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

I mean, apart from the boxing thing they also had a paedophile rapist competing, a sex offender coach, and a woman disqualified for this:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cgm7v44wg0wo

It was the first Olympics ever to have "gender parity" of athletes whatever they reckon that means.

I'm seriously pissed off. Reading some commentary about the closing ceremony on another forum, apparently this Olympics had a "woman theme". Fuck off with that, if it is true, they are fucking trolling us.

The number of people with XY chromosomes who could genuinely be considered female is so effing small. It's frustrating to here "oh but some people are this that or the other" all over social media.

The two boxers in question are so obviously masculinised that, along with the info that they have XY chromosomes and high testosterone, we know that these "oh but some people" far edge of a fart in outer space edge case scenarios just don't fucking apply.

I don't think Khelif should have been allowed take part but I'm more uncomfortable with the name-calling.

Really? I am far, far more uncomfortable that women were hit by men and lost out on medals.
And how much of the "name calling" has been simply stating the obvious?

An opportunity to link to the charts that summarise VSDs.

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/sex-development-charts

There's a useful summary table somewhere but I can't find the link or the screenshot.

As a famous meerkat once said, 'Simples!'
Contrary to what some people like to claim, human biology isn't that complicated, sex is binary, and screening for XX and XY is straightforward, non-invasive and any 'edge' cases can be dealt with individually, as duc748 suggests.

The likelihood that people with the tiny number of 'edge' chromosomal conditions are going seek to be Olympic athletes is very small - one of these conditions causes weakening of the bones, so we can exclude them from women's boxing for obvious health reasons.

..people with sexual characteristics that do not correspond to the traditional definition of their gender, and fall outside a binary classification – at 1.7% of live human births. Le Monde.
Is that the 'intersex people are as numerous as red-haired people' nonsense again??
It's so frustrating that no matter how many times dodgy stats are definitively disproven - oh look, there they are again, being presented as scientific fact, and in a reputable newspaper, too.
Head/brickwall interface😡

Because some people with XX DSDs develop male bodies.

Just as some with XY DSDs develop female bodies, don't go through male puberty and probably don't have male advantage.

What's wrong with, if you're XX, you're in. Anyone else, out by default, but special cases are free to appeal if they can offer evidence of no male advantage?

We need to find humanoid extra- terrestrials who are 10% faster and much stronger than men. Then they will get it.
Until then I think many men just won't understand that the little ladies aren't just a bit slower because they are smaller but that our bodies are different in so many way.
The idea that men with DSDs will have a level playing field with women if they reduce their T goes to show that even those who should know aren't factoring in reach, lung capacity, blood volume, skeletal and muscular differences etc.
No amount of testosterone reduction is going to change the Q angle in the fully grown person.

I blame the IOC too.

However, DSDs can be more complicated than some critics suggest.

People can indeed, very rarely, have a combination of organs from both sexes.
So it's not as straightforward as some say.

For example, this is from NORD -
"Ovotesticular disorder of sex development (ovotesticular DSD) is a very rare disorder in which an infant is born with the internal reproductive organs (gonads) of both sexes (female ovaries and male testes). The gonads can be any combination of ovary, testes or combined ovary and testes (ovotestes). The external genitalia are usually ambiguous but can range from normal male to normal female."

Athlete eligibility I think needs to be taken on a case by case basis. As Khelif's condition hasn't been made (completely) public I can't be certain, but what has been shared indicates their very probable ineligibility if we want a fair and safe women's competition.

Le Monde should have clarified that in most of these 1.7% there's no ambiguity about which sex the person is even at birth...that's much rarer.

They never do, whenever that 1-7% figure is trotted out. Basic dishonesty, that we've seem from most of the MSM.

Coe (from Telegraph piece): "The reality is very simple: I have a responsibility to preserve the female category, and I will go on doing that until a successor decides otherwise or the science alters.”

Judging by the current BMA stramash, my experience of colleagues across a range of disciplines and organisations, and as a reviewer for medical and clinical science journals, my deep apprehension is that there are far too many professionals who are willing to declare that scientific understanding has altered. Even where that 'change' is based on misinformation and purposeful conflation or even untruths.

A final stereotype posits that the two main biological genders are clearly distinguishable, denying the existence of more complicated cases. For example, a scientific meta-analysis from 2000 estimated the proportion of intersex individuals – in other words, people with sexual characteristics that do not correspond to the traditional definition of their gender, and fall outside a binary classification – at 1.7% of live human births.

Le Monde should have clarified that in most of these 1.7% there's no ambiguitity about which sex the person is even at birth...that's much rarer.

Oliver Brown in the Telegraph has really got his teeth sunk into this

https://archive.ph/33upE cross-cross the paywall

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/08/12/thomas-bach-ioc-presidency-stands-town-olympics/

Apologies if this has already been linked.

I didn't know there were two sex offenders! I knew about the Dutch paedophile but not the other guy.

There’s a whole thread about the promised legal action, though it got very heated very quickly so the comments on the actual topic are a bit overshadowed. This was one, though:

Having looked at some legal type accounts in X, their consensus seems to be that if any litigation is gone ahead with, it would be about personal harassment of Khelif - not about stating that he is a male. Equally it looks a lot like showboating, so it probably won't happen

Surely they explain the implications to these young athletes? They must need their buy in. Otherwise they could suddenly pull out when they realise all the implications.

No one is going to allow Khelif to do this from within Khelif's team. Who would employ them again?

Dr Ekkart Arbeit (East German doping associations) has had some hiccups but has been employed by a variety of agencies even after the revelation of his activities.

Despite items like this, there's a strong suspicion that he's been retained by some agencies to seek out young people with VSDs.

www.insidethegames.biz/articles/10522/south-african-athletics-hit-by-doping-scandal-involving-east-german-coach

It would amount to admitting the Khelif has been fraudulent in accepting a medal, and a place on any female team.

No one is going to allow Khelif to do this from within Khelif's team. Who would employ them again?

I'm a long time lurker and very infrequent poster. I've been glued to this story. Kudos to the people who've been educating us about DSDs and developmental biology - a good few on here, and more on twitter. Thank you, thank you.

I just want to offer these words as I found them really useful when someone explained the biology to me. Basically that there are two "developmental pathways" and they are completely distinct. You either develop along the male pathway, or the female pathway. The pathways are determined by chromosomes. Even if something goes "wrong" somewhere along the way, you are still EITHER on a male developmental pathway OR you're on a female developmental pathway.

(PS This whole saga has been a complete train wreck. I feel sympathy for all involved and lay blame at the feet of the IOC.)

Which we pretty much knew anyway as it’s evident Khelif has been through male puberty, because we have eyes 👀 . But yes, that’s accurate.

The testosterone suppression also means that Khelif can't have Swyers as there would be no testosterone and also that it can't be CAIS as there would be no point in lowering testosterone

Imane has been taking drugs to suppress testosterone. That suggests an understanding of the condition. Unless he’s been treated by unethical medics who have treated him without informed consent.

I mean, come on.

I thought that the legal challenge was a hoax?

Reading the le point article it makes it obvious the Khelif lost power and mass when testosterone was reduced, what isn’t known is the level of testosterone at the Olympics. Not only did the team around him know there is no way that Khelif didn’t know the advantages of the condition. With all the words used not only as Khelif avoided the XX the threat of legal action completely avoids the accusations of biological sex instead a vague harassment.