To say the Olympics hates women

[ArabellaScott]

A child rapist performing for the Netherlands.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-13674293/Convicted-child-rapist-Steven-van-Velde-Netherlands-booed-volleyball-olympics.html

Males punching women in the face as sport.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cnd0drjr4jdo

Offensive caricatures of women everywhere.

https://glaad.org/french-drag-artists-made-history-as-first-in-drag-to-carry-the-olympic-torch/

Seems the BBC reporter walked out of the press conference and Reuters cut the feed.

It was a chaotic and very badly organised presser, but the crucial information, from Dr Badass, was very clear.

Gonna make my bet now as to why Dr Pretty Badass shouldn't be listened to...

Cause he's male.

"Why should a man decide who's a woman" 🙄 - without any hint of irony!

Report from the Mail;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-13710423/IBA-press-conference-gender-row-boxers-Imane-Khelif-Lin-Yu-Ting-ineligible-Olympics.html

'Reuters chose to cut their stream of the press conference, while the BBC walked out before the end in protest.'

Seb Coe comments:

'Coe is seen as a leading candidate to succeed Thomas Bach as the president of the IOC and, asked on Monday what his advice would be on the boxing issue, he said: “It’s unvarnished; have a policy. Be clear and have a policy.
“You’re never going to make everybody happy but you have to plant the flagpole down somewhere and that’s why it was so important for us. If you don’t, then you get into this sort of territory.
“I did five years on the British Boxing Board of Control as an administrative steward, and I have daughters. How do you think I feel about this?”'

https://archive.ph/rN7jX

where are all the men with dsds in men’s competitions - there may be a few, but these won’t attract interest as its men competing with men? Do you tend to disclose intimate details of your sex to others?

why is it always the womens - first of all, it’s a handful of athletes. Secondly, intersex individuals are most likely to be sexed as female, especially in developing countries, as the surgery is easier to perform.

why are they always winning- they’re really not! It’s a handful of cases that come to light off social media which inevitably incites outrage and so much misinformation. But also, maybe they’re winning in the same way many athletes have generic or natural advantages…

please don’t come at me for this, this is my opinion. I don’t know, I’m so ground down by the senseless male violence recently- the stabbing of those little girls, the crossbow attack on those three women, the horrific males attacking people in the streets this weekend- I just can’t get angry about one person growing up in rural algeria who grew up in one gender as a child only to grow up with the difficult feelings of discovering she has an intersex condition. If that was you and you’d grown up as a woman your whole life, if the shoe was on your foot… I think it would be difficult. We should handle this with compassion and understanding, not furiously speculating and spreading misinformation. I am genuinely scared of trans people being attacked soon based off online misinformation spreading and I wouldn’t want any part in that

Im aware it's not the same, but I spent fourteen years training in ballet, only to become near six foot at puberty. I am not without empathy for someone who finds they cannot reasonably do what they planned to once puberty hits.

We should handle this with compassion and understanding, not furiously speculating and spreading misinformation

The misinformation here is being spread by people gaslighting women that they are not seeing male violence against women on prime time TV.

I just can’t get angry about one person growing up in rural algeria who grew up in one gender as a child only to grow up with the difficult feelings of discovering she has an intersex condition. If that was you and you’d grown up as a woman your whole life, if the shoe was on your foot… I think it would be difficult.

A man is punching women in the face. That's the 'difficulty' I'm struggling with.

why are they always winning- they’re really not! It’s a handful of cases that come to light off social media which inevitably incites outrage and so much misinformation. But also, maybe they’re winning in the same way many athletes have generic or natural advantages…

'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.

I hope maybe this will help.

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, there 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.

What you are supporting is, in effect, very dangerous for female athletes 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?

How is this as an example:

If someone put a motor on their bike and competed in the Tour de France, and lost, does that mean that the competitor didn't have a competitive advantage? Or was not a mediocre competitor to start with?

Just because 'they are not always winning' does not mean that they should be included in the female sports category at all.

In fact, for every male included in the female sport's category, that means at least one female if not many more, have been harmed in removing their opportunity. Why more? because of the displacement of each female person along the way for that male to reach the level they are competing.

That is direct discrimination against female people and it is a violation of female athlete's right to fair and safe sports.

@Begaydocrime94

We can have sympathy with people that find they're not the sex they thought they were, but why must that extend to allow them to batter females putting their safety and even their lives at risk? That point of view utterly baffles me.

But also, maybe they’re winning in the same way many athletes have generic or natural advantages…

The issue is that the male advantages that these athletes who have gone through male puberty have, are not advantages available to any female athlete.

I will also find links to discuss the Phelps gambit that you are attempting to use.

But also, maybe they’re winning in the same way many athletes have generic or natural advantages…

Here is a good explanation. It has links to relevant information embedded so it is best to see it on twitter.

