Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Thread 4: TWO “Female Boxers” Set To Compete At Paris 2024 Were Previously Disqualified From Women’s World Championship For Having “XY Chromosomes”

743 replies

Signalbox · 10/08/2024 07:53

To continue the discussion...

Thread 3

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5135868-thread-3-two-female-boxers-set-to-compete-at-paris-2024-were-previously-disqualified-from-womens-world-championship-for-having-xy-chromosomes?page=1

Thread 2

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5133749-thread-2-two-female-boxers-set-to-compete-at-paris-2024-were-previously-disqualified-from-womens-world-championship-for-having-xy-chromosomes?utmm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Thread 1

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5129412-two-female-boxers-set-to-compete-at-paris-2024-were-previously-disqualified-from-womens-world-championship-for-having-xy-chromosomes?page=1

TWO “Female Boxers” Set To Compete At Paris 2024 Were Previously Disqualified From Women’s World Championship For Having “XY Chromosomes” | Mumsnet

Surely this cannot be true. In boxing of all sports. I thought boxing had told men they needed to compete with other men? *”Two athletes competing at...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5129412-two-female-boxers-set-to-compete-at-paris-2024-were-previously-disqualified-from-womens-world-championship-for-having-xy-chromosomes?page=1

OP posts:
Thread gallery
67
borntobequiet · 12/08/2024 21:05

viques · 12/08/2024 19:55

So height, reach, greater muscle size and strength, larger heart and lung capacity, a male pelvis, improved oxygen take up are not advantages. Good to know.

And as you say , it makes life so much less complicated.

No, I’m referring to conditions that don’t confer those advantages, because so many people say that “it’s so complicated”.
If a DSD confers advantage, it’s not complicated. We know the ones that do, and can test for them easily (as well as seeing the evidence with our own eyes). DSDs that don’t confer an advantage are irrelevant, but people keep bring them up to muddy the waters.

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 21:03

TheKeatingFive · 12/08/2024 20:44

Yes exactly. To add to this ...

Non mainstream media taking up the mantle of this - we wouldn't have certainty on any of this without Reduxx and that's what got it on many people's agendas in the first place.

The IBA being prepared to speak out. Hard to say how much of that was genuine concern for female boxers, and how much was a desire to stick it to the IOC, but important nevertheless.

Reduxx have been absolutely smashing!

Shout out to Ross Tucker’s work with World Rugby (plus the podcast) and Sean Ingle putting as much reality into the back pages of The Guardian as he could get past his editors for the last 6 plus years.

Quite a few Sports Bros with (far less serious-sciencey) podcasts have also helped chip away at the climate of silence surrounding men in women’s sports categories too (Joe Rogan being the most well known of that genre).

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 20:53

There were lots of little things rumbling along in the background before Rio, Dutee Chand was ordered by the IAAF to lower testosterone or not compete and refused to comply, then was reinstated after appealing (that debacle probably made some officials reluctant to restrict/disqualify other XY athletes, assuming the court would reach the same outcome)

Semenya’s 46XY 5ARD info wasn’t public until 2018.

Chand was identified as an ‘female athlete with high testosterone’ early in Chand’s career (maybe as early as 2012, when still competing in the juniors) and was prohibited from competing for a couple of year, then was reinstated in 2015.
I don’t believe details about the cause of Chand’s ‘hyperandrogenism’’ have ever been made public (but Chand is teeny tiny so hasn’t benefited from the extra height that most XY athletes have and despite the promising start/being a star sprinter for India never made it to Olympic medal winning level, going out in the heats).

Chand was later caught doping with 3 different prohibited substances (so maybe the ‘high testosterone’ was never naturally occurring anyway? 😬)

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/athletics/dutee-chand-tests-positive-for-prohibited-substances/articleshow/97086771.cms

JanesLittleGirl · 12/08/2024 20:53

DuesToTheDirt · 12/08/2024 20:15

I'm just wondering about that 800m in Rio with 3 males with DSDs on the women's podium, and why there is a bigger backlash now against the boxers?

Is it because it's boxing and so women are getting punched by men? The two male footballers, after all, have had hardly a mention, and without mumsnet I'd have had no idea about them.

Or am I wrong and I just wasn't aware of a backlash back in 2016?

Rio was 8 years ago. The IOC could have just brought in sex testing for all athletes and avoided all this. Why didn't they? I know they are getting different sports bodies to set the criteria for eligibility, but sex grouping is just basic.

The 800m was unfair for every woman in the competition. The presence of the boxers in the women's competition is not only unfair but also unsafe.

