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

[Signalbox]

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

I can blame both the IOC and those who wish to gain from biological advantage to not only punch a woman in the face, taunt the woman, gloat about punching a woman in the face and then celebrate punching a woman in the face. My sympathies have run dry.

Astonishing how unskeptical the skeptics society always seem to be on sex and gender. It’s all sooooo complicated you see

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/the-gender-boxing-hubub/

IME skeptic groups (formal and informal) tend to be heavily male and male-balanced; they're so rational, you see.

Well they got lots wrong there...how they leapt to Khelif and Lin being XY females I don't know....but it actually is complicated.

Not sure why people are mocking that idea?

The charts shown upthread, for example, give a basic outline of some conditions...but there can be a wide variety of presentations in DSDs. The same type of DSD doesn't necessarily mean the same phenotype.

With respect, you're nit picking.

It's very clear that these two individuals are viralised XY males who should not, under any circumstances, have been boxing against women. That's it, no ifs or buts.

The general public really shouldn’t have to be swotting up on human biology and poring over DSD charts to unpack all this, but here we are. In an ideal world, our sporting bodies would take care of a situation like this by being ethical and fair and having rules in place. We shouldn’t even have to think “is that person male?” when we’re watching women’s sports. It should be something that never, ever happens. Shame on the IOC for having no safeguarding policies, no sex tests, and no regard for the integrity of female sport.

It's 'hubbub', FFS! What a shit article. Where's the scientific rigour there?

Yu-ting and Khelif are XY females.

Are they? Are they really? You know that for sure, how? It's all so difficult, isn't it? 🙄

I was speaking in general, about testing that needs to be put in place going forward. Not about these two boxers.

The problem for me is that when the "it's complicated" chat starts, the conclusion is always expected to be endless consideration re: edge cases and making sure it's absolutely fair and that no-one is excluded unnecessarily and so we have to be so, so careful before we change anything.

And what they forget is that the status quo is currently not fair to women and some women are necessarily being excluded right now.

It's just as logical to ban all XY whatever their sry or AIS status right now, today. it'll be unfair to a small number of people who probably don't have an advantage, but it could well be a smaller group that those who are excluded now because their spaces are taken by virilised XY people. After the blanket ban, then you can consider thinking about how to bring the edge cases back in - carefully of course.

If that just feels very unfair I think we do need to ask ourselves why that is, and why the balance feels better when it's women without DSDs being excluded.

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.

'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should' springs to mind.

The IOC are repulsive shitheads for their policy that invites men to beat up women, but so is any man that accepts that invitation. No decent man would.

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.

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.

Given how rare those edge cases would be (because the vast over representation of DSDs in women's sport is precisely because of male advantage) it would be completely possible to put in place tests and rules to cover 99.9999% of people and address any individuals that fall outside of those rules on a case by case basis. The default should be you are only eligible for the female category if you are XX and then exceptional cases will be individually assessed but I suspect once the ability to exploit male advantage is removed there would be vanishingly few people affected anyway.

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.

"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?

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

Childish titter

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.

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