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

[dockingsched]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=AtPRYYXAIqrFGO95b7YfIA

[G R E Y]

It's not a trans issue. It's failed sex tests, so XY being allowed to compete with XX, regardless of how one is brought up. Losing fairly is one thing. It IS important as fair play is fundamental to ANY sporting competition. And this is the biggest stage for global sports.

Someone can be born with mixed up chromosomes, so that isn't relable test. That would simply eliminate intersex people as well as any trans people from competing in sports.

They could've also taken testosterone, which cased a failed testing too. And is there any actual evidence what a "sex test" actually is?

More so, it's illegal to be trans/gay in Algeria. So I doubt this boxer would be allowed to represent them if they actually were trans, more likely to be tossed in jail.

Experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology are calling for the return of the cheek swab sex test. That's fine by me. DSDs also have a primary male or female origin, so even if there were cases of DSDs (as Semenya's is, for example) then they would have a male or female foundation. In Semenya's case, for instance, that particular DSD presents only in biological males. One can have female on a birth certificate (that DSD can present female genitalia in infancy but Semenya was born with no uterus and has inner testicles and the condition presents in puberty) or passport but neither paper does the competing. The body does, and bodies that have gone through male puberty have an unfair sometimes dangerous advantage. This specifically isn't a trans issue...

The return of the cheek swab would help eliminate so many questions and draw clearer, fairer competitive boundaries.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

(click on the first of these two tweets for the expanded explanation.)

[Nuntius]

Read on Twitter

?

I would also say stop speculating without any evidence as to biological identification at birth. Making this a "trans" fight when there may have never been a "sex change/identity change" is incorrect.

Yep. But bigots (like the ones that G R E Y was posting earlier in this thread or like Salvini who "weighted in" on this topic earlier today) want to pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans because if they do that they can weaponize already existing transphobic sentiments.

[G R E Y]

WOW what a run for her. Hope it continues!

Read on Twitter

[JDR720]

Experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology are calling for the return of the cheek swab sex test. That's fine by me. DSDs also have a primary male or female origin, so even if there were cases of DSDs (as Semenya's is, for example) then they would have a male or female foundation. In Semenya's case, for instance, that particular DSD presents only in biological males. One can have female on a birth certificate (that DSD can present female genitalia in infancy but Semenya was born with no uterus and has inner testicles and the condition presents in puberty) or passport but neither paper does the competing. The body does, and bodies that have gone through male puberty have an unfair sometimes dangerous advantage. This specifically isn't a trans issue...

The return of the cheek swab would help eliminate so many questions and draw clearer, fairer competitive boundaries.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

(click on the first of these two tweets for the expanded explanation.)

Well, according to the Olympic statement before your post ( and below mine you replied to) the gender of the athletes is based on their passports.

And seeing how it's illegal to be trans in Algeria, this boxer couldn't get a passport that said she's a woman without being a woman. So no sex test needed, she's a woman. So I think that puts this controversy to rest.

[G R E Y]

Read on Twitter

Bring back cheek swab sex testing. No mention of it from the IOC, weirdly.

[G R E Y]

Experts in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology are calling for the return of the cheek swab sex test. That's fine by me. DSDs also have a primary male or female origin, so even if there were cases of DSDs (as Semenya's is, for example) then they would have a male or female foundation. In Semenya's case, for instance, that particular DSD presents only in biological males. One can have female on a birth certificate (that DSD can present female genitalia in infancy but Semenya was born with no uterus and has inner testicles and the condition presents in puberty) or passport but neither paper does the competing. The body does, and bodies that have gone through male puberty have an unfair sometimes dangerous advantage. This specifically isn't a trans issue...

The return of the cheek swab would help eliminate so many questions and draw clearer, fairer competitive boundaries.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

(click on the first of these two tweets for the expanded explanation.)

Well, according to the Olympic statement before your post ( and below mine you replied to) the gender of the athletes is based on their passports.

And seeing how it's illegal to be trans in Algeria, this boxer couldn't get a passport that said she's a woman without being a woman. So no sex test needed, she's a woman.

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.

[G R E Y]

Read on Twitter

?

I would also say stop speculating without any evidence as to biological identification at birth. Making this a "trans" fight when there may have never been a "sex change/identity change" is incorrect.

Yep. But bigots (like the ones that G R E Y was posting earlier in this thread or like Salvini who "weighted in" on this topic earlier today) want to pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans because if they do that they can weaponize already existing transphobic sentiments.

Misrepresenting once again. NOT trans. Athletes with DSDs that only males have. Conflating the two to dismiss the science is subpar argument:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

These can't be dismissed.

I'm fine with cheek swabs for sex testing for fairer and safer sports competition. Are you?

[Nuntius]

Read on Twitter

?

I would also say stop speculating without any evidence as to biological identification at birth. Making this a "trans" fight when there may have never been a "sex change/identity change" is incorrect.

Yep. But bigots (like the ones that G R E Y was posting earlier in this thread or like Salvini who "weighted in" on this topic earlier today) want to pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans because if they do that they can weaponize already existing transphobic sentiments.

Misrepresenting once again. NOT trans. Athletes with DSDs that only males have. Conflating the two to dismiss the science is subpar argument:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

These can't be dismissed.

What exactly am I misrepresenting here? Are you claiming that some of the bigots whose tweets you have posted in this thread aren't trying to conflate the two and pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans?

Because I have the tweets right here:

Read on Twitter

And here:

Read on Twitter

The first tweet is bring up self-identification, a term commonly associated with trans people. And Dawkins just straight up says "men pretending to be women", a pretty obvious dogwhistle, since it clearly implies an intent to deceive.

