Page 10 | Good grief. Now they’re saying that not all xx are female and not all xy are male. And that xy ‘generally' means male.

AShortName · 2024-08-05T07:25:20+00:00

The more this misinformation spreads, the more people will believe it. I am concerned that if it continues, then it will soon become regarded as a truth.

LaeralSilverhand · 06/08/2024 14:00

Italiangreyhound · 06/08/2024 12:56

@LaeralSilverhand very interesting points. Are you a biologist or have you just read up a lot on the topic.

A very nice and pleasant debate. Thank you all.

Much nicer than the angry messages on Facebook that I am not engaging with!

I've simply done what people recommend and 'educated myself', reading extensively on the topic. I'm not a biologist but do have a hard science PhD in an area which crosses over between biology and physics, which makes understanding scientific and medical concepts a lot easier. Science is a bit like sport or learning languages - once you're an expert in one area, you've got a good headstart in learning another. And much as I loathed Latin at school, I really appreciate it when reading biology texts!

dropoutin · 06/08/2024 14:07

theilltemperedclavecinist · 06/08/2024 08:59

Well, we have the evidence of our own eyes, and definitive statements from the IBA, which many are pretending must be politically motivated pro-Russian lies. Even the IOC have implied there is a DSD involved.

What's really unhelpful though is the performative ignorance of journalists. They're just shrugging and saying 'no way to tell what's happening here', where normally the paucity of information wouldn't stop them: they'd be drawing diagrams for us, interviewing experts, and speculating wildly. Instead, tumbleweed.

Maybe they're squeamish about talking about someone's medical history (fair). But I think it's ideological. They can't bear to acknowledge that sex is a matter of biology, not opinion.

Show quote history

The "evidence of our own eyes" is not in any way scientific enough, the IBA's statements have not been definitive. All they have said is that she has XY chromosomes, and that they didn't test testosterone level. That doesn't get into any of the kind of detail we're discussing here. Again: it doesn't actually matter from the point of view of sporting fairness whether she has XY chromosomes; what matters is whether she went through male puberty.

And seriously, you want the journalistic profession to start dissecting and analysing her sexual physiology and development in public, like she's some kind of zoo exhibit? Think for a minute about what you're suggesting - it would be the most heinous invasion of privacy. You can speculate as you like about their motivation but I can't think of a single case where the media have done something like that about the deepest, most private physical aspects of a living person who has committed no crime.

The only people that could supply the necessary information to go any further with this would be possibly the IBA, depending on what tests were done, or the medical profession with her consent and cooperation. Short of that, we'll probably never know.

sunglassesonthetable · 06/08/2024 14:18

Agree @dropoutin

UnderratedGenius · 06/08/2024 15:06

@Tinylittleunicorn

Is deafness a difference of hearing, or a disorder?

No matter the wording, hearing loss is a disability. It often requires intervention, but the choice for this is entirely up to the individual.

Making it sound softer and less confrontational doesn’t change the actual condition. But classifying it as merely a difference means that all grades of hearing loss are implied to be a trifling matter.

The hearing impaired do require accommodations, by making it sound as though it isn’t something to regard as needing assistance, we run the risk of promoting the notion that speaking clearly, facing people and not garbling and lowering background noise are optional extras when trying to make an interaction hearing-aid friendly.

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/08/2024 15:26

dropoutin · 06/08/2024 14:07

The "evidence of our own eyes" is not in any way scientific enough, the IBA's statements have not been definitive. All they have said is that she has XY chromosomes, and that they didn't test testosterone level. That doesn't get into any of the kind of detail we're discussing here. Again: it doesn't actually matter from the point of view of sporting fairness whether she has XY chromosomes; what matters is whether she went through male puberty.

And seriously, you want the journalistic profession to start dissecting and analysing her sexual physiology and development in public, like she's some kind of zoo exhibit? Think for a minute about what you're suggesting - it would be the most heinous invasion of privacy. You can speculate as you like about their motivation but I can't think of a single case where the media have done something like that about the deepest, most private physical aspects of a living person who has committed no crime.

The only people that could supply the necessary information to go any further with this would be possibly the IBA, depending on what tests were done, or the medical profession with her consent and cooperation. Short of that, we'll probably never know.