JanesLittleGirl · 12/08/2024 20:50

spannasaurus · 12/08/2024 20:46

If you spin round fast enough the centrifugal force generated is sufficient to prevent chromosome changes

And it does make your skirt go spinny.

spannasaurus · 12/08/2024 20:46

Fenlandia · 12/08/2024 20:03

Bit worrying for Julie Andrews

If you spin round fast enough the centrifugal force generated is sufficient to prevent chromosome changes

TheKeatingFive · 12/08/2024 20:44

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 20:27

At Rio there was still a lot of denial around Caster Semenya and others being male (‘females with naturally high testosterone’ and all that guff)

It was only when Semenya’s case went to the Sports Court that we got confirmation that the DSD was definitely 46XY 5ARD (ie an irrefutable male DSD).

The papers didn’t really report on the XY
bit tho, we combed over the court documents ourselves.

Since then, reality has increasingly been discussed in niche corners by terves and sports fans but not really gone mainstream. I reckon what’s made it explode this time is:

  1. Musk owns Twitter
  2. Increasing awareness about males with gender-y personalities in sports (Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas) and women sports icons speaking up (Martina, Sharron)
  3. Combat Sport (males in female athletics was shit for fairness, but Boxing made it shit for fairness AND safety.

Yes exactly. To add to this ...

Non mainstream media taking up the mantle of this - we wouldn't have certainty on any of this without Reduxx and that's what got it on many people's agendas in the first place.

The IBA being prepared to speak out. Hard to say how much of that was genuine concern for female boxers, and how much was a desire to stick it to the IOC, but important nevertheless.

GerbilsAllTheWayDown · 12/08/2024 20:43

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 20:27

At Rio there was still a lot of denial around Caster Semenya and others being male (‘females with naturally high testosterone’ and all that guff)

It was only when Semenya’s case went to the Sports Court that we got confirmation that the DSD was definitely 46XY 5ARD (ie an irrefutable male DSD).

The papers didn’t really report on the XY
bit tho, we combed over the court documents ourselves.

Since then, reality has increasingly been discussed in niche corners by terves and sports fans but not really gone mainstream. I reckon what’s made it explode this time is:

  1. Musk owns Twitter
  2. Increasing awareness about males with gender-y personalities in sports (Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas) and women sports icons speaking up (Martina, Sharron)
  3. Combat Sport (males in female athletics was shit for fairness, but Boxing made it shit for fairness AND safety.

Caster Semenya was the final scale to fall from my eyes in all these "gender wars". I honestly thought Semenya was a woman with higher T levels than normal and I honestly felt incredibly sorry for "her".

Even when I was about a year into my TERFery, (I think I'm about 4 years in now, do I get a badge? 😜) I believed this! Just goes to show the piss poor reporting on the whole thing, and the reliance on people to not look beyond their regular news source.

I've certainly noticed even the BBC being a bit more descriptive this time.

[Edited]

ditalini · 12/08/2024 20:41

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 20:27

At Rio there was still a lot of denial around Caster Semenya and others being male (‘females with naturally high testosterone’ and all that guff)

It was only when Semenya’s case went to the Sports Court that we got confirmation that the DSD was definitely 46XY 5ARD (ie an irrefutable male DSD).

The papers didn’t really report on the XY
bit tho, we combed over the court documents ourselves.

Since then, reality has increasingly been discussed in niche corners by terves and sports fans but not really gone mainstream. I reckon what’s made it explode this time is:

  1. Musk owns Twitter
  2. Increasing awareness about males with gender-y personalities in sports (Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas) and women sports icons speaking up (Martina, Sharron)
  3. Combat Sport (males in female athletics was shit for fairness, but Boxing made it shit for fairness AND safety.

It'll be interesting to see how Valentina Petrillo is spun by the apologists.

Might not win a medal (might just though), but I bet nothing will be mentioned about the fact he's 50 fucking years old. www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cpvymmpyjeko

I'm fully expecting him to be both lauded as stunning and brave, and held as an example of how we're making a huge fuss about nothing.

WomaninBoots · 12/08/2024 20:34

I think the idea that we might genuinely have crossed the line to men punching women for sport at the Olympics made quite a few go "hang on". But then there were lots of apology posts all over social media from people who had initially reacted like sane humans but had then been "corrected" by the propaganda machine... and were then working extra hard against the cognitive dissonance. The back and forth probably churned the story up more.

Men possibly being in women's sport hadn't really dropped onto many people's radars by Rio.

