Sciatika Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Actually, it's men who usually have XY and women XX. I'll assume that's a typo. a) This has absolutely nothing to do with trans. Not sure why you mentioned that. It has nothing to do with what gender someone identifies as (assuming you even believe in such a thing), this is about biological sex. b) Biological advantage between different men is also irrelevant, as it is for women. We categorise men and women because women have, on average, a HUGE disadvantage to men in most sports. This is well understood in science. So, we categorise for the mean. Those categories seek to create competition that is as fair as possible within those categories. I think people who advocate for removing sex categories are deeply misogynistic because, in most cases, they are constructing a world where women will never win. Women aren't just men who are a bit crap at sports. They have the right to fair competition among other things. How we choose to determine the categories is not cut and dried. I know a lot of women who are not happy with what is currently being done, especially with T. c) Whether this boxer has or has not been beaten by women is also irrelevant. We know that there are overlaps between men and women. Again this is well understood in science. Requiring people to take part in the appropriate category is perfectly valid, if a little distasteful at times, because of the mean difference. I won't discuss the rest any more because we don't have full access to the relevant medical records of the boxer concerned. Also, some of this is a matter of belief, so not worth the effort. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud-Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 I've looked at this thread with absolute despair today, and I wish I could say it was the first time I've done so with these kinds of discussions on CFCNet. I've made it my business to avoid controversial topics where possible, not least where it concerns issues of sexuality and gender. My username is what it is because I'm vice chair of Chelsea Pride. But 98% of what I post on here is football related, Chelsea related, and really the kind of stuff we all signed up here to talk about. But this time, I'm just not staying silent. @thevelourfoghas summed up perfectly the actual reality around the case of Imane Khelif. I don't need to add anything to that brilliant post. However, I would like to reflect on how such misconceptions can end up proliferating and being repeated by people who I know for a fact are intelligent, considered, and thoughtful people. The problem is that certain "gender critical" figures have so radically simplified the complexities of sex/gender in both biological and sociological senses that they create a deeply destructive rigid image of what a man/woman is that becomes unsustainable when ambiguities appear. Worse still, even though Imane Khelif is not trans, this gets used as a stick by those who quite often wish to completely marginalise or erase trans people. In this case, it's even worse because we're talking about a very violent sport. You can mix up all of the complex arguments around gender/sex and simplify it to "man beating up woman", which basically everyone with a moral compass is opposed to. That produces an understandable reaction in many women due to the epidemic of violence against women, particularly in the domestic sphere. This is a scourge that we must do everything to stop. Another reason I nearly always avoid these topics is because I know it will produce an incredibly emotional reaction in me too. While I myself am not trans, I have trans friends and colleagues who are impacted on a daily basis by this overwhelming anti-trans discourse. Even though Imane Khelif is not trans, and this really should not be a "trans issue", it will become one because it'll be added to the long arsenal of weapons used to delegitimise gender minorities. It's a series of small things that are then exacerbated by bigger events, which has real and material consequences for a vulnerable minority group. What I would implore upon everyone is to look very critically at all social media claims when it comes to issues like this. There are of course legitimate points of debate. Contrary to what people may assume, it's not about "silencing" anyone, but considering the actions and consequences of what we say and do. Whether we like to admit it or not, issues around sex/gender are more complex than the simple, highly binary arguments people want to make. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Sciatika said: Actually, it's men who usually have XY and women XX. I'll assume that's a typo. a) This has absolutely nothing to do with trans. Not sure why you mentioned that. It has nothing to do with what gender someone identifies as (assuming you even believe in such a thing), this is about biological sex. b) Biological advantage between different men is also irrelevant, as it is for women. We categorise men and women because women have, on average, a HUGE disadvantage to men in most sports. This is well understood in science. So, we categorise for the mean. Those categories seek to create competition that is as fair as possible within those categories. I think people who advocate for removing sex categories are deeply misogynistic because, in most cases, they are constructing a world where women will never win. Women aren't just men who are a bit crap at sports. They have the right to fair competition among other things. How we choose to determine the categories is not cut and dried. I know a lot of women who are not happy with what is currently being done, especially with T. c) Whether this boxer has or has not been beaten by women is also irrelevant. We know that there are overlaps between men and women. Again this is well understood in science. Requiring people to take part in the appropriate category is perfectly valid, if a little distasteful at times, because of the mean difference. I won't discuss the rest any more because we don't have full access to the relevant medical records of the boxer concerned. Also, some of this is a matter of belief, so not worth the effort. It was a typo, thanks. I made absolutely no reference to "removing sex categories". Literally the opposite, in fact. I acknowledged tiering (categorisation by another term) can be and is often related to sporting integrity. I wouldn't enter into a debate with you on your beliefs about whether or not removal of sex categories would be misogynistic, and I certainly didn't attempt to start one. A disingenuous to the point of vindictive response. It is flabbergasting that you'd suggest "this has absolutely nothing to do with trans" or feign ignorance at why I'd mention it. This is a biologically