. The IOC statement about the disqualification lacking due process, about it being a decision taken solely by one man without the ratification of the organization's board and the fact that no one has ever actually seen and verified those test results are why I do not buy the test results until further verification.

Bringing up Roberts' past was just a fun little side-note. I found it while googling him, thought it was interesting enough and decided to post it. Notice that I never said nor did I imply that "this is why I do not trust the test results" or anything of the sort.

[Nuntius]

TBH, I thought IOC is not using that. Can you share the source?

The Olympics have always had a stringent anti-doping regimen. https://olympics.com/athlete365/news/antidoping/anti-doping-at-paris-2024-everything-you-need-to-know-about-pre-games-testing

I know that, but you just specifically said, "for all we know, she already took cheek swab tests". It is a very bold claim while everyone is criticizing IOC for rejecting to do so. That very sentence makes your arguments very strong, but it needs to have a source right? Thus, since you claim that as known fact, I am asking again: what is the source of IOC requesting cheek swab tests, and she took that test?

The phrase "for all we know" isn't a claim of a known fact. It's actually the opposite. What JDR720's is saying is that we don't know what tests these athletes have undergone. We don't know what test the IBA did (since they haven't released any details about the test or the results) and we don't know what test the IOC has done. And since those tests are generally bound by confidentiality, we'll probably never know.

[Raps in 4]

Oh and the IBA Secretary General and CEO mentioned in that article? That's Chris Roberts, a former boxer and also a former officer in the British Army.

Oh, and speaking of his army career. The unit that Roberts served in was under investigation after the death of a 26-year old Iraqi hotel receptionist that was beaten to death while in British military custody.

Oh, if you've started going back 30 years to find some questionable things in the CV of IBA secretary as a sign of IBA's tests are not reliable, you are running out of reasonable arguments, I guess. Especially when the very same IOC committee you are defending just allowed a convicted child-rapist to compete in the Olympics. I am not saying it is a sign of IOC's test are invalid, I am just addressing your hypocrisy in this discussion.

Roberts' questionable past isn't a sign of the IBA's tests not being reliable. I wasn't bringing up his past in an attempt to discredit the tests. The IOC statement about the disqualification lacking due process, about it being a decision taken solely by one man without the ratification of the organization's board and the fact that no one has ever actually seen and verified those test results are why I do not buy the test results until further verification.

Bringing up Roberts' past was just a fun little side-note. I found it while googling him, thought it was interesting enough and decided to post it. Notice that I never said nor did I imply that "this is why I do not trust the test results" or anything of the sort.

We're talking about a guy who potentially commited war crimes against Arab-speaking Muslims making a unilateral decision to ban an Arab-speaking Muslim from a sporting competition, a decision that the sport's other major governing body disputes.

I think it's a relevant point to bring into the discussion as it might highlight biases held by this individual.

[G R E Y]

So a civil rights lawyer and Richard Dawkins, the latter who's dedicated his entire career to biology. If you have trouble with their wording (or Reduxx which you've previously said was transphobic) why ignore the other completely neutral wording of the tweets provided in the previous response from Hinton and Hooven?

Your argument was that no one ever claimed that either of these two athletes were trans and that I was misrepresenting the position set out by yourself and the tweets you posted. My retort to that argument was to point out two tweets that you posted (one by Hogshead and one by Dawkins) that DID make that exact claim.

Hilton and Hoover, on the other hand, made no such claim. Therefore, why would I accuse them of making a claim that they never made?

You've said the same thing about Semenya

Yes, I do generally try to be consistent.

(who has a documented DSD that only males have, and does therefore in fact compete with a biological advantage - do you therefore agree that running in the female category shouldn't be allowed?) as you are about Khalif and Yu-ting. While it's not polite to say, how someone has been brought up or socialized is secondary to the biological advantage regardless of upbringing. The biology of puberty still happens. So there must be clearer boundaries for sport.

