olympics question

The question I often ask visitors to these parts who are full of 'be kind' and 'what about the poor hurty feelz' is are you actually advocating for mixed sex boxing, because that is the logical conclusion of letting men identify into women's spaces and sports.
I'm actually horrified to discover that the IOC are prepared to answer with a resounding YES.

@ChateauMargaux

"WHERE ARE THE LEGAL CHALLENGES ON BEHALF OF WOMEN AND WHERE IS THE MEDIA CRITICISM WHERE FEMALES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR OWN CATEGORIES?"

The CAS rules on whether a member body is breaking its own regulations. So any legal challenge to FIFA about e.g. Banda, would have to demonstrate that FIFA (and the Zambian football association) broke their own rules in permitting Banda to play in women's football. Given how terminally relaxed FIFA's rules are on DSD athletes, I can't see how a challenge would succeed. Basically, if Banda can make the 5nmol/l grade, they can play on a women's team according to FIFA's rules.

2 male boxers taking part in female class

And in particular avoiding the increased risk of injury at various points of the menstrual cycle.

Absolutely. Even simply coping with the different stages of the menstrual cycle can be very difficult. And that is not even entering into the discussion about pregnancy.

I watched an interview with one of the female rowers yesterday who had three young children and thought how impressive she was.

I, too, have noticed this Margaux about how they preface the topic of female sport with the inclusion of male athletes. It shows accurately the direction of focus. I do wish that this era of centring males passes soon.... then I realise that it never has.

If sporting organisations were truly wanting to be transparent, they would be. Policies would be easy to find and there would be no confusion.

There would also be absolutely no directive under threat of losing the license to broadcast/publish, any valid discussion about where concerns with the policies come up. This constant attempt to shame and vilify people who discuss the issues and the athletes who are very clearly aware of their own situation and yet who still choose to disrespect the needs of female athletes for their acclaim is deplorable.

However, I think any person who thinks trying to shame a feminist board for having these discussions, including direct discussions about those athletes who make those choices that harm female athletes, is probably someone who has not considered just how misogynistic the policies they are supporting, even indirectly supporting, really is. But that is the nature of simply parroting censure that is based on emotional manipulation instead of science and material reality.

Great news that BmG is speaking about the boxers

The IBA and the IOC had a big falling out last year due to dodgy Russian money which ended up with the IOC kicking the IBA out as the recognised governing body for boxing at the Olympics. So boxing at the Olympics now falls under World Boxing rules. World Boxing is US-based and has no (that I can find) transgender or DSD policies.

I have to admit I was completely unaware of this until reading up on it over the weekend. A complete shitshow.

I'm not advocating for or against their inclusion. I'm saying that in a sane world all of the above would be debated openly, but, instead, actual scientific facts are ignored or obfuscated.

I don't really understand why. Is it something to do with ideas about gender? Or because people are squeamish about talking about medical conditions or sex?

My guess is that it's because they are focused on the male athletes and not female athletes, and on inclusion of male athletes, not fairness for women. There is a privacy issue which is cited as a reason for silence, but that does not mean we cannot talk in general terms about the conditions rather than individual athletes.

I didn't mean to jump down your throat. Apologies.

Indeed. The point of me burbling on about CAIS isn't to rehearse the pros and cons, but to complain about how the decision makers don't have that conversation, with themselves or anybody else. To hear them go on, you'd think all these athletes were women with DSDs. Is it just too rude to let the words 'genetically male' pass anyone's lips?

Not spending a quarter of your training time menstruating would clearly be an advantage, even if there are no height/strength differences at all.

@Helleofabore Even the Sports Council Website, which used to be Equality in Sport.. is now called 'Moving towards Inclusion'.. hides the guidelines for the protection of the female category under the banner of inclusion. These topics deserve their own distinct spaces.

I am trying to formulate my fury into a response to them....

Equality, fairness and protection of the female sporting category is important.

Without fairness, sport is meaningless.