female sportsperson who is being framed in some coverage and in some of the posts here as a biological man. Have you seen any of the coverage in the UK today? What other inference could one draw? I honestly don't even understand what you mean by it being "irrelevant" that Khelifi has been beaten by biological women. The relevance is that she is not an overpowered beast of a man battering women, as she was framed here and in much of the broader coverage. She is a woman who beats women who she is better than, and gets beaten by women she isn't better than. Like any female boxer. It's depressing to know a mod will come and shut this down soon, maybe tell a few people off, and it will go down as a disagreement. It is not. It is bigotry. Probably not intentional, probably not malicious, not making anyone here a bad person. I know and accept that. But bigotry none the less. Edited August 2 by thevelourfog Typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ham Posted August 2 Popular Post Share Posted August 2 All. Please accept my apology. I didn't research the situation enough and was convinced by the sheer volume of opinion on social media when I posted the link. The fighter is not biologically male but DSD/intersex. Took some online searching to discover why. Of course there is still a discussion to be had about fighters with XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone levels in women's sport from a fairness perspective but that's for another day. Again, I'm sorry. 💙 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Putting my hands up as well, I responded to the post on here in a reactionary fashion without knowing the full or true facts. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 42 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: It's depressing to know a mod will come and shut this down soon, maybe tell a few people off, and it will go down as a disagreement. It is not. It is bigotry. Probably not intentional, probably not malicious, not making anyone here a bad person. I know and accept that. But bigotry none the less. That hasn’t happened, and it won’t. I responded to a post without giving it my full attention or truly understanding the context, so it would be foolish of me to criticise anyone. I apologise for commenting without fully engaging with the topic. If you knew me, you’d understand that the views implied by my comment are far from how I actually feel about the subject and why I would not put it down as a disagreement. These conversations are important. Maybe this isn’t the ideal place for them, but they’re still necessary because not everyone grasps the impact or sensitivity of what’s being discussed. Educating people on all topics is crucial, and this one is no exception. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said: Can't say I'm surprised at those who posted earlier without bothering to fact-check. It's the usual suspects. Luckily for you, you've never made a mistake in your life Bob 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisb Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Wasn’t there a similar issue with a female sprinter a few years ago? Seem to remember her being banned for having too high levels of testerone. Semenya someone I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 30 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said: Luckily for you, you've never made a mistake in your life Bob 😉 Oh, I have... mainly interacting with some of the people on these boards, who, quite frankly, aren't worth a minute of my time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 7 minutes ago, chrisb said: Wasn’t there a similar issue with a female sprinter a few years ago? Seem to remember her being banned for having too high levels of testerone. Semenya someone I think. Yeah, Semenya, 800m runner, from South Africa I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 4 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said: Oh, I have... mainly interacting with some of the people on these boards, who, quite frankly, aren't worth a minute of my time! Thats the spirit! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) 47 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said: That hasn’t happened, and it won’t. I responded to a post without giving it my full attention or truly understanding the context, so it would be foolish of me to criticise anyone. I apologise for commenting without fully engaging with the topic. If you knew me, you’d understand that the views implied by my comment are far from how I actually feel about the subject and why I would not put it down as a disagreement. These conversations are important. Maybe this isn’t the ideal place for them, but they’re still necessary because not everyone grasps the impact or sensitivity of what’s being discussed. Educating people on all topics is crucial, and this one is no exception. And I really appreciate it, thank you. And to add, fair play to everyone holding their hands up. Please, please, please treat anything you read about "biological men" in women's sport with the same skepticism you'd read all the transfer nonsense in that thread. It is a discourse that is rife with misinformation and bad faith actors. Edited August 2 by thevelourfog 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 5 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said: Oh, I have... mainly interacting with some of the people on these boards, who, quite frankly, aren't worth a minute of my time! Just because people disagree with you doesn't make you right Bob. On this occasion I hold my hands up but less of the "usual suspects" bollox. I have different views/politics to you. We all have life experiences that make us who we are. Deal with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 11 minutes ago, chrisb said: Wasn’t there a similar issue with a female sprinter a few years ago? Seem to remember her being banned for having too high levels of testerone. Semenya someone I think. Semenya is a female who has fathered two children. I am pulling out of this thread because there is an awful lot of variation in opinion. I have no problems with people having opinions as long as they don't insist that everyone else accept their ideas as fact. For people interested in science, I can recommend evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, who has written books and articles and made videos on this stuff. He explains how the SRY gene works, the consequences for the development of secondary sex characteristics and a lot about DSDs, what they are and what their consequences are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 13 minutes ago, Sciatika said: I am pulling out of this thread because there is an awful lot of variation in opinion. I have no problems with people having opinions as long as they don't insist that everyone else accept their ideas as fact. Could you defend/justify comments like that in bold with examples? I doubt it, so easier to walk away. A very common response to challenge in any gender discussions, this. I'm reasonable, it's everyone else who is an ideologue, never reason with fools etc. But for the sake of the mods, who have been pretty gracious, I'll also not engage further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 I was not referring to you but to my experience of this issue on Twitter,. There are some very strange people out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chara Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Regardless of the excellent breakdown and deep analysis and the hands up apologies,,,all relevant and worthy....do the "eye test" of the bout. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 16 hours ago, chara said: Regardless of the excellent breakdown and deep analysis and the hands up apologies,,,all relevant and worthy....do the "eye test" of the bout. So in spite of the fact that she is biologically a woman, because she looks a bit butch... ??? Would you be OK with an effeminate man boxing a woman, instead? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) Apparently, according to the Russian who did the DNA test last year, the Algerian boxer is XY 5ARD. Is this true? Could be as it fits the evidence, but there's no proof so it could just be someone who wants to feel important. If it is true, some of what has been said in this thread is not correct, so probably best to wait for confirmation rather than make judgements. People with this condition should be treated with respect and sympathy. The current rumour is that the Hungarian boxing board has asked for the DNA test to be repeated. Whether the IOC will do the test is something else. The new body taking over boxing in 2028 has indicated they would. This is about safeguarding. For those interested, the academic Carol Hooven (@hoovlet) whose area of study is this, wrote a long article a while back on Twitter describing this condition, but other sources are available. As with all media sources on this you have to be careful to be sure whose advice you rely on because this is an area that some people are trying to game for different reasons. Edited August 2 by Sciatika 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chara Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 28 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said: So in spite of the fact that she is biologically a woman, because she looks a bit butch... ??? Would you be OK with an effeminate man boxing a woman, instead? For fuck's sake!!! This is EXACTLY what I meant in my previous statement. The level of blind stupidity displayed here beggars belief! Bob please...it's not blind stupidity....it's real sight observation and all the biological arguments can't take away the imbalance present..for what ever reason..... a different pov from the one you profess is exactly that,,a difference of opinion...so stop being so bloody nasty with responses that you disagree with. It reflects on you badly and takes away focus from your pov that most of us read and consider. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 14 hours ago, chara said: Bob please...it's not blind stupidity....it's real sight observation and all the biological arguments can't take away the imbalance present..for what ever reason..... a different pov from the one you profess is exactly that,,a difference of opinion...so stop being so bloody nasty with responses that you disagree with. It reflects on you badly and takes away focus from your pov that most of us read and consider. Yeah, right... your "eye test" trumps science! She has a vagina!!! She has a uterus!!! Clearly that's not enough for you. The reason facts don't change some people's opinions is because some people don't use facts to form their opinions. They use their opinions to form their "facts". A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And stupidity is an opinion that ignores facts! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Bob, a little reflection and tact please. This is a forum, not a bear garden. Chara doesn’t deserve that, and you’re better than this. An apology is well in order. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Ok, that’s enough now, far too personal and the posts are actually just getting quite rude at this point. Step away from the topic and leave it there, please. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chara Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 13 hours ago, Bob Singleton said: Yeah, right... your "eye test" trumps science! She has a vagina!!! She has a uterus!!! Clearly that's not enough for you. I wonder what @JaneB must think of a forumite who might question her gender based on what she looks like rather that what she actually is? The reason facts don't change some people's opinions is because some people don't use facts to form their opinions. They use their opinions to form their "facts". That's a trait I've long observed with you. A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And stupidity is an opinion that ignores facts! I have a daughter. If some moron claimed she was a man, just because they didn't find her feminine enough for their liking, my PPMS wouldn't stop me from beating seven shades of shit out of them! Bob you are not reading what people mean and seem bent on a campaign following an agenda .....I..and others are only pointing out that in this particular case an evident imbalance is present..FOR WHATEVER REASON .... all the scientific and biological details and observations do not change that..... most on here respect other differing views...your posts lack any respect and seem to be ME right you wrong.... I'm done with this foolishness,,I've wasted too much energyon the subject that I need for MY life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 3 minutes ago, chara said: Bob you are being and talking like a fucking idiot...you are not reading what people mean and seem bent on a campaign following an agenda .....I..and others are only pointing out that in this particular case an evident imbalance is present..FOR WHATEVER REASON .... all the scientific and biological details and observations do not change that..... most on here respect other differing views...your posts lack any respect and seem to be ME right you wrong.... oh and the "punishment" you promise should anyone question your family members gender presentation...would you follow your threat through were it a girl making the comment? Takes an awful lot to get you riled up @chara. Never seen the like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now