I have no issue with the existence of boundaries. I simply believe that these boundaries should be based on scientific evidence and peer-reviewed research. They shouldn't be arbitrarily decided by officials with no scientific background neither should be based on societal mores.

And IBA has reiterated their stance on the test findings:

IBA reaffirms the position and removal of boxers from all events, aims to protect female boxers, and condemns both the International Olympic Committee and World Boxing for allowing ineligible athletes to compete

August 1st, 2024

Further to the IBA statement made yesterday evening regarding the removal of ineligible athletes from all IBA female competitions, we reiterate our stance and firm position.

IBA remains committed in ensuring competitive fairness in all of our events, we absolutely condemn the inconsistencies in eligibility to compete in the boxing competition held in the Paris Olympic Games 2024. To reiterate, both Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting post testing, did not meet the required eligibility criteria to compete within the female category of our respective events.

The decision made by IBA on 24 March 2023, was subsequently ratified by the IBA Board of Directors on 25 March 2023. The official record of this decision can be accessed on the IBA website here IBA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes. The urgent nature of the decision was justified, as the safety of our boxers is our top priority.

The disqualification was based on two trustworthy tests conducted on both athletes in two independent laboratories as follows:

Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in Istanbul 2022.
Test performed during the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi 2023.

For clarification:

Lin Yu-ting did not appeal the IBA’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), thus rendering the decision legally binding.
Imane Khelif initially appealed the decision to CAS but withdrew the appeal during the process, also making the IBA decision legally binding.

Further to the decisions made above, and knowingly allowing Imane Khelif to compete, WORLD BOXING whose sole purpose of existence is to support the Olympic movement, has equally endorsed and reinforced ineligible athletes to compete in their very own recently announced events.

Alarmingly, the WORLD BOXING 2024 USA Boxing International Invitational tournament saw Khelif compete in the finals on the 16th April 2024, with a further outing that took place during the Eindhoven Box Cup, supported by WORLD BOXING that took place on the 18th May 2024.

We absolutely do not understand why any organisation would put a boxer at risk with what could bring a potential serious injury within the ‘Field of Play’ (FOP). The main role of the referee in the ring is to manage the boxer’s safety at all times. How is this reasonably practicable when a boxer fails to meet the eligibility criteria to compete?

The IBA will never support any boxing bouts between the genders, as the organization puts the safety and well-being of our athletes first. We are protecting our women and their rights to compete in the ring against equal rivals, and we will defend and support them in all instances; their hopes and dreams must never be taken away by organisations unwilling to do the right thing under difficult circumstances.

IBA stands by its position and will continue to support all athletes within the spirit of the rules.

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-reaffirms-the-position-and-removal-of-boxers-from-all-events/

Yeah, the IBA doubling down on their position and accusing the IOC and World Boxing isn't a surprise at all. The IOC no longer recognizes them and World Boxing was set up to replace them. They will definitely fight them and if they can find a social issue to latch on and have people support them instead, they will absolutely do it. They are only interested in remaining in power. That's why they're refusing to hold new elections after all.

Keep in mind that the IBA's recognition was suspended by the IOC long before their decision to disqualify the two boxers in question. They were first suspended in 2019, 4 years before that decision was made. So, they were already corrupt long before they made this decision with no due process. This isn't a new thing.

You pick and choose and target some poorly worded tweets and swerve around the science (ie/ of Hinton and Hooven, and yes, even Dawkins), and then conflate that with imputing motives onto me. My purpose in bringing up this issue is fair and safe competition for women, and sex tests for clear boundaries. That's it. Anything else is a red herring distracting from the issue of fairness and safety.

I do believe that your purpose in bringing up this issue is indeed fair and safe competition for women. You've been posting here for a long time and I do know that you follow women's sports. So, yeah, I don't doubt that your love for women's sports is what has led you to this stance.

But the majority of the sources you're using and the people whose tweets you're posting? They don't share your passion for women's sports. They probably do not follow them as much as you do. What they do share is a political agenda. Even when they use more benign language, their political agenda is still pretty obvious.