Show quote history

This article contains the the more detailed reporting from both India and Turkey -

https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy

Paris 2024 women's boxing stirs so much emotion -- can facts take back the moment? | 3 Wire Sports

PARIS – If they had been running the tournament here at the Paris Games, International Boxing Assn. officials said Monday, the Algerian and Chinese Taipei fighters now in the medal rounds in women’s boxing, both figuring in a worldwide controversy, wou...

https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy

Shortshriftandlethal · 06/08/2024 15:30

dropoutin · 06/08/2024 14:07

The "evidence of our own eyes" is not in any way scientific enough, the IBA's statements have not been definitive. All they have said is that she has XY chromosomes, and that they didn't test testosterone level. That doesn't get into any of the kind of detail we're discussing here. Again: it doesn't actually matter from the point of view of sporting fairness whether she has XY chromosomes; what matters is whether she went through male puberty.

And seriously, you want the journalistic profession to start dissecting and analysing her sexual physiology and development in public, like she's some kind of zoo exhibit? Think for a minute about what you're suggesting - it would be the most heinous invasion of privacy. You can speculate as you like about their motivation but I can't think of a single case where the media have done something like that about the deepest, most private physical aspects of a living person who has committed no crime.

The only people that could supply the necessary information to go any further with this would be possibly the IBA, depending on what tests were done, or the medical profession with her consent and cooperation. Short of that, we'll probably never know.

Show quote history

Drugs testing has been routine and reported on in sports for many years.

No; that is not what people want, but because of the IOC 's wilful evasion - that is what it might come to. If the IOC had accepted the test results, or else run some of their own - there would have been no need for all this publicity. What people want is female sport that has integrity, and does not include biologically male people.

UtopiaPlanitia · 06/08/2024 15:37

Reduxx has tweeted regarding yesterday’s IBA press conference (the press conference video is available to watch in the Reduxx tweet:

https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1820820467231690838

Yesterday, the International Boxing Association held a press conference addressing the concerns surrounding Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-Ting. 𝘙𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘹𝘹 has created a supercut of relevant sections.

TIMESTAMPS:
𝟬𝟬:𝟮𝟯 - Both boxers had the ability to appeal their disqualification at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with IBA covering the majority of their legal costs.
𝟬𝟮:𝟰𝟵 - The International Olympic Committee knew that Lin and Khelif were male, but did nothing.
𝟬𝟯:𝟮𝟬 - Both the Algerian and Taiwanese Olympic Committees have refused to allow IBA to release the results of the tests.
𝟬𝟯:𝟱𝟬 - "Read between the lines."
𝟬𝟳:𝟬𝟮 - Dr. Filippatos: "The biological world does not change."
𝟭𝟬:𝟰𝟬 - A ringside examination of Lin and Khelif in 2022 prompted a blood examination to seek answers about their karyotype.
𝟭𝟭:𝟮𝟬 - "Women's category must be only women."
𝟭𝟯:𝟰𝟬 - Question from a journalist regarding why the IBA waited until 2023 to disqualify Lin and Khelif.
𝟭𝟱:𝟱𝟬 - "The safety of the boxers comes as the first and most important rule."
𝟭𝟵:𝟰𝟬 - "It's not discrimination, it's just the rules."
𝟮𝟮:𝟮𝟬 - Lin and Khelif are biologically male.
𝟮𝟯:𝟯𝟬 - The women's category must be defined by those who have a female karyotype (XX).
𝟮𝟯:𝟰𝟬 - Question from a journalist on "Russian disinformation campaigns."
𝟮𝟱:𝟬𝟱 - Lin and Khelif were reported by other boxers and coaches. They were subjected to two tests in two different countries for certainty.
𝟮𝟱:𝟮𝟬 - "There is no conspiracy theory." Again reiterating that Algeria and Taiwan will not allow the IBA to release the results of the tests.
𝟮𝟱:𝟰𝟲 - Question from a journalist asking why Lin and Khelif were only disqualified after their failed chromosomal tests rather than suspended.
𝟮𝟲:𝟯𝟮 - Question from a journalist on the "timing" of the press conference.
𝟮𝟴:𝟮𝟬 -"If the athletes want to prove they were born women, they have to do it themselves. They didn't do that."

theilltemperedclavecinist · 06/08/2024 15:44

𝟮𝟴:𝟮𝟬 -"If the athletes want to prove they were born women, they have to do it themselves. They didn't do that."

