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

[LordCovington33]

Read on Twitter

I think Julia Stiles could have taken her in a 1 v 1.

I saw something similar at a meth clinic

[JustBuzzin]

Women's beach volleyball tune in right now!

Canada women sheesh!

[Homerclease]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

[JustBuzzin]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This has to be a joke.

They let anyone go to the Olympics smh

[Nuntius]

B) We go by agreed upon chemical traits that scientists conclude are likely to impact performance - such as testosterone levels.

Is there a scientific consensus on whether elevated testosterone levels in intersex individuals are likely to impact their athletic performance? Afaik, there isn't any. I don't even know if there have been enough studies on intersex athletes so that the scientific community can start working towards a conclusion on the subject matter.

First of all, a quick search for "intersex athletes performance testosterone" on google scholar yields around 3000 peer-reviewed papers.

Yes and no. If you put those 4 terms on Google scholar then it is indeed true that you get 2.930 results. But are all those papers measuring the effects that testosterone has on the performance of intersex athletes? Not necessarily. These are articles that do mention those terms, do discuss this topic but it is not a given that their research is on measuring those athletes and the effect that testosterone levels have on their performance. Their research may be on other aspects of it like the history of such testing, the ethical and legal ramifications of exclusion or any other topic related to this.

The same search also suggests that gender politics and biology (and other related subjects) go hand in hand in this particular topic. Thus, it is not like two biology professors from UPenn suddenly decide on investigating intersex athletes testosterone levels. If anything, unless there is a specific motivation (not always political; e.g. the topic being his/her PhD thesis or specific call for funding by NIH), US academics tend to stay away from such research.

In such a highly politicized topic, especially when social sciences/humanities (gender politics etc) involved, I can assure you there won't be a "scientific" consensus. Why? Because, as you are also aware, it is almost impossible to find enough athletes having similar rare conditions (it is a wide spectrum) to have an accurate controlled experiments that would yield generalized results for intersex athletes. Other than that, I already explained how unreliable a peer-reviewed research can be, and it is not like they are all producing fake results - the design of an experiment highly affects their results, and it is always non-trivial for such a research

Yes, you did explain earlier that peer-reviewed research can be unreliable. And just like I did before, I will say once more that I do not have the necessary knowledge to make that judgement.

Now, on to the more important part of this quote. I do agree that these conditions are rare and that this does indeed make researching the performance of those athletes trickier. But I do not believe that this means that there will never be a scientific consensus. I do agree that it will be not be as easy to conduct this research as it would be if the target pool was larger but I do not believe it to be impossible.

Moreover, I do believe it to be absolutely necessary that it happens. If we do not have enough scientific evidence to justify then those bans and exclusions then they shouldn't exist in the first place.

What is more, when the research group is politicized (which is unfortunately the case for most social sciences/humanities academics), I can also assure you they won't even publish the results if these results don't support their political stance on the subject.

I quickly found one related review article published in a respectable journal without any gender politics discussion though:
Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance

There is also a more general review paper on the topic, this time with those gender politics, philosophy, law, feminism, and similar discussions.

This may be off-topic here but why do I sense some hostility towards social sciences? You say that they are more "politicized"? What exactly does that mean?

[Nuntius]

And speaking of breaking stereotypes:

Read on Twitter

G R E Y, I want to thank you for this post. You put a lot of work into it and it's evident. When someone puts as much work as you did in this post, I believe that it's only right that the reply to this post has an equal amount of work put into it. And since it's already past 2:00 am over here and tomorrow is my best friend's nameday party, I doubt that I will be able to reply to this post tonight or tomorrow. I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can but that reply will probably come around Sunday night.

I do have one thing to say, though:

The Daily Mail tweet posted above is false. Bacyadan has debunked it himself. Here's an article about it ->

https://tiebreakertimes.com.ph/tbt/bacyadan-defends-lin-khelif-stands-by-their-gender-identity-amid-backlash/308938

Hergie Bacyadan has found himself at the center of an Olympic firestorm despite his exit from the Olympic Games Paris 2024.