Emma Hilton? She has a link to sex-matters.org right on her Twitter bio. Sex Matters is a gender critical advocacy group. Helen Joyce, author of "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality", is the organization's Director of Advocacy. To pretend that they are unbiased on this topic is folly.

Carole Hooven? She is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Reduxx? Just opening the article you linked shows a sidebar filled with articles with titles that go like this:

"Trans-identified male did X", "trans-identified male did Y", "trans activist accused of Z".

It's basically like Breitbart, only that they focus on trans people instead of immigrants.

Those are all sources with political motivations. Those are all sources that are trying to spin a political narrative. They do not actually care about women's sports. They care about furthering their political narrative.

I am NOT imputing motives on you. I am clarifying what the motives of your sources are. There is a difference. If I was trying to impute motives on you, I would have called you out on those motives by now. I would have called you transphobic. But I haven't. Instead, what I have done is to repeatedly call the sources you're using transphobic. The only thing I'm accusing you of is helping them out by pushing their agenda on this forum (not that the GB needs an excuse to be transphobic or misogynistic).

You won't accept independent tests that the IBA has reiterated are independently verified as valid and the IOC is not doing cheek swab sex tests. I hope the mounting pressure on the IOC results in cheek swabs being used again. I'm fine with accepting those results.

You're asking me to take the IBA, a corrupt organization, at their word. Sorry but I won't do that. They will have to procure some kind of evidence to their claims before I can accept them. Some kind of corroboration and verification. Their word is not enough.

NO. ANY point about trans or anything to do with trans issues is NOT my point. But thanks for clarifying the point about motives, whose, etc. If I happened to mention it or mention the point of others talking about sex-based competition it is just that. If you find Dawkins' words displeasing fine. But their science knowledge and knowing that XY should not be competing with XX is hard to refute. Dismissing Hinton, Dawkins, Hooven only makes it seem like the science is ignored because it can't be refuted. How about focusing on their WORK.

Hooven's tweet is exceptional and informative, relevant to the specifics of DSD. Hinton's research is peer reviewed. And it actually pains me to include Dawkins because there isn't much philosophically I agree with him on (his stance on religion is infuriating) but again his knowledge on the topic of sexes and their differences is sound. These you cannot dispute even as they are dismissed because of their associations. By the way, gender critical views are protected in law. The work stands on its own merit. You can try to discredit WHO says it, but that does not blot out WHAT they are saying. And what they are saying is that XY and their DSDs have an advantage over XX. To that end, yes you are consistent about Semenya but do you dispute that CS has a DSD specific to males only and therefore should not be running in the female category? It shouldn't be the case that socialization/passports/birth certificates trump biological advantage in sports categorization. Another open category? Fine. But females who went through female puberty are getting pummeled and beaten in races and results to the podium.

And it's the same patterns with IBA. Discredit IBA (and I'm not disputing the criticism of the organization), ok but that does not follow to automatically therefore ignore the tests, independent though they are said to be, even though the results themselves have yet to be refuted by the boxers themselves, even though I haven't read about those results themselves being questioned. And so while each boxer may have been raised as girls, the XX failed test is still lingering there. It's a huge issue that is easily verified or disputed but the parties involved refuse to require (IOC) or volunteer (athletes) clearing them up.

So I say again: IOC must bring back cheek swab sex tests. Athletes should compete in the sex categories they are biologically proven to belong to. And if another open category is necessary then it should be created. This is truly inclusive, fair, and safe.

[azcatz11]

This thread is a dumpster fire

[madskillz8]

Nuntius, I said I just chimed in into this thread after reading that absurd statement by an other poster, and then I saw you accusation of "political agenda" which I found also absurd, thus replied. I don't know what you have discussed in the previous 20 pages in details, and I didn't know that you and G R E Y mutually decided to end the discussion but G R E Y didn't comply. Thanks for the explanation though. However, I still think G R E Y is just addressing valid points without trying to be politically correct, and think outside of identity politics, thus accusing her stance as she's a political agenda was interesting for me (she probably observes that women sports in jeopardy, like I do).

