olympics question

Boxing, imo, is dangerous anyway

My view is that a 'sport' whose objective is to impart damage to the head is not a sport at all, and I laugh at those who whimper about head-contact in the rugby codes means we need to drastically change the rules for reasons of player safety. And yet boxing is fine? However, I appreciate that this is a minority view. However, I hope that one day we will look back on boxing as we now do on bear-baiting.

This might be interesting to listen to.

“I forgot to post, but we are doing daily recaps & insight shows on the #Paris2024 #OlympicGames”

”Here is the latest, in which we:
- Correct BBC errors on lactate & fatigue
- Talk Women's MTB dominance
- Discuss looming DSD controversies in boxing & football”

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1817854928842346686?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

In another tweet Ross Tucker has said he thinks the IOC will do nothing in boxing unless a woman suffers extreme injury or worse.

Yes. I remember oh so well the IOC stating that they will leave it up to the sporting federations.

And while these male athletes are not breaking any rules, they are certainly not respectful of the needs of women and have taken clear advantage of loopholes forced open for them for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics when sex testing was stopped. This has been a very long term strategy and it was then leveraged by the lobby groups for transgender male athletes ultimately in 2015/6.

The awareness about these athletes are now at an all time high and even then, it is still quite low. I had discussions on the weekend about male DSD athletes with some people who believed they were up on the topic and they had little understanding when it came to explaining what they thought they knew. It was all emotionally driven campaign speak.

@LaeralSilverhand @helleofabore

The IOC reviewed it's rules in 2021 and removed the requirement to reach specified testosterone and FIFA responded with a 'case by case' approach and a promise to review their rules within the human rights framework.

IOC: Prioritise Inclusion
FIFA: Prioritise human rights (default male)

The CAS (court of arbitration in sport) gave an incredibly reasoned argument in the Semenya case, but in my opinion, made an illogical conclusion in only applying the rule to certain events. IAAF (athletics) have since clearly stated that in order to protect the female category... the DSD regulations should use 2.5nmol.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1115561/ioc-olympics-transgender-sport

Banda and Kundananji have not broken any rules (nor have the boxers) but the organisations have failed every woman in the competiton.

Every comment about how amazing Banda is, belongs to an awesome woman. Every defender who was defeated by Banda will carry that failure with them and it could affect their game mindset irreparably unless we tell them, it's not you, it was not fair, you deserved better. And I cannot begin to put words on the criminal insanity of risking the lives of female boxers, they cannot consent to the risks involved if they do not know who they are up against.

The Times has woken up to the situation in women's boxing

www.thetimes.com/sport/olympics/article/olympics-allows-female-boxers-banned-over-gender-eligibility-to-compete-bk70xqs36

https://archive.ph/Bkvkr past the paywall

The 'be kind' of the reporting, arguably understandable with some individuals with DSDs, can make it a little confusing. It's an abdication of responsibility by the IOC. Boxing, imo, is dangerous anyway. This could see a woman seriously hurt.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply she was treated unkindly. More she had given me insight into what the implications of referring to someone as "genetically male" could be.

I agree with PP CAIS is the hard one to categorise and it annoys me that it's been coopted for competitors who are more "male" (PAIS/5 alpha reductase) to compete.

Yes agreed

It does seem unreasonably intrusive to me to put that personal information into the public domain.

If sports had clear, robust, scientifically defensible policies - and applied them - there would be no need to put anyone's individual information into the public domain. Everyone would simply qualify or not, with no chopping and changing or public speculation.

The question of whether or not a male athlete should be in female competition isn't difficult. They shouldn't.

Athletes and people in general discover shocking things about themselves every day. If we are talking about someone born in a country/area without access to routine maternity care, competing in lower levels or in younger age groups, probably nobody would know or suspect about the CAIS for a long time. But by the time a person is an adult, they will know or suspect that something is up. Especially since AIS and 46XY 5ARD runs in families and therefore there are clusters in certain populations.

As soon as an athlete does find out, it is incumbent on them to stop competing with women. The Open category would be ideal, if there is one. But never the female category.

They don't have to announce the reason, although I think it might be healthy for people generally to be aware of such conditions, but obviously that's their decision to make.

We should bring back sex passports for competition above a certain level/age. Cheek swab, one and done for life.

There is no need or justification for compromising fair competition for all females in order to protect the privacy of a few males if they are determined to carry on competing in the female category.

The CAIS person I remember (username of Alex?) was male, though socially a woman. Sport is different, though. Fairness and safety are paramount.

Is the poster you are all referring to Clare from Twitter? I thought they just popped in from time to time to discuss the issues and to make sure the information is understood. They often post links to their own website for people to read.

If that is the case, I don't recall them being treated unkindly. Just that they are not regulars and obviously don't wish to be. They are absolutely clear that DSDs should not be leveraged by those who attempt to use their conditions politically for any transgender issues.

