imane khelif has been allegedly confirmed to be a man.

Not saying I'm a supporter of this boxer in the ring with a woman but wondering about this source.

What's that got to do with Khalif.

He's not trans.

I still don’t agree with the witch hunt. If Khelif reasonably believed themselves to be female and had been brought up as female since birth without knowing about the chromosomal disorder, they were not acting as a man boxing against women. Intent counts here, I think. If they knew and still competed, that is a different story.

Personally most of my anger is directed at the IOC. It doesn't matter really what Khelif reasonably believed. If I reasonably believed I had a sight impediment and thought I should be eligible to compete in visually impaired events, you might expect the powers that be to check thoroughly whether I was eligible, not just tell everyone "Well it says she is visually impaired on her passport".

What is the difference?

When the controversy was going on about Caster Semenya someone shared a link that discussed talent scouts in African countries and other poor countries would seek out individuals with the same intersex condition.
Does anyone else remember this?

THEY DON'T ALWAYS WIN - WHY THIS LOGIC SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK

(these are my thoughts by the way)

But they didn't win', 'they have been beaten', what does it matter, type arguments really show a complete lack of understanding about competitive advantage.

The male athletes losing are losing because they when you considered their physical advantages, if they were elite level male athletes at the same level of peak performance as the female people that they were losing against, they would not have lost. They are not at any where near the level of exceptionality of the female athletes they are competing against.

In many instances, their performance rates as mediocre when compared to male athlete peak performance.

To be very clear, if the male athletes losing to those exceptional female athletes were as good and as fit and performing at their full potential as those elite athletes, they would have won.

In fact, several male athletes are competing in female events and setting records that female people may never break. Those male athletes are in almost comparable performance level as the exceptional female athletes, but their physical advantage is coming into play, so to speak.

Consider the physical advantage to constitute x% performance advantage over all. To achieve the same level of exceptionality of the female athletes, their performance will = peak female athlete performance + x%. Hence setting records that may not be broken.

If the female athletes are beating the male athletes and those athletes have male pubertal advantage, then they simply are not as good as the female athlete. In fact, if those male athletes with x% pubertal advantage tied with the exceptional female athlete, then by comparison, the female athlete is better.
So this point too is irrelevant for competition. But. Not for safety.

Using Boxing as an example:

If you are supporting male inclusion based on 'they don't always win',
what you are supporting can, in effect, be very dangerous for female athletes. For instance in boxing, this is due to male people have on average 160+% more punch power than female people (that is not athletes, that is just the general population) and many other advantages. In fact, part of the punch power is derived from skeletal leverage that males have to give this power that female people do not have. And bone mass and density that is greater in male people than female people.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/

This above is the review of 13 studies from Dr Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg and it shows these advantages, if anyone wishes to check for themselves.

To be clear. This bone difference means stronger bones!
Female people have been proven to have bones that are more prone to breakage, particularly in the face. And they are more prone to concussion and brain damage due to their more delicate brain fibres. This has been studied and is now shaping Rugby guidelines for female participation, as an example.
Rugby concussion: Swansea University study into protecting women

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51434749

To those who use the 'but they didn't win' what do you believe will happen to a female with those more delicate bones and brain fibres when hit with punches that are 160+% harder than other female boxers?

I'd be careful here. Trump is on the rampage with anti-Trans ads and he's featured this boxer. I've only found reference to this in the Express Tribune - goodness knows what sort of a publication that is. Watch and wait, lots of Russian bots about.

That's exactly what I meant @jeaux90 hence I clarified it afterwards.

Of course not. That's why he can't be an elite boxer. He's a man so he needs to go against other men. If he can't do it then he's not elite, like 99.9% of everyone.

I'm not as good a gymnast as Simone Biles. What am I entitled to?

Yes I feel really sorry for the women who had to get in the ring with a male who clearly punched a lot harder and had a longer reach than them. I feel sorry for the women who could have medalled but didn't because of a cheating man.

In his weight class why wouldn't he be? He's been through a male puberty.

If his genetic condition means he isn't as strong as other male boxers that still doesn't mean he should compete as female so he can take female prizes.

What it means is he doesn't make the cut as a professional boxer - like millions of other men who will never get an Olympic Gold for boxing and don't turn to cheating as a method of acquiring one.

This is a male athlete who has a DSD that allows their body to virilise.

I have seen a paper and I will try to find it that states clearly that the strength, fitness and performance level for male people with 5ARD is the same as the potential for any male person without the medical condition.

So, yes. I believe that Khelif has the potential to be as strong as the male elite boxers. That Khelif is not does not require female athletes to accommodate Khelif in their event and put themselves at risk of injuries that are far more likely to be serious and life threatening than if punched by another female.

He was a man before the Olympics, he was a man at the Olympics and he's a man now.

We all knew, everyone knew. Every woman knows. Being able to recognise a man is a deep, primeval instinct that has protected women and kept us alive for millennia.

The whole thing is a disgrace. His medals should be returned forthwith and his titles stripped from him.

... the one he punched I mean

Is that relevant?

People keep defending this rubbish by claiming that all athletes have bodies that are well built for their sport and that this somehow means males don't have an advantage. They never have any answer to increased testosterone, haemoglobin, fast twitch muscle etc etc.

They cheer for men punching women and taking their opportunities, because all athletes must rise or fall by how well built their bodies are. Women who can't beat men should just accept that they haven't got the right body.

And yet give them a man with a variation of development that means he hasn't got the right body, and suddenly it's highly immoral to insist he competes against men. Sex is irrelevant for women athletes, except in the case of validating a man as one.

If women must accept they just aren't built right, why mustn't Khelif? Why does sex not exist when it protects women's equality and fairness, but is all-important when a substandard man wants to switch over?

This is fallacious logic.

We're talking about a (literal and metaphorical!) arena where the ONLY thing that's being contested is your boxing skills. Whether you think you're a woman or not has no bearing on your boxing abilities. Your physique will always prevail. Your intent is irrelevant, totally besides the point which is that you have the physical advantages of a man.

If you're talking about an arena where what's being contested is who is, say, the most feminine competitor, you might have a point: femininity is subjective, can be acquired and learned, is a state of mind. It's not just your physique, it's mostly an attitude (although I imagine some women would have a hard time accepting this).

Makes me feel sick. Poor woman.

There are still people falling over themselves to defend this?

They're all in on their ideology.

@wombat15 it is irrelevant how strong Imane is. He's male. He shouldn't be in a female category.

It's funny. When I realised I was never going to be able to compete at a top level in sport, I shrugged my shoulders and said "Oh well"

I didn't set my sights on another category which I didn't belong in.

So what if he isn't?

How does that make it right for a male who punches at 167% the strength of a female, to beat up a female?

I know you're desperate to defend the patriarchy and a male beating up a female live on tv, but you seem to be flailing about right now because you don't seem to have any argument or even point. And I think you know that.

Do you think imane khelif is anywhere near as strong as the male elite boxers?

That would be Imane Khelif's problem. Women's boxing isn't a consolation prize for not being able to succeed as an elite men's athlete.

Google is a little contested on this, with some answers suggesting 90% is an overwhelming majority, some saying 80% and some saying as low as 66%.

Winning about 80% of his matches sounds like an overwhelming majority to me.

Colour me shocked.
And whatever sympathy one may have for him, the fact is that sympathy doesn't and can't lead to a fair fight. This should never have been allowed.
In no other context would a male beating a female be deemed acceptable.

Are you really so stupid as to suggest that the average man on the high street will be performing in the Olympic boxing ring?