Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Zing! How can I compete with that double act.

Make your argument credibly instead of leading with ideology then hiding behind one line snark when you’re called out?

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:49 am Zing! How can I compete with that double act.

You’ve made a good start, by realising that you’re far better off focusing on how funny you didn’t find the quips, which seems to show enough self awareness that the *substance* - “adopting positions without being qualified to do so is OK when you do it” - of the double act is that you’re a raging hypocrite

Hmmm, guess I’m the straight man in this double act. At least Pammy’s zinger is succinct

I’m very much looking forward to the eventual condescending

“Well done CEB give your nuts a shake. You correctly guessed the condition that Khelif has. I guess I underestimated how much time you spend down rabbit holes, woo hoo, you stumbled down one that happened to be right.
my point was never that I didn’t think she had that condition, it was just that you really shouldn’t speculate about an ongoing scandal, shouldn’t mention it, nor should you call her he. It would have all worked out alright in the end anyway”

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:26 am Khelif is male.
The test results are not in dispute. The test results were carried out in a lab accredited by the CAS.

Has this been posted up/linked to previously on here?

If not, can it be please?

Has what been posted?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 10:19 am

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:26 am Khelif is male.
The test results are not in dispute. The test results were carried out in a lab accredited by the CAS.

Has this been posted up/linked to previously on here?

If not, can it be please?

Apologies, I’ve mixed up my acronyms.
The CAS is the court for arbitration in sport.

I meant the CAP (College of American Pathologists)

This article - by an outlet which claims to have seen the test results - addresses some of this

https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/20 ... nfzgtao0gy

I’ll do a quick “facts from opinion” post

Facts:

1: the results of the testing carried out by the IBA are not actually in dispute - neither the International Olympics Commitee, nor the boxers themselves (one of whom didn’t appeal, one of whom withdrew the appeal before it was heard) are claiming that the results themselves are wrong. Only the standing of the organisation that targeted them is being questioned.

2: the IBA did not carry these tests out under a veil of secrecy - the labs are independent and are subject to the court of arbitration in sport

3: an appeal would have meant the results of the tests became public when the findings were announced

4: the IBA’s eligibility criteria is based on chromosomes; XX is the requirement. These athletes were found to not meet this criteria

5: there exists a well understood DSD affecting XY males, which explains how an XY male can be sincerely assumed female, and yet can be male, and can develop typical male physiology in puberty in a way that maintains male advantage

6: the female category in sport exists to exclude male advantage from fair competition to recognise the achievements of women.

7: the ioc, in the knowledge of the above, used passports as the eligibility criteria for women’s boxing, and has not taken any specific action around the two athletes found to have XY chromosomes


Those are the pertinent facts

My opinion:

The test results are enough for me to conclude the athletes are male with a DSD.

The IOC should not focus on the apparent lack of credibility of the IBA, but should instead address its own clear issue - that “passport” as eligibility does not protect the female category from people with male advantage.

These athletes should have been retested by the IOC months ago, away from the public spotlight. The public scrutiny is entirely due to their failure to do so.

The fact that these athletes should be (in my view) excluded from the female category does not mean that they should be forced to live according to societal norms of maleness, they should not have masculinity OR femininity imposed on them, and should be free from expectations as to appearance or behaviour aside from where their sex actually matters and is important.


Athletics needs to up its game in working out how to include athletes with differences of sexual development, perhaps recognising that male people with DSDs that result in being assumed female are a group that warrants its own category in some disciplines.

Here’s the IBA’s account of the facts as it sees them

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifie ... knowledged

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 10:19 am

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:26 am Khelif is male.
The test results are not in dispute. The test results were carried out in a lab accredited by the CAS.

Has this been posted up/linked to previously on here?

If not, can it be please?

The results of the test that confirm Imane is a male with XY chromosones.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 11:36 am

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 10:19 am

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:26 am Khelif is male.
The test results are not in dispute. The test results were carried out in a lab accredited by the CAS.

Has this been posted up/linked to previously on here?

If not, can it be please?

The results of the test that confirm Imane is a male with XY chromosones.