The controversy involves him and two other boxers over their “gender.”

Taiwanese featherweight Lin Yuting and Algerian middleweight Imane Khelif have faced accusations of being men competing in a women’s event.

Statements circulating on social media falsely claimed that Bacyadan condemned them, which he debunked on Monday.

“I want to clarify and address the recent claims circulating on the internet regarding my involvement in the controversy about my two co-boxers,” said the 29-year-old native of Kalinga.

“To set the record straight, I have never made any statements suggesting that they should be banned from the Olympics. I hold them in the highest regard and would never wish any harm or misfortune upon them.”

In fact, he is an acquaintance of the two and has been supporting them in their respective runs in France.

“Furthermore, I am fully aware that these two athletes are cisgender women. I have met them personally, and they are unquestionably women, fully qualified, and deserving of their place in the competition. The criticism they are receiving on social media is entirely unfounded and unjust,” she continued.

“As a fellow athlete, I understand the pressures and judgments that come with the territory, but this level of unfounded scrutiny is unfair to them.”

Daily Mail, in general, isn't considered a reliable source for reasons like this one. They are likely to post misinformation like this one right here. Do not taint your post by repeating their misinformation.

[G R E Y]

And speaking of breaking stereotypes:

Read on Twitter

G R E Y, I want to thank you for this post. You put a lot of work into it and it's evident. When someone puts as much work as you did in this post, I believe that it's only right that the reply to this post has an equal amount of work put into it. And since it's already past 2:00 am over here and tomorrow is my best friend's nameday party, I doubt that I will be able to reply to this post tonight or tomorrow. I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can but that reply will probably come around Sunday night.

I do have one thing to say, though:

The Daily Mail tweet posted above is false. Bacyadan has debunked it himself. Here's an article about it ->

https://tiebreakertimes.com.ph/tbt/bacyadan-defends-lin-khelif-stands-by-their-gender-identity-amid-backlash/308938

Hergie Bacyadan has found himself at the center of an Olympic firestorm despite his exit from the Olympic Games Paris 2024.

The controversy involves him and two other boxers over their “gender.”

Taiwanese featherweight Lin Yuting and Algerian middleweight Imane Khelif have faced accusations of being men competing in a women’s event.

Statements circulating on social media falsely claimed that Bacyadan condemned them, which he debunked on Monday.

“I want to clarify and address the recent claims circulating on the internet regarding my involvement in the controversy about my two co-boxers,” said the 29-year-old native of Kalinga.

“To set the record straight, I have never made any statements suggesting that they should be banned from the Olympics. I hold them in the highest regard and would never wish any harm or misfortune upon them.”

In fact, he is an acquaintance of the two and has been supporting them in their respective runs in France.

“Furthermore, I am fully aware that these two athletes are cisgender women. I have met them personally, and they are unquestionably women, fully qualified, and deserving of their place in the competition. The criticism they are receiving on social media is entirely unfounded and unjust,” she continued.

“As a fellow athlete, I understand the pressures and judgments that come with the territory, but this level of unfounded scrutiny is unfair to them.”

Daily Mail, in general, isn't considered a reliable source for reasons like this one. They are likely to post misinformation like this one right here. Do not taint your post by repeating their misinformation.

Thank you. But the broader point of Bacyadan fighting in the female category for obvious puberty reasons stands. That was, of course, the whole point of including Bacyadan and the non binary runner being participants in women's categories. If this is going to be another attempt at swerving the central points please let's not waste anyone's time. The science is sound. The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

[Nuntius]

And speaking of breaking stereotypes:

Read on Twitter

G R E Y, I want to thank you for this post. You put a lot of work into it and it's evident. When someone puts as much work as you did in this post, I believe that it's only right that the reply to this post has an equal amount of work put into it. And since it's already past 2:00 am over here and tomorrow is my best friend's nameday party, I doubt that I will be able to reply to this post tonight or tomorrow. I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can but that reply will probably come around Sunday night.