The IOC haven't done anything about it in the mean time because they couldn't give a flying fuck about safety and fairness for women.

ChaChaChooey · 12/08/2024 20:27

At Rio there was still a lot of denial around Caster Semenya and others being male (‘females with naturally high testosterone’ and all that guff)

It was only when Semenya’s case went to the Sports Court that we got confirmation that the DSD was definitely 46XY 5ARD (ie an irrefutable male DSD).

The papers didn’t really report on the XY
bit tho, we combed over the court documents ourselves.

Since then, reality has increasingly been discussed in niche corners by terves and sports fans but not really gone mainstream. I reckon what’s made it explode this time is:

  1. Musk owns Twitter
  2. Increasing awareness about males with gender-y personalities in sports (Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas) and women sports icons speaking up (Martina, Sharron)
  3. Combat Sport (males in female athletics was shit for fairness, but Boxing made it shit for fairness AND safety.
Runningupthecurtains · 12/08/2024 20:20

The IOC could have just brought in sex testing for all athletes and avoided all this. Why didn't they?

Because they don't object to men in women's sport.

DuesToTheDirt · 12/08/2024 20:15

I'm just wondering about that 800m in Rio with 3 males with DSDs on the women's podium, and why there is a bigger backlash now against the boxers?

Is it because it's boxing and so women are getting punched by men? The two male footballers, after all, have had hardly a mention, and without mumsnet I'd have had no idea about them.

Or am I wrong and I just wasn't aware of a backlash back in 2016?

Rio was 8 years ago. The IOC could have just brought in sex testing for all athletes and avoided all this. Why didn't they? I know they are getting different sports bodies to set the criteria for eligibility, but sex grouping is just basic.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 12/08/2024 20:14

Fenlandia · 12/08/2024 20:03

Bit worrying for Julie Andrews

Ssh but apparently started out as Andrew Julies.

WomaninBoots · 12/08/2024 20:09

Ban all XY from women's sport. It really could be that simple. Have a discussion about CAIS and Swyers. It seems, from what I've picked up, that Swyers wouldn't really feature in elite sport anyway? CAIS does, disproportionately... so there's a discussion there. The really far edge cases that involve mosaicism could be looked at individually but honestly maybe just fucking tough luck. There's lots of us that would love to be elite athletes but didn't get the right genes either.

Can't we just prioritise fairness for women over and above handwringing about tiny numbers of people maybe not being able to compete as women. Can't we assume XY equals advantage until proven otherwise rather than the other way around... like actually put women first for once?

Theeyeballsinthesky · 12/08/2024 20:06

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2024 18:56

It really is that simple.

The default should be to protect the safety of women in sport followed by the fairness of women in sport.

Instead, inclusion in sport is being put first.

This means the emphasis is on women to prove they are at risk NOT for XY males to demonstrate they are safe to participate.

This means the emphasis is on women to prove unfair competitive advantages NOT for XY males to demonstrate they don't undermine the integrity of women's elite sport.

This is half the point. Where the default position lies. The default position of the IOC was to assume that all people with an F in their passport were female and thus pose no threat.

It was not for those who had been previously banned to show they weren't a risk.

Can no one see how fucked up this is, that fear of litigation from being prevented to compete and ideas of inclusion has come before any regard to the safety of female athletes. No one thinks women will take a case and fight back and it's an easy win to smear and shame women into raising concerns with the threat of ending their careers. Women are just supposed to suck up the potential risk, without anyone actually looking at individual cases and what the science is saying.

It's very obvious there is a problem. There is a massive over representation of DSD athletes reaching this level. This is being compounded by national bodies seeking out DSD athletes because THEY KNOW they have a competitive advantage too.

And still we are told it's complicated.

No really it's not. Show the EVIDENCE that there is no issue with safety and competitive advantage and we'll consider the point. But the fact is, this isn't even happening.

It's just an F in a fucking passport, which just allows for further future gaming of the system which will force XX females out of participation. How is that bloody inclusive? It's not.

Indeed Red

when Oscar pistorius wanted to run against able bodied athlete there were huge and lengthy discussions and investigations about whther or not his blades would give him an unfair advantage. The onus was on Pistorius to prove they didn’t

how is it never on these male DSD atheletes to prove they don’t have an advantage? Instead we’re just expected to take their word for it and why can’t you be kind you bigots????