The pertinent section from the link in the post I made just aabove your most recent:


On 24 March 2023, IBA Secretary General & CEO at the time, George Yerolimpos, informed both Khelif and Lin about their exclusion from the Championships for not meeting the eligibility criteria. The athletes received a copy of their testing and were informed about the possibility of appealing to the CAS within 21 days.
Khelif and Lin were informed accordingly about the decision and acknowledged it by signing the papers. The test details were attached to the letter.
On 26 March 2023, the IBA Board of Directors by a majority vote decided to ratify the decision taken by the IBA Secretary General & CEO on behalf of IBA to disqualify Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships 2023.
These tests affect the private life of the person concerned and constitute medical information protected as personal data. We are not allowed to publish these documents without the agreement of the person concerned. However, both Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting received a copy of these tests, and they never disputed it. They know these tests exist and it is not fake.
Both athletes were provided with the right to appeal against the Board’s decision to the CAS.
Lin Yu-ting did not appeal against the decision to declare her ineligible, and it became legal and binding.
On 12 May 2023, IBA amended its Technical and Competition Rules. After internal discussion, it was decided by the Board of Directors that IBA competitions will be conducted only between male athletes and between female athletes. Participation of DSD athletes (“differences of sexual development”) in boxing competitions were found dangerous for health and security of the boxers.
Amendments made by the Board to the T&C Rules:
Definition of Men/Male/Boy = individual with chromosome XY.

Definition of Women/Female/Girl = individual with chromosome XX

Rule 4.2. Eligibility on Gender:

4.2.1.Boxers will compete against boxers of the same gender, meaning Women vs Women and Men vs Men as per the definitions of these Rules.

4.2.2.To determine the gender, the Boxers can be submitted to a random and/or targeted gender test which will be conducted by IBA in cooperation with the selected laboratory personnel.

4.2.3. In case of adverse result, the Boxer will be immediately notified by IBA.

This is a good article, which rightly (and uniquely among almost all coverage of this) recognises that this isn’t about Yay! I support the IBA! vs Yay! I support the IOC, but is about systemic failure and wilful ignorance from organisations that should be trustworthy

https://archive.ph/2024.08.06-092012/ht ... sex-tests/

So the test result hasn't been confirmed or verified, it's just the IBA (who people accept are discredited) and some bloke saying he's seen it and reporting on it on his private sports news website?

It's somewhat flimsy, don't you think?

(Whilst at the same time accepting the IOC should be doing more than a cursory passport check, and Imane could have this test and publish the results herself to silence the debate).

What do you mean “verified”? By whom are you suggesting it should be verified? As far as I’m aware, there isn’t an aspect of the normal verification process that hasn’t been carried out - and in fact the IBA communicated its concerns to theIOC a long time ago, and due to the “passport” criteria, did not see fit to take any action. (The IOC still has also not claimed that the results of the test are in dispute or inaccurate)

Again, the results of the test are not disputed, have been carried out twice at independent labs. Neither athlete has taken the matter to the court of arbitration in sport, making the results legally binding.

If what you mean is that you’d like to see a third test happen, away from the cloud that hovers over the IBA that authorised the tests, I agree.


(Btw, all that would need to happen for the results and exact nature of the tests to be available is the consent of the athletes)

As the one with the scientific knowledge perhaps you could explain why they used a test designed for amniotic fluid on a blood sample?

I didn’t claim “scientific knowledge”; my claim
Is that I’ve followed the evidence.

For someone accusing me of going down a rabbit hole, your failure to engage with the actual facts I posted, instead choosing to focus on a specific detail you hope to deploy as a gotcha, strikes me as rather ironic.

Instead, I’ll defer to you - f***, looks like that’s a major error if true!!! Can you source this, explain how this puts the results of the test in dispute, and in what way? And can you tell me how it impacts the position “a further test to determine the sex of these athletes is the most desirable outcome”?

Apologies if this is a daft question and genuinely not attempting a straw man or anything but isn't the concern about Khelif's participation somewhat moot given that she's not some unbeatable Titan swatting aside weak and puny biological women, but has actually been beaten on numerous occasions in relatively recent international competitions? She doesn't seem to have a particularly overwhelming advantage given her track record. Or do we now have to look more closely at the women who beat her? Were they doping? Should they be subjected to tests of some kind?

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 12:16 pm Apologies if this is a daft question and genuinely not attempting a straw man or anything but isn't the concern about Khelif's participation somewhat moot given that she's not some unbeatable Titan swatting aside weak and puny biological women, but has actually been beaten on numerous occasions in relatively recent international competitions? She doesn't seem to have a particularly overwhelming advantage given her track record. Or do we now have to look more closely at the women who beat her? Were they doping? Should they be subjected to tests of some kind?