I do have one thing to say, though:

The Daily Mail tweet posted above is false. Bacyadan has debunked it himself. Here's an article about it ->

https://tiebreakertimes.com.ph/tbt/bacyadan-defends-lin-khelif-stands-by-their-gender-identity-amid-backlash/308938

Hergie Bacyadan has found himself at the center of an Olympic firestorm despite his exit from the Olympic Games Paris 2024.

The controversy involves him and two other boxers over their “gender.”

Taiwanese featherweight Lin Yuting and Algerian middleweight Imane Khelif have faced accusations of being men competing in a women’s event.

Statements circulating on social media falsely claimed that Bacyadan condemned them, which he debunked on Monday.

“I want to clarify and address the recent claims circulating on the internet regarding my involvement in the controversy about my two co-boxers,” said the 29-year-old native of Kalinga.

“To set the record straight, I have never made any statements suggesting that they should be banned from the Olympics. I hold them in the highest regard and would never wish any harm or misfortune upon them.”

In fact, he is an acquaintance of the two and has been supporting them in their respective runs in France.

“Furthermore, I am fully aware that these two athletes are cisgender women. I have met them personally, and they are unquestionably women, fully qualified, and deserving of their place in the competition. The criticism they are receiving on social media is entirely unfounded and unjust,” she continued.

“As a fellow athlete, I understand the pressures and judgments that come with the territory, but this level of unfounded scrutiny is unfair to them.”

Daily Mail, in general, isn't considered a reliable source for reasons like this one. They are likely to post misinformation like this one right here. Do not taint your post by repeating their misinformation.

Thank you. But the broader point of Bacyadan fighting in the female category for obvious puberty reasons stands. That was, of course, the whole point of including Bacyadan and the non binary runner being participants in women's categories. If this is going to be another attempt at swerving the central points please let's not waste anyone's time. The science is sound. The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

Alright, so quick bullet points:

1) I understand why you're talking about Bacyadan and Nikki Hiltz. The point you're making is that, for you, this isn't about gender identity. It is entirely about having XX or XY chromosomes.

2) The reason why Bacyadan is competing in the female category has nothing to do with puberty. The IOC's guidelines have nothing to do with puberty. They care about what the athlete's passport says and Bacyadan's passport says female. That is why he is competing in the women's category.

3)I know that you didn't post the Daily Mail misinformation willingly. I know that you wouldn't have posted it if you knew that it was false. But it still is false and it still attributes to Bacyadan comments that he never made. Pointing that out is not "an attempt at swerving the central points". I always, always reply to every single point you're raising. Raising new points of my own isn't an attempt at swerving anything.

[Stannis]

Super happy for Imane Khelif winning gold!

[G R E Y]

G R E Y, I want to thank you for this post. You put a lot of work into it and it's evident. When someone puts as much work as you did in this post, I believe that it's only right that the reply to this post has an equal amount of work put into it. And since it's already past 2:00 am over here and tomorrow is my best friend's nameday party, I doubt that I will be able to reply to this post tonight or tomorrow. I'll do my best to reply as soon as I can but that reply will probably come around Sunday night.

I do have one thing to say, though:

The Daily Mail tweet posted above is false. Bacyadan has debunked it himself. Here's an article about it ->

https://tiebreakertimes.com.ph/tbt/bacyadan-defends-lin-khelif-stands-by-their-gender-identity-amid-backlash/308938



Daily Mail, in general, isn't considered a reliable source for reasons like this one. They are likely to post misinformation like this one right here. Do not taint your post by repeating their misinformation.

