The allegations that Olympic boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting failed an eligibility test for women's competition have been made by only the International Boxing Association.
I understand that the allegations are not very specific, but does the IOC do its own testing which would conclusively disprove them? I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the credibility of the accusers (low) and the ethics of transgender participation in sports, but all that discussion would be moot if these boxers are in fact biologically female with no abnormalities.
Who, btw, should never have lost her chance to stay in competition. Her testosterone levels are no more an advantage than Michael Phelps height, wingspan, hand/feet size and his body producing less lactic acid which shortens his recovery time.
Being a champion athlete requires both determination and innate physical advantages. This is in some sense unfair to people who try as hard as the champions do but, through no fault of their own, lack the champions’ physical advantages. Therefore you can argue that since there aren’t things like basketball leagues for short people, there shouldn’t be separate competitions for men and women either. This is ultimately a matter of opinion, but I expect that you will have a hard time convincing the public. There are separate competitions, and while that’s the case, it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition. The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
Caster Semenya is entirely unexceptional by the standards of male runners. For example, she won first place in the Women’s 800 metres race at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:58.66, which would have gotten her 47th place (out of 48) in the men’s heats. She would therefore not even run in the semifinals. The winner of the men’s race had a time of 1:45.29, more than ten seconds less than hers. I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
Or sometimes it was just done to stop women from beating men.
In the 1992 Olympics, a woman won gold in the mixed sex skeet shooting category, beating male competitors.
In 1996 women were barred from the erstwhile mixed event, but did not get a separate category either. Only from the 2000 Olympics a separate women’s skeet shooting event was established.
You’re assuming that testosterone levels are the only thing that affects the outcome. It is not. Nor is it the strongest indicator of who will win. Stop being narrow minded and singular in your assessment.
It’s the biggest factor that affects the outcome when serious athletes compete. The most athletic people with standard female levels of testosterone will be nowhere near as good at most sports as the most athletic people with standard male levels of testosterone. That’s why I pointed out that Semenya’s first place finish in the women’s race would have been 47th place in the men’s. The fastest women at that competition were about as fast as the slowest men.
How many different sports where the best women are significantly worse than the best men would I have to list before you were convinced? Because it’s almost all sports…
I’m not saying “they” to avoid specifying gender. I’m saying “they” because there are two boxers involved in this controversy.
The IBA said Khelif and fellow boxer Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan had failed “to meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.”
The IBA has not disclosed the nature of the tests conducted on Khelif and Yu-Ting. The results therefore are not conclusive, nor are they reproducible.
I understand that the allegations are not very specific, but does the IOC do its own testing which would conclusively disprove them? I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the credibility of the accusers (low) and the ethics of transgender participation in sports, but all that discussion would be moot if these boxers are in fact biologically female with no abnormalities.
The IOC does have its own eligibility requirements and does its own testing. The IOC does not test for “gender”.
The boxer is not trans. How do I know this? She’s from fucking Algeria, she’d be dead if she was trans, not in the Olympics representing the country.
They don’t test her gender fluid??
They might still have some sort of intersex condition like Caster Semenya’s.
Who, btw, should never have lost her chance to stay in competition. Her testosterone levels are no more an advantage than Michael Phelps height, wingspan, hand/feet size and his body producing less lactic acid which shortens his recovery time.
Being a champion athlete requires both determination and innate physical advantages. This is in some sense unfair to people who try as hard as the champions do but, through no fault of their own, lack the champions’ physical advantages. Therefore you can argue that since there aren’t things like basketball leagues for short people, there shouldn’t be separate competitions for men and women either. This is ultimately a matter of opinion, but I expect that you will have a hard time convincing the public. There are separate competitions, and while that’s the case, it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition. The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
Caster Semenya is entirely unexceptional by the standards of male runners. For example, she won first place in the Women’s 800 metres race at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:58.66, which would have gotten her 47th place (out of 48) in the men’s heats. She would therefore not even run in the semifinals. The winner of the men’s race had a time of 1:45.29, more than ten seconds less than hers. I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
Or sometimes it was just done to stop women from beating men.
In the 1992 Olympics, a woman won gold in the mixed sex skeet shooting category, beating male competitors.
In 1996 women were barred from the erstwhile mixed event, but did not get a separate category either. Only from the 2000 Olympics a separate women’s skeet shooting event was established.
You’re assuming that testosterone levels are the only thing that affects the outcome. It is not. Nor is it the strongest indicator of who will win. Stop being narrow minded and singular in your assessment.
It’s the biggest factor that affects the outcome when serious athletes compete. The most athletic people with standard female levels of testosterone will be nowhere near as good at most sports as the most athletic people with standard male levels of testosterone. That’s why I pointed out that Semenya’s first place finish in the women’s race would have been 47th place in the men’s. The fastest women at that competition were about as fast as the slowest men.
There’s also the famous incident where 203rd-ranked German Karsten Braasch beat Serena Williams and Venus Williams back-to-back at the 1998 Australian Open.
You have zero scientific proof of that.
Come back if you ever find any.
How many different sports where the best women are significantly worse than the best men would I have to list before you were convinced? Because it’s almost all sports…
*She. Please don’t misgender her, it plays right into these transphobes’ hands of questioning her gender.
I’m not saying “they” to avoid specifying gender. I’m saying “they” because there are two boxers involved in this controversy.
Why do you keep quoting an organization that has been discredited by the very article youre commenting on?
It seems like you want to appeal to an authority that has none. Quoting liars as a source of truth doesn’t give the lies any weight.
The IBA has not disclosed the nature of the tests conducted on Khelif and Yu-Ting. The results therefore are not conclusive, nor are they reproducible.
The IBF, headed by russion dude, came up with this undiaclosed “test” three days after the algerian boxer beat an undefeated russian boxer.
The IBF was so openly corrupt, that the IOC kicked them and 20+ national boxing feds left IBF and created a new organization.