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1374331296143581186

But here is some of it:

Phelps' wingspan:height ratio is 1.04. It's straightforward to find other males with the same ratio who are slower than Phelps in some strokes, but who are faster in others. e.g. Matt Grevers. Ratio 1.04, slower freestyle than Phelps, faster backstroker than Phelps. Interestingly, despite the same wingspan:height ratio, he's, in absolute numbers, generally bigger than Phelps.

What you never find is a female with the same wingspan:height ratio who is there or thereabouts compared with Phelps. Missy Franklin has a ratio of 1.03, yet is over 10% slower than Phelps.

It's almost like wingspan:height ratio isn't discriminatory in the pool. Even absolute wingspan or absolute height isn't discriminatory.

And there's a very simple reason. When you select, on national or international levels, for athletes that are good in a particular discipline, you will tend to pull through an entire group who all share the general advantage (in this case, swimmers are tall with long arms). Phelps, with height (not the tallest) and wingspan (not the widest, nor the biggest ratio) is, for sure, built to be a better swimmer than almost every other person in the world. But his body shape is not particularly extraordinary within that group of competitive swimmers.

To argue that his advantage is extraordinary within the entire male population, sure. Well, I wouldn't go with unfair, but's a real advantage. But he doesn't race against the male population. He races against other males who are likely to share the same advantage.

This is why The Phelps Gambit (trademark pending) is nonsense, and immediately flags that the person asserting it has read numerous MSM stories about the glorious physique of Phelps (and he was glorious, absolutely), without applying any deeper analysis.

Men can have long arms. Women can have long arms. Men with long arms are better swimmers than women with long arms.

Here is another explanation of why the Phelps Gambit is weak.

https://x.com/Scienceofsport/status/1820462042765001041

Ross Tucker
5 August 2024

Yeah, poor old Phelps became the poster child for this illogical argument that his advantages are the same as those of males. I'll try to explain why this is such poor thinking. First, Phelps' advantages are not category-crossing. That is, there is no category for short arms, and there is no category for small feet, or high lactate producers etc. So we have decided, for better or worse, not to create a category for people without Attribute X. And thus, when a person has X, they shouldn't be excluded, so there's no basis to disqualify Phelps.

Now, one could have a debate over whether we SHOULD think about creating a category for small feet or short arms. If we did this, then Phelps' supposed advantages would become 'outside of category', and we'd say that he's not allowed to swim in the protected category, right?

But we don't need to do this, because the advantages that he has are tiny compared to what male advantage does to performance. Phelps wins by 0.5%. Males win by 12% (compared to females). By scale, then, these advantages are orders of magnitude different.

It's also a massive oversimplification to say that Phelps won because his arms are long or that he produces less lactate. They're daft, incorrect attributions anyway. And finally, females also have some of these advantages - there are women who produce less lactate, or have long arms.

They don't make up for the absence of male advantage. So they're totally different situations. Fundamentally, what sport is trying to reward are those exceptional individuals within categories. We actually celebrate these advantages, they make sport what it is, no?

But we need to rule out some other advantages - size/mass in boxing, age in all sport - because otherwise the things that do NOT matter overwhelm the things that do. Phelps physiology matters - it's why he wins gold medals. Katie Ledecky, though, also has physiology that deserves gold.

It's just she doesn't have male advantage as well. And that's the point - "as well". They are equally great swimmers, but within their categories. The only way around this is to say that we should create a category because Advantage X is so large it also overwhelms the result.

But it doesn't - as mentioned, by scale, what Phelps has over males is tiny compared to what males have over females. Put another way - the fastest swimmer with small feet or shorter arms (whatever that means) is not beaten by thousands of longer armed, bigger footed swimmers!

So I hope I've not laboured that or explained it clumsily. To sum up, Phelps is a bad counter point. So is height in basketball (there's no "short people NBA, only 180cm or under" category).

Rather think age, weight and disability class, and ask if the attribute, X, devalues the things we actually want to reward, or whether it's part of it. Phelps' advantages are part of the excellence. Male advantage is not - being male is NOT a talent, and as such, shouldn't be part of the mix. What Phelps has, those are different.

"I just can’t get angry about one person growing up in rural algeria who grew up in one gender as a child only to grow up with the difficult feelings of discovering she has an intersex condition. If that was you and you’d grown up as a woman your whole life, if the shoe was on your foot… I think it would be difficult. We should handle this with compassion and understanding, not furiously speculating and spreading misinformation. I am genuinely scared of trans people being attacked soon based off online misinformation spreading and I wouldn’t want any part in that".

And that is your prerogative.

However, while you can't get angry about one male boxer who punches female boxers in the face, we can. Just because you choose to focus on one priority, doesn't mean that other women cannot focus on two priorities and be shamed for not focusing on your priority.