Thank you. But the broader point of Bacyadan fighting in the female category for obvious puberty reasons stands. That was, of course, the whole point of including Bacyadan and the non binary runner being participants in women's categories. If this is going to be another attempt at swerving the central points please let's not waste anyone's time. The science is sound. The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

Alright, so quick bullet points:

1) I understand why you're talking about Bacyadan and Nikki Hiltz. The point you're making is that, for you, this isn't about gender identity. It is entirely about having XX or XY chromosomes.

2) The reason why Bacyadan is competing in the female category has nothing to do with puberty. The IOC's guidelines have nothing to do with puberty. They care about what the athlete's passport says and Bacyadan's passport says female. That is why he is competing in the women's category.

3)I know that you didn't post the Daily Mail misinformation willingly. I know that you wouldn't have posted it if you knew that it was false. But it still is false and it still attributes to Bacyadan comments that he never made. Pointing that out is not "an attempt at swerving the central points". I always, always reply to every single point you're raising. Raising new points of my own isn't an attempt at swerving anything.

Thanks for the response. I'm always checking for good faith arguments and when it comes from that pointing out the low hanging fruit of in this case a weak source has its own merit.

But the bold part is exactly the kind of swerving I was referring to.

Do you genuinely believe this has *nothing* to do with puberty? Like if either of their passports said Male they'd ever even get to the Olympics having gone through female puberty versus biological male competition? So much data comparing sex based performance refutes it.

I know what the IOC rules are. I know that the passport is IOCs getaround in including previously banned Khalif and Yu-ting.

This isn't about present IOC rules. And presenting it not through IOC rules rather via basic competitive advantage of running or fighting with your own sex, or the advantage of male puberty in XX, is the entire thrust through my whole post.

[Mr Puddles]

I don't think this has been posted yet. Game winning buzzer beater in OT (at 5:00) is a pretty epic way to win a gold medal.

Watch on YouTube

[Nuntius]

Thank you. But the broader point of Bacyadan fighting in the female category for obvious puberty reasons stands. That was, of course, the whole point of including Bacyadan and the non binary runner being participants in women's categories. If this is going to be another attempt at swerving the central points please let's not waste anyone's time. The science is sound. The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

Alright, so quick bullet points:

1) I understand why you're talking about Bacyadan and Nikki Hiltz. The point you're making is that, for you, this isn't about gender identity. It is entirely about having XX or XY chromosomes.

2) The reason why Bacyadan is competing in the female category has nothing to do with puberty. The IOC's guidelines have nothing to do with puberty. They care about what the athlete's passport says and Bacyadan's passport says female. That is why he is competing in the women's category.

3)I know that you didn't post the Daily Mail misinformation willingly. I know that you wouldn't have posted it if you knew that it was false. But it still is false and it still attributes to Bacyadan comments that he never made. Pointing that out is not "an attempt at swerving the central points". I always, always reply to every single point you're raising. Raising new points of my own isn't an attempt at swerving anything.

Thanks for the response. I'm always checking for good faith arguments and when it comes from that pointing out the low hanging fruit of in this case a weak source has its own merit.

But the bold part is exactly the kind of swerving I was referring to.

Do you genuinely believe this has *nothing* to do with puberty? Like if either of their passports said Male they'd ever even get to the Olympics having gone through female puberty versus the competition? So much data comparing sex based performance refutes it.

I know what the IOC rules are. I know that the passport is IOCs getaround in including previously banned Khalif and Yu-ting.

This isn't about present IOC rules. And presenting it not through IOC rules rather via basic competitive advantage of running or fighting with your own sex, or the advantage of male puberty in XX, is the entire thrust through my whole post.

How is the bold part swerving? I am simply re-iterating the rules that the IOC has put in place. The basis that the IOC uses for gender eligibility is what's written in the athlete's passports. That's it. If Bacyadan's passport said "male" then he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's category. Those are the rules that the IOC has put in place.

I understand that you disagree with those rules. It is your right to disagree. But don't accuse me of swerving for re-iterating the IOC's eligiblity rules to explain why Bacyadan is competing in the women's category. How does that make any sense at all?

