To ask if you think the Olympic boxers are male?

[ArabellaScott]

The finals for both boxers are tonight and tomorrow.

I'm curious to hear whether people think they are females with a DSD, or males with a DSD.

YABU - they're female
YANBU - they're male

Anyway, trolls are best ignored, even if they are able to use a 'finger painting' emoji. I'll not respond further.

LadyGrinningSoul8517 · Today 11:20

The daily transphobic posts/comments on this cesspool website every single day are getting incredibly tiring.

You are all like a dog with a bone.
Do you know how sad you sound?

And yet... you could save yourself some energy and simply scroll past this thread. Sounds more like you wish to demonise others more than you wish to actively engage and pass along information that might clarify the situation.

"Waaah you're all so mean" isn't an argument likely to convince most women who have ever had children. Not that everyone here has, but a large proportion will have done.

You haven't said anything factual, so what the hell are you talking about. Come back when you're prepared to engage.

Exactly. All they want to do is derail from the issues.

I'm sure we can all draw our own conclusions.

That’s even bloody worse!

Still, TWO gold medals going to men should provide some interesting headlines.

My Facebook page has loads of posts saying these individuals are women but none of them say why it is that makes them women, other than ‘their passport says so’ and ‘they were raised as girls’ . None of which makes someone a woman.

These individuals have XY chromosomes, high testosterone and visibly look very male in both body and face. . All of this points quite clearly to them being male.

https://olympics.com/en/news/paris-2024-olympics-vinesh-phogat-disqualification-overweight-50kg

Vinesh Phogat disqualified for being 'a few grams over 50kg'.

What a kick in the teeth for women.

So, people simply responding to your post proves you're right? What kind of logic is that FFS? Oh wait, it's the kind of logic that makes it acceptable for men to punch women!

Off topic, but 50kg is extremely light for a muscular sportsperson, no?

But it’s irrelevant in this instance.

Even when there are people who have DSDs, if it is not possible to establish whether or not they have a biological advantage then I’m afraid they should be excluded from gendered sport. Harsh as that might be to some, fairness and safety comes first.

In this instance however, it’s pretty damn obvious that they both have male physiques and therefore an unfair advantage.

Yes, you crimping out a smelly turd and people wrinkling their noses absolutely proves that the turd actually smells of roses.

And you think that this person's condition that is even rarer than the potential DSD of these male athletes is relevant to this situation why?

If this person is not producing testosterone or has a body that is sensitive to testosterone, what is your point?

And by the way, there is a difference also in 'testing XY in only some cells' and being fully chromosomal XY and therefore being 'XY = male by genotype' . It is you here who is trying to leverage people's medical conditions into your own political agenda.

Which posters on this thread do you think are ignoring that there are rare cases where people's bodies will have some XX cells and some XY. In fact, probably most of us have even read the paper on the pregnancy that has been studied where this has happened. It does nothing to support either side of the argument.

Because to be consider 'female' requires a body categorised to be formed around the production of large gametes, even if those large gametes don't get produced. That requires ovaries. It excludes any human with testes or streak testes where the categorisation will be very difficult.

These cases do not disprove the categorisation. Just like people born without a working leg do not disprove the catagorisation of human beings being in the 'bi-ped' category. We are talking about categorisation.

The issue has been always, male DSDs with virilisation.

Do you agree that any male who has the advantages delivered by going through any degree of male puberty should be included in female sports categories? yes? or no?

This is point- discussing their biological advantage/whether or not they should be excluded from women's sports is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is commenting on their "male physiques", and insisting on calling them "male". Many sportswomen of colour have experienced the latter and it's exactly this I am trying to call out in this thread.

That is a remarkably unintelligent take.

Just because human development and genetics can be complicated doesn't mean we can't make any generalisations at all.

The existence of wild and wonderful individuals with wild and wonderful karyotype to phenotype expressions does NOT mean that a good general starting point isn't XX = female and XY = male. Further testing and medical examination can sort out the exceptions to this and decide if there was male advantage in a particular XY individual that appeared to actually have female phenotype....

It is absolutely reasonable to have a blanket ban on XY in women's sport at the very least as a starting point.

But the entire discussion and controversy is whether they are male or female. How on earth do we discuss that without saying that they are male, or female?

The IBA, World Boxing, and some competitors say they are male. The IOC say they are female.

@Helleofabore

yet, the WBO has also made the statement that they are male and are hoping to take over the responsibility of the boxing for the future.

So, if this information is incorrect why would the organisation who wants to take over confirm that the information was correct?

Do you mean boxing for Olympics in the future? Apparently, a group named 'World Boxing' has been formed for this purpose. It isn't affiliated with the WBO. Istvan Kovacs, the European vice president of the WBO, is also the former Secretary General of the IBA.

Do you mean "sportswomen" like Caster Semanya?

This is point- discussing their biological advantage/whether or not they should be excluded from women's sports is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is commenting on their "male physiques", and insisting on calling them "male". Many sportswomen of colour have experienced the latter and it's exactly this I am trying to call out in this thread.

I'm sorry you don't find it reasonable, but they are clearly male, with male advantage.

Nope, you made an assertion that isn't borne out by the statements from the IBA and addressed none of the substance. HTH.

Do you mean boxing for Olympics in the future? Apparently, a group named 'World Boxing' has been formed for this purpose. It isn't affiliated with the WBO. Istvan Kovacs, the European vice president of the WBO, is also the former Secretary General of the IBA.

Yes, as she clearly said, the WBO also said they were male. Istan Kovacs himself said it.

The only context in which one can argue wihtout using the terms 'male' and/or 'female' is mixed sex events.

Do you think boxing should be mixed sex?

A male person with a DSD that has gone through virilisation is a male with a DSD that has gone through virilisation.

A person with a condition that has a mosaic karyotype is not relevant to the discussion unless they are a male person with a DSD that has gone through virilisation.

Would you prefer us to type 'MATHGTV' instead of male athlete? Since you are here censuring people for using accurate and precise language and all.