This. 99.99% of XY individuals are normal males, and a further number have differences but have gone through male puberty. Why isn't the onus on them to prove their eligibility?

Tinylittleunicorn · 06/08/2024 17:26

UnderratedGenius · 06/08/2024 15:06

@Tinylittleunicorn

Is deafness a difference of hearing, or a disorder?

No matter the wording, hearing loss is a disability. It often requires intervention, but the choice for this is entirely up to the individual.

Making it sound softer and less confrontational doesn’t change the actual condition. But classifying it as merely a difference means that all grades of hearing loss are implied to be a trifling matter.

The hearing impaired do require accommodations, by making it sound as though it isn’t something to regard as needing assistance, we run the risk of promoting the notion that speaking clearly, facing people and not garbling and lowering background noise are optional extras when trying to make an interaction hearing-aid friendly.

But what I'm saying is that there are some DSDs which do not cause any impairment or ill health at all, besides the potential psychological impacts. Difference can include conditions which cause disability, ill health, need treatment etc. But disorder is the wrong way to describe a condition with which the sufferer may be perfectly happy and causes them no impairment.

Incidentally, many people with who are deaf don't view themselves as disabled. It's possible to respect that and to also value the accomodations etc that make living easier for people who are deaf. I think people who are disabled or have any kind of development difference just don't want others who don't share their experiences to dictate how they feel about and describe themselves. I think that's completely fair.

greenbirds · 06/08/2024 18:57

@AShortName

Italiangreyhound · 06/08/2024 19:13

I was very interested in the story of Zdeněk Koubek (born in 1913) a track athlete from Czechoslovakia, who won medals at the Olympics and then, discovering they had male chromosomes changed to make abd gave back thr medals. Anyway that's what wickepdia says. Fascinating.

ScrollingLeaves · 06/08/2024 21:54

Italiangreyhound · 06/08/2024 19:13

I was very interested in the story of Zdeněk Koubek (born in 1913) a track athlete from Czechoslovakia, who won medals at the Olympics and then, discovering they had male chromosomes changed to make abd gave back thr medals. Anyway that's what wickepdia says. Fascinating.

How interesting, and that’s what he did in 1935.

Italiangreyhound · 06/08/2024 22:04

Yes, sorry that should say male not make. He has some sort of surgeries and went on to live as a man and marry.

Littlewhingingfucker · 07/08/2024 07:06

Italiangreyhound · 06/08/2024 22:04

Yes, sorry that should say male not make. He has some sort of surgeries and went on to live as a man and marry.

That's an interesting story. And I'm sure he was a good husband, being the kind of man who says I took these by mistake, please give them to the women who should have won.

Snowypeaks · 07/08/2024 08:24

UnderratedGenius · 06/08/2024 10:16

This and the CAIS/Swyer thread have been really educational. I’ve ended up both more informed and more confused at the same time! 😂

But I do think part of the mess we seem to be in stems in part from our wish to Not Offend.

I noticed on the other thread that one of the reasons given for XY individuals without a functioning SRY gene to be classified as females is because with a uterus, fallopian tubes and external female sex characteristics it would be unfair to say that they were male and had to live as a man. As well as those characteristics being functionally identical (an XY woman may gestate a baby with much medical intervention), they have characteristics which are identical in appearance to those found in XX females.

Yes, there also seems to be the classification that female = no functioning SRY, even though male is usually the default for XY, because the absence of SRY cannot be considered a fault.

Well, why not?

Unless we are also saying that the term ‘male’ must have specific accompanying external and internal features and that a lack of those features = not male, then I really don’t see why a lack of SRY cannot be a disorder of males. A lack of other features still makes a male a male, so why not a lack of the specific maleness gene??

Yes, I can see on the logical path that if someone lacks the male gene they’re not a male (!), but equally an individual with XX chromosomes is never going to lack the SRY gene because they shouldn’t have it to begin with. The only one that can be missing it is XY.

And given that apparently Wt1 is the female equivalent of SRY, and that having SRY+mutatedWt1 (if I’ve understood that correctly) = female, I don’t see why presence of SRY should take precedence in determining if someone is male or female.

In many ways it seems actively regressive.

And no, I wouldn’t expect an individual with Swyer’s to ‘live as a man’, but equally I don’t see why it is wrong to suggest that they are a male with a DSD that gives them female characteristics.