[G R E Y]

Alright, so quick bullet points:

1) I understand why you're talking about Bacyadan and Nikki Hiltz. The point you're making is that, for you, this isn't about gender identity. It is entirely about having XX or XY chromosomes.

2) The reason why Bacyadan is competing in the female category has nothing to do with puberty. The IOC's guidelines have nothing to do with puberty. They care about what the athlete's passport says and Bacyadan's passport says female. That is why he is competing in the women's category.

3)I know that you didn't post the Daily Mail misinformation willingly. I know that you wouldn't have posted it if you knew that it was false. But it still is false and it still attributes to Bacyadan comments that he never made. Pointing that out is not "an attempt at swerving the central points". I always, always reply to every single point you're raising. Raising new points of my own isn't an attempt at swerving anything.

Thanks for the response. I'm always checking for good faith arguments and when it comes from that pointing out the low hanging fruit of in this case a weak source has its own merit.

But the bold part is exactly the kind of swerving I was referring to.

Do you genuinely believe this has *nothing* to do with puberty? Like if either of their passports said Male they'd ever even get to the Olympics having gone through female puberty versus the competition? So much data comparing sex based performance refutes it.

I know what the IOC rules are. I know that the passport is IOCs getaround in including previously banned Khalif and Yu-ting.

This isn't about present IOC rules. And presenting it not through IOC rules rather via basic competitive advantage of running or fighting with your own sex, or the advantage of male puberty in XX, is the entire thrust through my whole post.

How is the bold part swerving? I am simply re-iterating the rules that the IOC has put in place. The basis that the IOC uses for gender eligibility is what's written in the athlete's passports. That's it. If Bacyadan's passport said "male" then he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's category. Those are the rules that the IOC has put in place.

I understand that you disagree with those rules. It is your right to disagree. But don't accuse me of swerving for re-iterating the IOC's eligiblity rules to explain why Bacyadan is competing in the women's category. How does that make any sense at all?

Yeah it is clear what's going on. It is true what the IOC stance is. But it's swerving because the entire point isn't IOC rules but fair competition between sexes and flaw of mixing of them. Bacayadan and Hiltz would not fare nearly as well vs. XY competition. Too much data points to it to refute it.

You know this and yet the focus has switched from well we don't know competitor chromosomes to well the testing is flawed to now well the IOC permits it.

And so now there's yet another negotiation about yet another set of parameters.

I almost never repost myself but I did put some time and effort into it so to whoever is interested, this stands on its own:

viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793

[Nuntius]

Thanks for the response. I'm always checking for good faith arguments and when it comes from that pointing out the low hanging fruit of in this case a weak source has its own merit.

But the bold part is exactly the kind of swerving I was referring to.

Do you genuinely believe this has *nothing* to do with puberty? Like if either of their passports said Male they'd ever even get to the Olympics having gone through female puberty versus the competition? So much data comparing sex based performance refutes it.

I know what the IOC rules are. I know that the passport is IOCs getaround in including previously banned Khalif and Yu-ting.

This isn't about present IOC rules. And presenting it not through IOC rules rather via basic competitive advantage of running or fighting with your own sex, or the advantage of male puberty in XX, is the entire thrust through my whole post.

How is the bold part swerving? I am simply re-iterating the rules that the IOC has put in place. The basis that the IOC uses for gender eligibility is what's written in the athlete's passports. That's it. If Bacyadan's passport said "male" then he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's category. Those are the rules that the IOC has put in place.

I understand that you disagree with those rules. It is your right to disagree. But don't accuse me of swerving for re-iterating the IOC's eligiblity rules to explain why Bacyadan is competing in the women's category. How does that make any sense at all?

