Hmmm, so you lost a bout (to a previously IBA-disqualified opponent) in the round of 16—which, even if you’d won it, would still leave you three other matches to win the gold—and so the IBA, purely out of the goodness of their hearts, decides to give you a consolation prize of a gold-medallist purse. Oh yeah, they’re not trying to exploit this controversy at all.
Another amusing sidelight on all the Gender Hypocritical clutching of pearls about the Khelif-Carini fight being a shocking exhibition of “a male [sic] punching a female”: By her own account, apparently, Carini voluntarily gets punched by males all the time.
It’s different than the 1973 Bobby Riggs, Billy Jean King match… but maybe it would be the Riggs-King match of our time?
( Or maybe the thought of some of those Bobby Riggs types being punched in the face repeatedly by someone whose life they have been trying to make a living Hell seems just.)
Well, but Braasch was almost in the top 200 of all male tennis players in the world, so his victory wasn’t particularly surprising given the sex difference. I seriously doubt that any billionaire being an asshole about Khelif is close to ranking even in the top 20000 of all amateur fighters in the world, in any fighting style whatsoever. I don’t think any of them would stand a chance against her.
This person is clearly mentally ill. And mentally ill with crushing insecurity, by the looks of it.
Of course human gender is not binary. Of course people who fail to conform to the illusory binary that the right wing demands, should receive full human rights and be treated with dignity.
That said: the current Olympic boxing controversy proves that the ‘designated at birth’ standard is ridiculously misleading and otherwise inadequate.
What matters in personal life may well be the chance to live your chosen identity to the full extent of personal fulfillment possible.
But what matters in sports is COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.
All the flailing about how to divide people into Male Or Female is ignoring a basic fact about our species: young humans with predominantly male hormones will differ in skeletal and muscular development from young humans who grow up with predominantly female hormones. Those whose bodies were awash in male hormones will, on average, have greater strength and speed than those whose developing bodies were awash in female hormones.
This is nothing to do with what a doctor’s opinion may be of an infant’s genitals. It’s something to do with XX and XY and all the variants, but only to the extent that those genetic expressions influence hormone production.
People who grow up in bodies with predominantly male hormones will virtually always have a competitive advantage in sports over people who grew up in female-hormone bodies. Which is why the controversies are ALWAYS about people trying to compete in female-only competitions.
Of course people should be able to dress as they like and use the pronouns they prefer and use the restrooms they prefer. End of story.
But competing in sports is different from these other aspects of life. It’s different because of the competitive advantage conferred by growing up in a body with predominantly male hormones.
Any discussions of who gets to participate in which sports must take this into account.
I guarantee you that any female Olympic athlete has a body that developed with significantly greater strength and speed than the female average. Whether it’s because of hormones or not, we don’t know. Just like we don’t know anything about these specific women’s hormones.
That’s right. But what I’m saying is that the current methods of choosing who gets to compete in which events is ignoring hormones in favor of indicia which are largely irrelevant, such as what a doctor thought when the person was born.
For fairness, hormones should matter.
And, yes: women who compete at Olympics level will certainly differ in crucial physical ways from the mass of women who don’t so compete. But does that mean that, for instance, testing for steroid use (for all athletes) should cease? Most people would say no to that–because steroid use, which acts in ways similar to having extra testosterone, confers a competitive advantage. (And of course there are other problems with dosing with hormones.)
I don’t have an opinion on Khelif because I don’t know enough. Certainly I consider it wholly illegitimate to say someone should be excluded because they don’t look stereotypically female.
I’m saying that the whole brouhaha is rife with false arguments. ‘Assigned at birth gender,’ I see as a bad standard in every context I can think of.
I know that the talk about ‘gender assigned at birth’ is useless. And I said so.
If the standard at SDMB became that no comment may be made without complete and perfect knowledge of the topic of discussion, then the site would shut down immediately.
Lots of athletes have genetics that confer a competitive advantage. Are you saying Michael Phelps’ height, arm length, and lung capacity made him unfairly advantaged over other swimmers?
No. But if Michael Phelps, whose body developed from puberty under the influence of mostly male hormones, tried to compete in women’s events, that would be an unfair competitive advantage.
Some of these responses seem to indicate a lack of belief that hormone-testing has been part of determining eligibility in elite athletic events. Here’s a good write-up–it dates back a few years, but does indicate the level of concern about hormonal influence in the modern era:
There is a lot of speculation that Phelps has some form of Marfan syndrome which gives him a genetic advantage.
I have no idea if it’s true. I doubt it is honestly because I don’t see that argument being made anywhere reputable. But the idea is out there and some people believe it, as much BS as it probably is.
Here is a tweet from some nitwit on Twitter (apparently a no name race car driver) arguing that the only reason why it’s okay for Phelps and not Khelif is because Phelps won’t kill anyone.