I am genuinely scared of trans people being attacked soon based off online misinformation spreading and I wouldn’t want any part in that".

This is very emotionally manipulative.

How dare women be blamed for speaking clearly and bluntly about their needs to be emotionally blackmailed to keep silent in case some one decides to act on their own hate. And to be clear, feminists and female athletes discussing this is not HATE.

In fact, this goes along these same lines ....

Women should stop talking because it puts this athlete in danger

For those like Nancy Kelley who used the tactic of pushing the responsibility of fear to try to silence Nicola Adams as below:

https://x.com/NancyMK/status/1819308546992865664

NancyMK 2 Aug 2024 10.45 am

Please remove this post. Not only is it inaccurate (Imane is not trans), it leaves her at grave risk in her own country.

NOTE: Nicola did not say that the athlete was trans at all, in fact, Nicola was accurate in her statement. But that did not stop Nancy.

And apparently Pink News also published something about all this discussion being dangerous.

I think this danger needs to be taken seriously.

If they are in danger, they need to be protected and this needs to be raised immediately so steps can be taken and this competitor can be kept safe.

However, it is NOT for female athletes to accept being put in harms way because the IOC has flawed and unfair policies and put this athlete into this situation. It is not for female athletes to be a protective shield for this athlete. This situation was entirely preventable. It should have been anticipated by the IOC. It is another piece of their negligence.

And feminists and female athlete's should not be silenced to protect people. Maybe the IOC should have fucking consulted female athletes about all this somewhere along the way. But they didn't. I don't believe any female athlete group or female rights group has been consulted since a survey about sex testing which 82% of female athletes agreed should continue, back in the late 90s. The IOC promptly ignored this and decided to centre a sub group of male athletes instead.

It is not female athlete's fault or their responsibility. They should not be told to remain silent. FUCK THAT!

Only a misogynist would ever suggest this.

Thank you @Helleofabore for always being ready with the evidence based links! You must get so tired of reposting them, but it's so important! Thank you for your tireless efforts!

The problem is that people are reacting emotionally. Over emotionally.

They read all the misinformation being spread and they actually think it is feminists and feminist groups spreading the misinformation. When the fucking reality is it is the activist groups supporting male inclusion and the IOC that is spreading misinformation, or at the very least, ideological beliefs that are simply not supported by the hard scientific facts.

Thing is, I don't even think that many of those posting are interested in doing the reading that it needs to understand the intricacies. And those who could read it and understand it, won't because they won't read information sources that are not 'safe' to fit into their own philosophical belief.

It is fucking grim.

And of course, others won't read because it is too long.

They want short and quick answers for an issue of such complexity. .....

While declaring it is all too complicated and what is really known after all.....

The hypocrisy is stark when you see it.

Yes, entirely.

I've seen a meme shared today bemoaning the unfairness of Caster Semenya being excluded from the Olympics for 'natural' testosterone levels.

I mean, they are 'natural' for a man, and Semenya is of course eligible to compete as a male.

But the narrative is that we must feel sorry for Semenya. The basic assertion is that it is cruel to call him a male, and to avoid hurt feelings, we must allow Semenya to compete with women.

Strangely, nobody ever suggests we must feel sorry for the female athletes who are being pushed out of their sports, losing titles, trophies, and now in boxing, risking serious injury or potentially even death.

And what is great, and I am sure everyone posting links and clear points will be seeing the same effect, every time I post links, the thanks button shows posters I have never seen before are hitting it. New people are at the very least reading sources and being able to make up there own minds.

Without the emotionally manipulative rhetoric being delivered by some posters.

They are quietly reading and thinking. Which is the minimum that we can wish for.

Yy!

I want something that explains it, no that's too complicated I don't understand, no that's too simplistic, it's a complicated issue that can't be summed up like that, no that's too long, I haven't got time to read that, I just want a summary from someone who understands, no not that person, I don't like them

I am genuinely scared of trans people being attacked soon based off online misinformation spreading and I wouldn’t want any part in that".

Women are being beaten right now. On camera. Based on misinformation.

Indeed.

Semenya's 'natural testosterone' readings were reported in the CAS witness statements as being around 21 nmol/L. Which is just about where the purple peak of this chart is.

The whole basis of the court case was to change the ruling that Semenya had to suppress to 5 nmol/L. Essentially the top of the healthy range for female people. The green bit in the chart shows the PCOS reading to that effect.

I'm not attacking or judging anyone for responding like that, tbh. The narrative that is being pushed by the IOC, the BBC, and much of the media is exactly that.

I just think it's worth questioning why we are supposed to feel sorry for Khelif, but not the women being put in danger.

And I would also say it's possible to see Khelif as having been manipulated or used by others to make money, so I do understand the impetus to feel compassion.

But why does nobody ever suggest we must/should feel compassion for the women?