Yeah it is clear what's going on. It is true what the IOC stance is. But it's swerving because the entire point isn't IOC rules but fair competition between sexes and flaw of mixing of them. Bacayadan and Hiltz would not fare nearly as well vs. XY competition. Too much data points to it to refute it.

You know this and yet the focus has switched from well we don't know competitor chromosomes to well the testing is flawed to now well the IOC permits it.

And so now there's yet another negotiation about yet another set of parameters.

I almost never repost myself but I did put some time and effort into it so to whoever is interested, this stands on its own:

viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793

Yeah, it looks like we're talking past each other here. You seem to be arguing why Bacaydan and Hiltz should be competing in the women's categories. Bulletin #2 of my post was about why Bacaydan and Hiltz are competing in the women's categories.

And I was talking about due to this part of your post:

The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

And my reply to this was:

Yes, it is indeed obvious. Their passport says female and that is the basis that the IOC is using so this is why they are competing in these categories.

That's it. There's no swerve in this point whatsoever. I am simply giving you the reason why the IOC slotted Bacaydan in the women's category. If Bacaydan's passport said male then he would be competing in the men's category. Those are the IOC's current rules.

Oh, and as for this part of your post:

You know this and yet the focus has switched from well we don't know competitor chromosomes to well the testing is flawed to now well the IOC permits it.

Let's clarify a couple of things here:

1) Yes, I did indeed claim that we didn't know the competitor chromosomes earlier in the discussion. I made that claim because, at the time, there was no corroborating evidence for Kremlev's claim. Now, that there finally is corroborative evidence to that claim, I have no reason to dispute that part anymore. When new evidence is brought to your attention, you are obliged to take them into account and review your initial position. That's how evidence-based reasoning is supposed to work. Doing that is NOT **** "swerving".

2) I have been talking about the problems with sex verifications in sports ever since, at least, page 24. Bergmaniac provided the evidence for the chromosome claim on page 40. So, this notion that I have somehow "swerved" and moved the goalposts is inaccurate and, frankly, insulting.

3) I never made the argument that "well, the IOC permits it so this is what should be happening". What the IOC permits isn't part of my central argument. My central argument is that intersex athletes should be studied and that their inclusion or exclusion from the category of their assinged gender should be based on the scientific consensus on the subject matter. I mentioned the IOC rules because they were a direct answer to a question you asked, not as some sort of a "gotcha".

G R E Y, you have accused me of swerving in your last 3 replies. Are you sure that you're interested in a good faith discussion? It certainly doesn't feel like it.

[G R E Y]

How is the bold part swerving? I am simply re-iterating the rules that the IOC has put in place. The basis that the IOC uses for gender eligibility is what's written in the athlete's passports. That's it. If Bacyadan's passport said "male" then he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's category. Those are the rules that the IOC has put in place.

I understand that you disagree with those rules. It is your right to disagree. But don't accuse me of swerving for re-iterating the IOC's eligiblity rules to explain why Bacyadan is competing in the women's category. How does that make any sense at all?

Yeah it is clear what's going on. It is true what the IOC stance is. But it's swerving because the entire point isn't IOC rules but fair competition between sexes and flaw of mixing of them. Bacayadan and Hiltz would not fare nearly as well vs. XY competition. Too much data points to it to refute it.

You know this and yet the focus has switched from well we don't know competitor chromosomes to well the testing is flawed to now well the IOC permits it.

And so now there's yet another negotiation about yet another set of parameters.

I almost never repost myself but I did put some time and effort into it so to whoever is interested, this stands on its own:

viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793

Yeah, it looks like we're talking past each other here. You seem to be arguing why Bacaydan and Hiltz should be competing in the women's categories. Bulletin #2 of my post was about why Bacaydan and Hiltz are competing in the women's categories.

And I was talking about due to this part of your post:

The reasons for these two athletes being included is obvious.

And my reply to this was:

Yes, it is indeed obvious. Their passport says female and that is the basis that the IOC is using so this is why they are competing in these categories.