And I chimed in to reply your accusation just because this accusation also happened to me recently, in WNBA board. I am accused of having a "white-supremacist" political agenda just because I said I like watching how Caitlin Clark plays like Curry and it is a missed an US basketball to capitalize her impact on the sport. I feel like when you have views that would somehow clash with today's identity politics, you are getting accused with having an political agenda. I'm not sure though, the sample size is still small.

I am not going to continue this back and forth discussion since you just made it clear you discuss the topic from your political stance, which is completely acceptable. I already got that when you started to bring some questionable and unrelated events from 30 years ago of IBA secretary, just to discredit the IBA testing protocols. Let me say, it was very untypical from you using logical fallacies just to support your ideas, thus I prefer to read your intelligent posts on basketball, not the posts you are writing like an average reddit user because of politics. We can simply agree on disagree.

[G R E Y]

Thank you for posting the IOC statement, dockingsched. There are two parts of the statement that I'd like to highlight. The first part is this:



So, according to the IOC, the IBA's decision to disqualify Khelif and Yu-ting was a) the decision of a single individual and b) taken without any due process.

That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the IOC doesn't consider the IBA fit to organize Olympic events. Its leadership doesn't seem to respect due process, they recently decided to NOT hold new elections for president and they, generally, seem quite corrupt.

Oh and the IBA Secretary General and CEO mentioned in that article? That's Chris Roberts, a former boxer and also a former officer in the British Army.

Oh, and speaking of his army career. The unit that Roberts served in was under investigation after the death of a 26-year old Iraqi hotel receptionist that was beaten to death while in British military custody.

Here's an article about it:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-war-british-army-top-honour-soldier-karate-chopped-detainees

Here are excerpts from this article:







So, yeah. It does look like Roberts has some skeletons in his closet as well.

As for the second part that I'd like to highlight, it's this one right here:



This. The bolded part x1000. The rules should be based around the available scientific evidence. Not the culture war BS that some people are pushing.

Try again:

Read on Twitter

Independent tests.

So, can someone view the results of these tests and independently verify and corroborate their results?

Now THAT is an excellent question and I would find is super suspect if it couldn't be answered. I also don't know what to make of both boxers either not appealing or dropping the appeal. The murkiness should ALL be clarified.

[Nuntius]

Oh, if you've started going back 30 years to find some questionable things in the CV of IBA secretary as a sign of IBA's tests are not reliable, you are running out of reasonable arguments, I guess. Especially when the very same IOC committee you are defending just allowed a convicted child-rapist to compete in the Olympics. I am not saying it is a sign of IOC's test are invalid, I am just addressing your hypocrisy in this discussion.

Roberts' questionable past isn't a sign of the IBA's tests not being reliable. I wasn't bringing up his past in an attempt to discredit the tests. The IOC statement about the disqualification lacking due process, about it being a decision taken solely by one man without the ratification of the organization's board and the fact that no one has ever actually seen and verified those test results are why I do not buy the test results until further verification.

Bringing up Roberts' past was just a fun little side-note. I found it while googling him, thought it was interesting enough and decided to post it. Notice that I never said nor did I imply that "this is why I do not trust the test results" or anything of the sort.

We're talking about a guy who potentially commited war crimes against Arab-speaking Muslims making a unilateral decision to ban an Arab-speaking Muslim from a sporting competition, a decision that the sport's other major governing body disputes.

I think it's a relevant point to bring into the discussion as it might highlight biases held by this individual.

Good point. It can indeed inform us on his potential biases. But even without those biases, even if Roberts was an angel before becoming the Secretary General and CEO of the IBA, there would still be a number of reasons to not take the alleged test results for granted without further corroboration. That's the point that I was making here.