On the social side that may be tough to hear, but then I imagine finding out that you possess a DSD is bad enough.

I’m coming to the conclusion, as others have mentioned, that the softening of language, from disorder to difference, with the intention to destigmatise the notion of having a DSD for those that suffer from them, is partly fuelling the mess we’re in with TRAs declaring sex is on a spectrum and there’s more than one way to be a woman, because the language we use to describe those conditions allows this extrapolation.

Does this help anyone?

I’m thinking no, not in any practical sense, in fact it may do the opposite.

If ‘female’ may be XX or it may be XY, then it’s easy to extend that to saying the definition of male or female is looking like one, and that plays right into the TRAs court.

Absolutely spot on.

Zita60 · 07/08/2024 09:14

UnderratedGenius · 06/08/2024 10:16

This and the CAIS/Swyer thread have been really educational. I’ve ended up both more informed and more confused at the same time! 😂

But I do think part of the mess we seem to be in stems in part from our wish to Not Offend.

I noticed on the other thread that one of the reasons given for XY individuals without a functioning SRY gene to be classified as females is because with a uterus, fallopian tubes and external female sex characteristics it would be unfair to say that they were male and had to live as a man. As well as those characteristics being functionally identical (an XY woman may gestate a baby with much medical intervention), they have characteristics which are identical in appearance to those found in XX females.

Yes, there also seems to be the classification that female = no functioning SRY, even though male is usually the default for XY, because the absence of SRY cannot be considered a fault.

Well, why not?

Unless we are also saying that the term ‘male’ must have specific accompanying external and internal features and that a lack of those features = not male, then I really don’t see why a lack of SRY cannot be a disorder of males. A lack of other features still makes a male a male, so why not a lack of the specific maleness gene??

Yes, I can see on the logical path that if someone lacks the male gene they’re not a male (!), but equally an individual with XX chromosomes is never going to lack the SRY gene because they shouldn’t have it to begin with. The only one that can be missing it is XY.

And given that apparently Wt1 is the female equivalent of SRY, and that having SRY+mutatedWt1 (if I’ve understood that correctly) = female, I don’t see why presence of SRY should take precedence in determining if someone is male or female.

In many ways it seems actively regressive.

And no, I wouldn’t expect an individual with Swyer’s to ‘live as a man’, but equally I don’t see why it is wrong to suggest that they are a male with a DSD that gives them female characteristics.

On the social side that may be tough to hear, but then I imagine finding out that you possess a DSD is bad enough.

I’m coming to the conclusion, as others have mentioned, that the softening of language, from disorder to difference, with the intention to destigmatise the notion of having a DSD for those that suffer from them, is partly fuelling the mess we’re in with TRAs declaring sex is on a spectrum and there’s more than one way to be a woman, because the language we use to describe those conditions allows this extrapolation.

Does this help anyone?

I’m thinking no, not in any practical sense, in fact it may do the opposite.

If ‘female’ may be XX or it may be XY, then it’s easy to extend that to saying the definition of male or female is looking like one, and that plays right into the TRAs court.

This becomes a lot simpler if male and female are defined according to which role a person plays in sexual reproduction (or would do if their reproductive system worked correctly). In other words, which type of gamete the person potentially produces, sperm (male) or egg (female).

This seems to be the scientific definition of sex.

It's not what chromosomes the person has that defines their sex, it's what reproductive system those chromosomes have developed - even if the reproductive system hasn't developed in the way the chromosomes would normally direct. So someone with XY chromosomes without a functioning SRY gene is female, because they develop a female reproductive system.

Although a functioning SRY gene produces a male reproductive system, the lack of it produces a female person with a DSD. So I wouldn't call it a male disorder.

I’m coming to the conclusion, as others have mentioned, that the softening of language, from disorder to difference, with the intention to destigmatise the notion of having a DSD for those that suffer from them, is partly fuelling the mess we’re in with TRAs declaring sex is on a spectrum and there’s more than one way to be a woman, because the language we use to describe those conditions allows this extrapolation.

I agree about the TRAs trying to manipulate language to further their aims. I think clearly defining sex as the reproductive role a person's body can potentially play stops TRAs using chromosomal and developmental abnormalities to muddy the water and say that sex can't be clearly defined. It can be.