Fenlandia · 12/08/2024 20:03

spannasaurus · 12/08/2024 19:52

Apparently, living in the mountains can affect your chromosomes
https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1823064798797435204

Bit worrying for Julie Andrews

Happy Sound Of Music GIF
viques · 12/08/2024 19:55

borntobequiet · 12/08/2024 18:53

As most of these DSD conditions don’t confer any physical advantage - many of them seem to do the opposite - the issue really isn’t very complicated.

So height, reach, greater muscle size and strength, larger heart and lung capacity, a male pelvis, improved oxygen take up are not advantages. Good to know.

And as you say , it makes life so much less complicated.

spannasaurus · 12/08/2024 19:52

Apparently, living in the mountains can affect your chromosomes
https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1823064798797435204

Thread 4: TWO “Female Boxers” Set To Compete At Paris 2024 Were Previously Disqualified From Women’s World Championship For Having “XY Chromosomes”
Outofitagain · 12/08/2024 19:50

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2024 19:17

Even if it's complex, why is the default set AGAINST women? And not for with with the emphasis on anything outside normal to demonstrate that it doesn't damage the integrity of women's sport?

That the point. Default human is male and the entire logic of this comes from a male pov not from a point of view of centring women and their needs within sport.

It's women who have to fight. Not the other way around.

That's the bit that's most 'not ok'.

Even if it's complex, why is the default set AGAINST women?

I don't know.
Tempting to think because it usually is, but I suspect at least partly because when it happens 'the other way around' it doesn't disadvantage men.

So an XX who is thought to be male but has some female physiology has no competitive advantage. They probably won't even be tested. That's why it's happened this way round. It's partly just biology.

And the other part is that it was men in the IOC making those stupid, stupid decisions. Of course.

I don't think it's just an issue for elite/olympic level sports either. Should be sorted out early in careers. Fairness and safety is important at every level.

GerbilsAllTheWayDown · 12/08/2024 19:47

parkrun500club · 12/08/2024 18:50

I was in London today for work and near Waterloo station I saw someone had painted graffiti on a wall which said "I stand with Imane Khelif".

Sigh.

Take a marker pen and write "...next to him at the urinals".

Childish titter

Outofitagain · 12/08/2024 19:30

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2024 19:03

The basic question here is:

If there is no XY advantage why are XY athletes at elite level to a degree which is so far removed from natural occurrence?

Saying there is no advantage is trying to make mugs out of women.

In terms of DSDs XY does confer an advantage sometimes/often. That's not in doubt. They're the ones you see winning. But it doesn't confer an advantage for all with an XY DSD and that's an issue. Because just looking at chromosomes isn't fair either. Maybe fairer in terms of numbers involved, but arguably not the best solution if we can do better.

So sometimes XY confers a big advantage and sometimes (in other individuals whose genotypes and phentypes don't match up as well) it doesn't. Many people with an XY DSD have no advantage. Their bodies are female (though infertile).

You can exclude both groups...but that's unfair to the latter group, though smaller numbers than women affected now. It's one solution but not the best one imho.

Also, rarely, XX people have a male phenotype.

There's no doubt something needs to be done to protect women's sport though, and fast.

ILikeDungs · 12/08/2024 19:27

Male advantage needs to be excluded from female sport, but it'll take work to get it right and fair for everyone.

...it'll take work to close all the loopholes to keep it fair for women. FIFY.

borntobequiet · 12/08/2024 19:18

334bu · 12/08/2024 19:07

"As most of these DSD conditions don’t confer any physical advantage - many of them seem to do the opposite - the issue really isn’t very complicated. most of these DSD conditions don’t confer any physical advantage - many of them seem to do the opposite - the issue really isn’t very complicated."

Have you read this thread?

Yes. Most differences or disorders or variations of sexual development don’t result in the sort of male advantage that we see in these boxers or Caster Semanya and the other runners. In these cases, it’s fairly easy to see and test for.

RedToothBrush · 12/08/2024 19:17

Outofitagain · 12/08/2024 19:10

Just because I say genetics and medical conditions are complex - which they are -doesn't mean I think they should be using F on a bloody passport!

Come on!

Of course what's happening is fucked up. Of course there's an enormous problem with safety and competitive advantage.

We should be allowed discuss how best to sort it out without being thought complicit in the unfairness of it all.

Even if it's complex, why is the default set AGAINST women? And not for with with the emphasis on anything outside normal to demonstrate that it doesn't damage the integrity of women's sport?

That the point. Default human is male and the entire logic of this comes from a male pov not from a point of view of centring women and their needs within sport.

It's women who have to fight. Not the other way around.

That's the bit that's most 'not ok'.

Swipe left for the next trending thread