[Raps in 4]

Nuntius, I said I just chimed in into this thread after reading that absurd statement by an other poster, and then I saw you accusation of "political agenda" which I found also absurd, thus replied. I don't know what you have discussed in the previous 20 pages in details, and I didn't know that you and G R E Y mutually decided to end the discussion but G R E Y didn't comply. Thanks for the explanation though. However, I still think G R E Y is just addressing valid points without trying to be politically correct, and think outside of identity politics, thus accusing her stance as she's a political agenda was interesting for me (she probably observes that women sports in jeopardy, like I do).

And I chimed in to reply your accusation just because this accusation also happened to me recently, in WNBA board. I am accused of having a "white-supremacist" political agenda just because I said I like watching how Caitlin Clark plays like Curry and it is a missed an US basketball to capitalize her impact on the sport. I feel like when you have views that would somehow clash with today's identity politics, you are getting accused with having an political agenda. I'm not sure though, the sample size is still small.

I am not going to continue this back and forth discussion since you just made it clear you discuss the topic from your political stance, which is completely acceptable. I already got that when you started to bring some questionable and unrelated events from 30 years ago of IBA secretary, just to discredit the IBA testing protocols. Let me say, it was very untypical from you using logical fallacies just to support your ideas, thus I prefer to read your intelligent posts on basketball, not the posts you are writing like an average reddit user because of politics. We can simply agree on disagree.

There is nothing political about this discussion.

And bringing up a person's background when they make a controversial decision is valid. Decisions aren't made in vaccuums. People have biases. People of questionable moral character should absolutely have their decisions put through greater scrutiny.

[madskillz8]

Nuntius, I said I just chimed in into this thread after reading that absurd statement by an other poster, and then I saw you accusation of "political agenda" which I found also absurd, thus replied. I don't know what you have discussed in the previous 20 pages in details, and I didn't know that you and G R E Y mutually decided to end the discussion but G R E Y didn't comply. Thanks for the explanation though. However, I still think G R E Y is just addressing valid points without trying to be politically correct, and think outside of identity politics, thus accusing her stance as she's a political agenda was interesting for me (she probably observes that women sports in jeopardy, like I do).

And I chimed in to reply your accusation just because this accusation also happened to me recently, in WNBA board. I am accused of having a "white-supremacist" political agenda just because I said I like watching how Caitlin Clark plays like Curry and it is a missed an US basketball to capitalize her impact on the sport. I feel like when you have views that would somehow clash with today's identity politics, you are getting accused with having an political agenda. I'm not sure though, the sample size is still small.

I am not going to continue this back and forth discussion since you just made it clear you discuss the topic from your political stance, which is completely acceptable. I already got that when you started to bring some questionable and unrelated events from 30 years ago of IBA secretary, just to discredit the IBA testing protocols. Let me say, it was very untypical from you using logical fallacies just to support your ideas, thus I prefer to read your intelligent posts on basketball, not the posts you are writing like an average reddit user because of politics. We can simply agree on disagree.

There is nothing political about this discussion.

And bringing up a person's background when they make a controversial decision is valid. Decisions aren't made in vaccuums. People have biases. People of questionable moral character should absolutely have their decisions put through greater scrutiny.

I agree with everything you said in the second paragraph. However, you just said this:

We're talking about a guy who potentially commited war crimes against Arab-speaking Muslims making a unilateral decision to ban an Arab-speaking Muslim from a sporting competition, a decision that the sport's other major governing body disputes.

That's what is wrong with that identity politics POV in general, making everything and everything else about identities. It is pure speculation, just because IBA banned two boxers, one is being Muslim-Arab, and other is not. As far as we know there were two boxer in that situation and both banned. And is there, say a British athlete, a Turkish athlete, a Greek athlete who is in the same situation but not banned by IBA? If not, their decision only shows they are consistent, not they have a bias...

[Nuntius]

Nuntius, I said I just chimed in into this thread after reading that absurd statement by an other poster, and then I saw you accusation of "political agenda" which I found also absurd, thus replied. I don't know what you have discussed in the previous 20 pages in details, and I didn't know that you and G R E Y mutually decided to end the discussion but G R E Y didn't comply. Thanks for the explanation though. However, I still think G R E Y is just addressing valid points without trying to be politically correct, and think outside of identity politics, thus accusing her stance as she's a political agenda was interesting for me (she probably observes that women sports in jeopardy, like I do).