By always framing this discussion within the context of human rights of male athletes and the right of male athletes to inclusion, we are NEVER putting the rights of women front and centre... even to consider the question.

Every document starts with.... first we include... then we consider fairness. That doesn't happen in the discussion about doping.. we don't allow our athletes every possibility to dope to improve their performance and then say.... but consider if it's fair... the doping regulations start with the declaration of a fundamental rights to fairness in competion.

Barry McGuigan has tweeted about the. boxers.

https://x.com/clonescyclone/status/1817800751848054877?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

I suspect a cluster of 'tallness' genes on the Y. But I understood skeletal strength and geometry to be T-dependent. CAIS have wide hips, driven by oestrogen (converted from T by the body during puberty).

Aren’t skeletons, not height but bone proportions, derived from genes rather than testosterone?

The height issue is that they are generally taller as a group than women are taller.

Maybe CAIS will need to have specific studies to support any changes. Because yes, there are still advantages (height / skeletal proportions on average is one of these advantages) and CAIS athletes are over represented in elite female sport compared to the representation in the general population.

Isn't that down to a T surge in early childhood, which a CAIS child wouldn't respond to?

“It is impossoble to find the guidelines for FIFA or FA”

Isn’t it? I tried to do a search over the weekend but I didn’t have time to do an extensive search. It seems to be rather difficult to look up easily. I was looking for the current testosterone boundaries that athletes are assessed on because there were conflicting articles about suppression. It seemed like there was articles about suppression and then after these two athletes being excluded, there then seemed to be articles saying no suppression needed.

Lots of discussion about the review announced in 2022, but nothing since. And no discussion on the process at all.

I think campaign groups need to start applying pressure to get FIFA to be transparent and to actually show they are doing this review.

Not read the full thread but I think there may be two in the boxing, of all things!!

the IOC really is rotten to the core

CAIS individuals have fully feminised musculoskeletal systems and derive zero testosterone advantage. They're more than averagely tall, but perform similarly to XX individuals of the same height. They don't have periods or a hormone cycle, which is an advantage. There's arguably a debate to be had about the extent to which mere possession of an SRY gene and some ineffectual internal testes confers maleness and male sporting advantage.

I'm not advocating for or against their inclusion. I'm saying that in a sane world all of the above would be debated openly, but, instead, actual scientific facts are ignored or obfuscated.

I don't really understand why. Is it something to do with ideas about gender? Or because people are squeamish about talking about medical conditions or sex?

This is where I have to point out that boys are stronger, faster, etc than girls. A male athlete with CAIS has an advantage over a female athlete. It's just that it's smaller than other males have. A man who doped with a small amount of testosterone or a woman who has a small engine hidden in her bike may only gain a small advantage but it is from a source which is banned.

I read yesterday that there are 2 XY boxers in the female boxing competition. They’ve been banned by the IBA but not the Olympics.

Total madness and a disaster for those who could be seriously injured fighting them.

For clairty:
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) is when a person who has one X and one Y chromosome (typically seen in males) but is resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a female, but the genetic makeup of a male.

using the words 'she' and normally devemoped XX female without stating that PAIS is only ever present in males obscures the facts.

Cycling, Rugby, Athletics, Swimming have all managed to have well reasoned sensible discussions and have extended the exclusion of XY athletes to all of their events.

I can't remember every detail of all of the policies as there has been a lot of changes in recent years so plesse excuse me if I do not have all of the latest regulations 100% correct.

It is impossoble to find the guidelines for FIFA or FA or to find anyone to email to get this or to question their policies. I know that Fair Play for Women have also struggled to get an audience with the FA to ask them why they have not implemented the guidelines issed in Sept 2021 by the Sports Councils of England, Scotlamd and Wales requiring them to exclude males from the female category.

I think that there will be time in the future when athletes with CAIS will be excluded from female sport. That time is certainly not now. My own opinion is that PAIS is more clear cut and they should be excluded because there is some testosterone development and I would suggest it is enough to have unfair advantage.