Dougalskeeper · Today 11:25

2 male boxers taking part in female class

To me, this is complete and utter insanity, it highlights the sex differences like no other sport. Women are almost certain to suffer serious injury, by being matched against males.

I used to box and coach, I sparred with everyone, from 8 year old boys, to women and girls. We had a very fit, strong lady of about 11 stone and she could hit me as hard as she liked, it didn't hurt. I was a shade over 12 stone and had a rib broken by an 8 stone 15 year old, in contrast.

We wouldn't let youths spar with women, because most of them didn't understand that they needed to pull their punches.

If there is one DSD that I am on the fence about, it is CAIS.
I remember the posts by the member with CAIS and they were utterly heartbreaking.
I just keep imagining either of my daughters in their mid teens (one of whom WAS a late menstruator) being diagnosed with such a condition and suddenly being told they are a male and must use male facilities etc.
Cannot imagine what they must go through. To all intents and purposes they are female, unable to respond to testosterone (even synthetic testosterone, so no point in giving them "T" to masculinize them).
I think this is the one DSD that breaks the rules, but that is my personal opinion.
The poster here, I think, left due to unkind posts (though I may be wrong on that). It's a horrible dilemma.

All of which to say, I don't know enough about the ultimate effect to advocate (or not) for their inclusion in the female sporting category, but in general life, I think people with CAIS should be treated with the utmost sympathy and compassion.

It is for the average person. But sport is about fair competition.

It's really difficult. There used to be a poster on here with CAIS. I think most people don't get diagnosed until their periods don't start. So they've been brought up female and believe themselves to be female until then, plus have feminised bodies.

It does seem unreasonably intrusive to me to put that personal information into the public domain.

Yes, that's reminded me that T has a function of stopping growth during puberty, another part of the mix.

My point isn't to advocate for or against CAIS inclusion, but to point out that sporting regulators and msm don't talk about it in terms of the science (like the conversation we're having). They talk about women with naturally high T (no such thing!), or a test (unspecified) that's been failed. Instead of saying 'this individual is genetically male'.

According to a quick Google to find out what CAIS stands for :

Other signs and symptoms of CAIS include:

• Abnormally tall stature for a female during puberty.

Obviously this is an advantage even if, as you say, they perform the same as other 'abnormally tall' women. The point is that most women aren't 'abnormally tall'. As others have said not having periods is also an advantage but at the end of the day all of that is immaterial IMO as only males can suffer from CAIS/PAIS/MAIS. So there is no question that they are biologically male.

What scientific facts do you think are being ignored? The scientific fact is that they are biologically male. Anything else is irrelevant.

I haven’t RTFT but here’s a list of the sports and their policies. In many cases males are allowed to co Pete I’m women’s events. Whether there are any male competitors in each of them is another matter.
Note that there is no policy for boxing so males are allowed to compete with women. They just have to be “fairly matched” whatever that means.

Can we please not refer to "backward" countries? It just makes you sound like a massive racist, which I'm sure you're not.

The average age of menarche in sub-Saharan Africa is 14.5. That's the average age, so half of girls will start later. And there are many other reasons why a girl may not menstruate other than RED-S or a DSD, the investigation of which may be delayed or inaccessible in developing countries. I have absolutely no trouble in believing that DSDs are diagnosed later (or not at all) in developing countries than in developed countries. Same as any other medical condition.

Not starting menstruation in early teens is a big red flag. If female then they are overtraining or anorexic. If not then male, no excuse for "backward" countries to lie beyond this age except for greed.

Well quite. I honestly struggle with the DSD issue, or at least with CAIS which seems to get a very late diagnosis in developing countries, often when an athlete is well advanced on their development pathway. I presume this is because of less access to specialist medical diagnostics and potentially cultural issues.

This is aside from the utter cynicism of sporting bodies deliberately seeking out individuals with DSDs (again, usually in developing countries) to develop them into athletes for female competition.

I don’t disagree with you.

It is a bin fire to work through, yes. But I was just asking if you had it to hand, if not don’t worry.

Of course, the new limit is 2.5 in some sports because they realise that 5 is for when a female person has a medical issue. But that any person thinks that the female sex category can be defined by a testosterone suppression limit is ludicrous.

Aside, a female athlete with a 5+ is far more likely to be doping than have a tumour.

@Helleofabore I thought the 5nmol/l limit was the generic IOC one applied in the absence of a sport-specific limit but I may be getting confused with the IAAF limits. Or maybe it's the WADA doping limit? It's a fucking minefield. I'll try and find where I got the number from.

Did you find a policy that has that testosterone level, Laeralsilverhand?

Because I did a five minute look and couldn't find the evidence of the levels. If you found it, could you please post a link.

Because NO female athlete has to suppress their testosterone (knowing also that if a female athlete has a reading of 5.0+ mol/l, they have a high chance of having a tumour ).