And I chimed in to reply your accusation just because this accusation also happened to me recently, in WNBA board. I am accused of having a "white-supremacist" political agenda just because I said I like watching how Caitlin Clark plays like Curry and it is a missed an US basketball to capitalize her impact on the sport. I feel like when you have views that would somehow clash with today's identity politics, you are getting accused with having an political agenda. I'm not sure though, the sample size is still small.

I am not going to continue this back and forth discussion since you just made it clear you discuss the topic from your political stance, which is completely acceptable. I already got that when you started to bring some questionable and unrelated events from 30 years ago of IBA secretary, just to discredit the IBA testing protocols. Let me say, it was very untypical from you using logical fallacies just to support your ideas, thus I prefer to read your intelligent posts on basketball, not the posts you are writing like an average reddit user because of politics. We can simply agree on disagree.

I feel like I clarified that the reason I brought up Roberts' past wasn't to discredit the test results (which, by the way, didn't follow the IBA protocols according to the IOC's accusation) but you have every right to believe me. We can indeed agree to disagree.

[Raps in 4]

Nuntius, I said I just chimed in into this thread after reading that absurd statement by an other poster, and then I saw you accusation of "political agenda" which I found also absurd, thus replied. I don't know what you have discussed in the previous 20 pages in details, and I didn't know that you and G R E Y mutually decided to end the discussion but G R E Y didn't comply. Thanks for the explanation though. However, I still think G R E Y is just addressing valid points without trying to be politically correct, and think outside of identity politics, thus accusing her stance as she's a political agenda was interesting for me (she probably observes that women sports in jeopardy, like I do).

And I chimed in to reply your accusation just because this accusation also happened to me recently, in WNBA board. I am accused of having a "white-supremacist" political agenda just because I said I like watching how Caitlin Clark plays like Curry and it is a missed an US basketball to capitalize her impact on the sport. I feel like when you have views that would somehow clash with today's identity politics, you are getting accused with having an political agenda. I'm not sure though, the sample size is still small.

I am not going to continue this back and forth discussion since you just made it clear you discuss the topic from your political stance, which is completely acceptable. I already got that when you started to bring some questionable and unrelated events from 30 years ago of IBA secretary, just to discredit the IBA testing protocols. Let me say, it was very untypical from you using logical fallacies just to support your ideas, thus I prefer to read your intelligent posts on basketball, not the posts you are writing like an average reddit user because of politics. We can simply agree on disagree.

There is nothing political about this discussion.

And bringing up a person's background when they make a controversial decision is valid. Decisions aren't made in vaccuums. People have biases. People of questionable moral character should absolutely have their decisions put through greater scrutiny.

I agree with everything you said in the second paragraph. However, you just said this:

We're talking about a guy who potentially commited war crimes against Arab-speaking Muslims making a unilateral decision to ban an Arab-speaking Muslim from a sporting competition, a decision that the sport's other major governing body disputes.

That's what is wrong with that identity politics POV in general, making everything and everything else about identities. It is pure speculation to because IBA banned two boxers, one is being Muslim-Arab, and other is not. As far as we know there were two boxer in that situation and both banned. And is there, say a British athlete, who is in the same situation but not banned by IBA? If not, their decision only shows they are consistent, not they have a bias...

This was a decision made by a single person (correct me if I'm wrong) that is disputed by the IOC. If the IOC came to the same conclusion he did, I wouldn't be inclined to suggest that he may be biased.

I'm not saying he is definitively a bigot, but when someone of questionable moral character (being implicated in war crimes is pretty **** morally questionable) makes a controversial decision (again, the sport's other governing body disagrees with his decision), it's perfectly normal to discuss that person's background. It helps to understand the potential reasoning behind their decision.

And just to clarify (since there is a lot of quoting going on), this is my personal position on this, not Nuntius'.