I wouldn't be throwing statements like this around if I were you.
Olympics boxing controversy - IBA bans lifted on Lin and Khelif by IOC
- Thread starter klsv
- Start date
The person is calling me names and getting basic facts incorrect inside single sentences, and painting me to be a bigot?
Right, I'm the one.
You commented on the phrase "All we know for certain is that she was born a woman", saying we couldn't know because of chromosomes.
Being a woman has to do with gender and not sex, by extension nothing to do with chromosomes. You can't even follow your own stupid posts.
The facts are that by the definition of womanhood used by women's sport for the last hundred years and by broader society for however many generations before that - she's a woman.
Of course definitions may change in the future. That's also a fact. But that doesn't change the facts we already know. She's a woman.
For sport, we segregate along sex because of the physical advantages, not gender. Otherwise, because there are lots of different genders, we'd have multiple sport categories.
I don't follow this at all, it makes little sense to me, but I appreciate you replying.
You are still conflating gender and sex.
What? Are you all trolling me right now.
Yes, it's everyone else who is wrong.
No. Her gender since birth has been woman/girl. The question is whether her gender(woman) and the sex(female) she was assigned at birth actually match. Until proven otherwise we are talking about a woman that is also a female and no one has provided anything contrary to that.
Let's face it, you do the same shite in every thread.
So I'm not conflating sex and gender. Gender is inconsequential to the question of fairness in women's sports.
People are free to identify as any gender, this will have no material affect on athletic performance.
The issue is fairness in women's sports, of which we ring fence from natal males. The challenge and issue here is whether Khelif is a natal male, a natal female or is a natal male that has a DSD meaning they present as female.
That's it, it has zero to do with gender identity.
So when I talk about chromosomes it is to understand whether Khelif, IF THEY ARE NOT NATALLY FEMALE, has an athletic advantage over natal females on account of male physiology.
Again, that's the question. Not some weird societal perspective of what makes a woman or whether someone with a DSD, raised their entire life can live as a woman, that's not an issue nor something I'm even against.
It's about where the line is drawn in women's sports and who can and cannot compete.
someone make it stop
Yawn.
It's a funny read, keep it going.
You questioned whether she was a woman or not. There is only two options, you conflated sex and gender or you are bigot. You can choose the one you prefer.
There it is. So tiring and dull.
I questioned, as have so many people, because several prominent people, and sporting organisations are saying the athlete in question failed a DNA test and has a DSD condition.
But no, I'm only questioning it because I'm a bigot apparently, as is everyone else.
That conclusion is only true if you can't read. I gave you two options you don't know that gender and sex are two different things or you are a bigot. And for your information, you still conflated both in this post.
Good lord, simply unreal.
Why is it that you left out the 4th option, that she's a female with a DSD?
It seems like a pretty big thing to overlook or misunderstand given the nature of the conversation. Especially given these details were posted already, from the NHS.
Given you decided to refer to her as "them" - when it's unequivocally clear her gender is female, and she would've been considered female 100 years ago too, this isn't a modern reinterpretation of gender - it seems self-evident you're presenting an agenda.
Because if they were female with a DSD they'd still be natally female. Are you alright? That's like the most obvious thing?
We could've called this thread the MZF's just asking innocent questions thread.
If that were the case surely you would only have two options: "a natal female or is a natal male that has a DSD meaning they present as female."? The third option of simply "a natal male" would be equally redundant.
Or are you seriously suggesting there's a third option here: that she's a man with no DSD?
This insistence on using 'they' when referring to someone for whom there's no evidence they are anything other than female and who identifies as a woman is tiresome. What are you at?
every threadYou just did the same thing you're calling him out for.
Shouldn't you have said "...no evidence she is anything other than..."?
I'm honestly completely lost now as to what your actual point or argument is.
Trolls rarely follow any logical path, they just push for the reaction.
Natally obtuse.
I was speaking about the phenomenon in general terms, which I often do when describing something like this and I'm a bit pedantic at grammar so the sentence flowed better for me in abstract. That poster is at pains to never use 'she/her' in this instance across multiple posts.
In specific Imane has only ever identified as a woman therefore she doesn't want to be referred to as 'they', which would the only reason anyone should be doing it.
if they didn’t want men punching women in the face, then they shouldn’t have had the olympics in france.
Please stop the questions on the they/them stuff - surely we spent enough time in that dead end yesterday.
Speaking of dead ends - I know it's hard, I fall into the trap myself - but please don't feed trolls.
Speaking of dead ends - I know it's hard, I fall into the trap myself - but please don't feed trolls.
It actually makes me a bit angry that he's allowed to keep posting anti-trans stuff at such an insane rate. Even in the topics I agree with the substance of what he posts, his posting style is frankly obnoxious, even when he's called out by posters who very obviously know much more than him about the subject in question. I've deleted several drafts and even messages soon after posting that quoted or tagged him just because I didn't want to enter a dialectical nightmare for dozens of posts.
Can someone change the thread title. It makes it seem the IBA have completely reversed course and reinstated the two boxers. As far as I can tell, this isn't true.
Back to the topic at hand - is the IOC then confirming that these are, in fact, DSD cases or are they just reiterating that the cases are not transgender cases?
Done
Thankyou!
That is…a very interesting question! I suppose a narrower reading of the updated language is that it is just a reiteration that it’s not a transgender case and they are now silent re DSD