That's it. There's no swerve in this point whatsoever. I am simply giving you the reason why the IOC slotted Bacaydan in the women's category. If Bacaydan's passport said male then he would be competing in the men's category. Those are the IOC's current rules.

Oh, and as for this part of your post:

You know this and yet the focus has switched from well we don't know competitor chromosomes to well the testing is flawed to now well the IOC permits it.

Let's clarify a couple of things here:

1) Yes, I did indeed claim that we didn't know the competitor chromosomes earlier in the discussion. I made that claim because, at the time, there was no corroborating evidence for Kremlev's claim. Now, that there finally is corroborative evidence to that claim, I have no reason to dispute that part anymore. When new evidence is brought to your attention, you are obliged to take them into account and review your initial position. That's how evidence-based reasoning is supposed to work. Doing that is NOT **** "swerving".

2) I have been talking about the problems with sex verifications in sports ever since, at least, page 24. Bergmaniac provided the evidence for the chromosome claim on page 40. So, this notion that I have somehow "swerved" and moved the goalposts is inaccurate and, frankly, insulting.

3) I never made the argument that "well, the IOC permits it so this is what should be happening". What the IOC permits isn't part of my central argument. My central argument is that intersex athletes should be studied and that their inclusion or exclusion from the category of their assinged gender should be based on the scientific consensus on the subject matter. I mentioned the IOC rules because they were a direct answer to a question you asked, not as some sort of a "gotcha".

G R E Y, you have accused me of swerving in your last 3 replies. Are you sure that you're interested in a good faith discussion? It certainly doesn't feel like it.

And there it is. The spin. All this posting, all this detail, and not a thing about the original post for which there was no time.

I trust people notice the pattern throughout this discussion with me and others. Back to the point:

viewtopic.php?p=114624793#p114624793

[SelfishPlayer]

Canada and Puerto Rico had basketball teams in the Olympics. Proximity to the United States and it's unique system of developing basketball talent is superior to any other area on the planet. The world has not caught up.

[Doctor MJ]

As to the part about Doctor MJ’s point about external genitalia being a determining factor for where DSDs should be categorized – beyond the hugely offensive nature of such an assertion (I know it wasn't meant that way)

So first let me say that your post was exceptional in all the explanation it offered. I appreciate it!

Second let me apologize for offending. I appreciate you recognize this was not my intent, but I have to acknowledge I'm not sure how I offended and would request that you elaborate either here or on PM.

I do want to be clear I wasn't trying to say "should" there. I was listing the options as I saw them trying to avoid anything like a final judgment other than specific pros and cons that to me seemed plausibly objective in nature. If what I described isn't actually an option, than I am mistaken not just in that, but in my - apparently false - understanding of what the IOC seems to be doing in boxing right now.

Sincerely,
MJ

[Ruma85]

Canada and Puerto Rico had basketball teams in the Olympics. Proximity to the United States and it's unique system of developing basketball talent is superior to any other area on the planet. The world has not caught up.

They are surely catching up, don't understand posters who cannot see that.

[DOT]

G R E Y, you have accused me of swerving in your last 3 replies. Are you sure that you're interested in a good faith discussion? It certainly doesn't feel like it.

Of course not lol

This entire thing has been a bad faith discussion from the start

They initially got mad cause they thought Imane was trans, and have spent the past week plus trying to justify that outrage instead of admitting they were wrong and she’s cis

Because they’re just weird

[zimpy27]

G R E Y, you have accused me of swerving in your last 3 replies. Are you sure that you're interested in a good faith discussion? It certainly doesn't feel like it.

Of course not lol

This entire thing has been a bad faith discussion from the start

They initially got mad cause they thought Imane was trans, and have spent the past week plus trying to justify that outrage instead of admitting they were wrong and she’s cis

Because they’re just weird

This isn't helpful at all.


This is a complicated issue and has been largely been maturely discussed. Please don't aggravate it.