I'm fine with cheek swabs for sex testing for fairer and safer sports competition. Are you?

I'm fine with whatever the scientists entrusted by the relevant sports authorities deem is the optimal course of action. I want this issue (the participation of intersex women in sports) to be studied and a scientific conclusion to be reached. If the scientific conclusion is that intersex athletes should be treated on a case-by-case basis, I'm fine with it. If the conclusion is that they should be included in the women's categories, I'm fine with it. If the conclusion is that they should not be included in the women's categories and that a separate intersex category is created for them (something that one of the athletes I mentioned earlier, Margaret Wambui, has proposed, by the way) then I'm fine with that as well.

I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject. This is a highly nuanced topic and I do not believe that it is up to me to decide what's the optimal course of action.

The one thing that I do know is that calling these women, who have lived their whole lives as women and have never expressed any desire to live as a man, "men" and say that they are "men who pretend to be women" is **** up. Intentionally misgendering someone is bigoted. That's all I know and that's mainly the reason why I'm pushing up against the narrative that you and others in this thread are trying to spin.

[Nuntius]

Notice how there aren't gender questions in men's boxing?

Actually, there are is an intersex man who has competed in the men's category. It just happens that the athlete in question is a swimmer and not a boxer. His name is Pedro Spajari and he has Klinefelter syndrome which means that he has an extra X chromosome (meaning that he's XXY).

Once again, the topic of intersex athletes is nuanced. There are all sorts of variations that fall within the intersex label.

[G R E Y]

Yep. But bigots (like the ones that G R E Y was posting earlier in this thread or like Salvini who "weighted in" on this topic earlier today) want to pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans because if they do that they can weaponize already existing transphobic sentiments.

Misrepresenting once again. NOT trans. Athletes with DSDs that only males have. Conflating the two to dismiss the science is subpar argument:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

These can't be dismissed.

What exactly am I misrepresenting here? Are you claiming that some of the bigots whose tweets you have posted in this thread aren't trying to conflate the two and pretend that Khelif and Yu-ting are trans?

Because I have the tweets right here:

Read on Twitter

And here:

Read on Twitter

The first tweet is bring up self-identification, a term commonly associated with trans people. And Dawkins just straight up says "men pretending to be women", a pretty obvious dogwhistle, since it clearly implies an intent to deceive.

I'm fine with cheek swabs for sex testing for fairer and safer sports competition. Are you?

I'm fine with whatever the scientists entrusted by the relevant sports authorities deem is the optimal course of action. I want this issue (the participation of intersex women in sports) to be studied and a scientific conclusion to be reached. If the scientific conclusion is that intersex athletes should be treated on a case-by-case basis, I'm fine with it. If the conclusion is that they should be included in the women's categories, I'm fine with it. If the conclusion is that they should not be included in the women's categories and that a separate intersex category is created for them (something that one of the athletes I mentioned earlier, Margaret Wambui, has proposed, by the way) then I'm fine with that as well.

I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject. This is a highly nuanced topic and I do not believe that it is up to me to decide what's the optimal course of action.

The one thing that I do know is that calling these women, who have lived their whole lives as women and have never expressed any desire to live as a man, "men" and say that they are "men who pretend to be women" is **** up. Intentionally misgendering someone is bigoted. That's all I know and that's mainly the reason why I'm pushing up against the narrative that you and others in this thread are trying to spin.

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?

You've said the same thing about Semenya (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. 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/

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.

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.

[G R E Y]

Notice how there aren't gender questions in men's boxing?

Actually, there are is an intersex man who has competed in the men's category. It just happens that the athlete in question is a swimmer and not a boxer. His name is Pedro Spajari and he has Klinefelter syndrome which means that he has an extra X chromosome (meaning that he's XXY).

Once again, the topic of intersex athletes is nuanced. There are all sorts of variations that fall within the intersex label.

This is a syndrome males have, so Pedro Spajari was competing in the right category.

https://x.com/KlinefeltersUK

I think ItsDanger refers to there not needing to test whether there's a female who is competing in the male category. The obvious male advantage is so documented it hardly needs mentioning.

[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.

[madskillz8]

G R E Y hasn't stopped and she keeps using this thread to push her political agenda.

I am very surprised with such a post from you.

At this point it is clear that IOC, Paris organization, whoever responsible for these decisions, that's the one has an evident political agenda. It is also evident that they are using Olympics, by allowing these two recently banned boxers, to create a controversy on their political agenda. Rejecting a political agenda, does not make G R E Y or someone else pushing his/her political agenda. It is obvious that women's sports are in jeopardy and that very political agenda is making women need to fight for their rights to have a fair competitive environment. If you don't care, just don't care. Blaming someone who cares about with "pushing political agenda" just does not make sense.

What political agenda? The athletes in question were born female. Their birth certificate says female. They have lived their whole lives as women. They have never been anything else than a woman for even a single second.

Seriously, where is the freaking political agenda in allowing those athletes to compete in the women's category?

You know what actually is part of a political agenda? Pretending that these athletes who have lived their whole lives as women are, in fact, men. That's the political agenda right there. And that is what some people in this thread are pushing.

If you want this to continue unopposed then say so. Say "I don't wish my views challenged". Be honest, at least.

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...)

[G R E Y]

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. Not appealed/appeals dropped by the boxers. IOC ignoring doing cheek swab sex tests. Stop pushing your own agenda that swerves away from the science.

[madskillz8]

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.

[JDR720]

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.

[madskillz8]

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.

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

[JDR720]

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

[madskillz8]

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?