Most of western (and other, but not all) societies hold an imperfect consensus that men hitting women is a bad thing. And that is seen as fair enough, due to the fact that men are overwhelming more likely to be the aggressors when women experience violence. So I can understand there being unease with anything that could normalise male violence against women in any way.

Also, actual women boxers are competing under the reasonable expectation to only be fighting other women. So, even if they are fighting a bloke who happens to be a bit of a wimp, this will be information that has been concealed from them. If they had entered a fight fully aware that they were fighting a man, then that would be a different matter altogether. But they have quite probably been misled.

That's all fair enough and perfectly understandable, but is based on the certainty that she's actually a man, which, following the above thread at least, doesn't seem to be 100% clarified unless we accept the IBA at their word.

Correct, but it does address the issues you raised in respect that, if this boxer is a man, then the concern isn't a moot point just because Khelif has previously been beaten by women.

A simple test could resolve all of this. And the longer this drags on without that test taking place, more and more people will begin to wonder why.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 12:16 pm Apologies if this is a daft question and genuinely not attempting a straw man or anything but isn't the concern about Khelif's participation somewhat moot given that she's not some unbeatable Titan swatting aside weak and puny biological women, but has actually been beaten on numerous occasions in relatively recent international competitions? She doesn't seem to have a particularly overwhelming advantage given her track record. Or do we now have to look more closely at the women who beat her? Were they doping? Should they be subjected to tests of some kind?

Not a daft question, and it’s a good thing IMO that it’s been asked before the final. Answering genuinely, apologies if any of it is already obvious to you.

The argument against male people in the female category isn’t reliant on male people all being inherently faster, stronger, taller than women. That would be ludicrous. Winning isn’t the only outcome of unfair advantage, and unfair advantage doesn’t always result in success.

Here’s a good way to think about this (It’s reliant on understanding that athletes who do have the condition I mentioned do go through normal male puberty.)

Imagine a women’s 100 metre sprint event, with (go with me in this hypothetical, even though the track would be a bit weird ) 20 female participants, the 20 fastest female sprinters to ever exist, all in their physical peak.

Going by records, there are tens of thousands of men who can run faster than the fastest woman. But importantly, many, many more thousands who can run at or around (faster and slower) roughly the level that the 18 below the top 2 can run.
Those men are not exceptional, they are decent runners who, in their sex category, would not be anywhere near elite level.

If any of those men were incorrectly assumed to be female due to a DSD, their unexceptional status as maybe the 16,762 fastest man (disclosure, im plucking that figure that out of the air but it’s not an unreasonable one based on timings of college school boys who routinely beat the women’s 100m world record) could easily translate into being the fastest, 4th fastest, 18th fastest, 7th fastest woman, and occupying *any* of those spaces (and putting women down the rankings accordingly) while being an athlete unexceptional in the male category, is viewed by those who oppose males in the female category as detrimental to the integrity of sport, and to the reason that the female category exists (that is to say - to recognise the validity of female bodies as worthy of recognition, not measured against male bodies)

An example that you’ll probably be familiar with (though from a different angle) is football, and specifically women’s football.

I suspect you’ve probably had at least one tedious conversation with someone who maintains that “women’s football is crap”, and that” it’s ludicrous for people to say that the England Women’s team is better than the men’s”. You’ve probably seen an idiot say “lol of course women’s football is crap, I saw women pros play against a schoolboy team and they got battered lol”

I would imagine that in that context you’re aware of a background level idea of fairness - that women’s football creates a fair environment to recognise female excellence in football, and that such an aim wouldn’t be possible were football a mixed sex discipline, because male physicality would mean no woman could ever get near elite football, because male physical advantage would render that impossible.

You’re probably very aware that just comparing the actual attributes of male and female players would not be a fair measure of who is “best”, and that a better measure is to look at ability in context, within sexed categories; “Mary Earps is a better goalkeeper than Lawrence Vigouroux” is a fair statement if measuring success within the game within fair sex categories, however were football to become mixed sex overnight, Earps would not be a pro while Vigouroux would.

Now consider the inverse. Avoiding obvious gags about players seen as a bit sh*t, how far down the leagues in English professional football do you think you’d have to go before finding a player who wouldn’t immediately be an “all time great” if able to compete in the women’s game?
Most premier league, and actually probably most players in the top 4 divisions would be potential world beaters.
Not because that male player is “better” than women, but because male advantage would mean that his unfair participation in the female game would undermine the integrity of the sport.
Now imagine how far you’d have to go down to get a few notches below “potential women’s ballon dor winner” to “hard working player that nobody fancies playing against” - the male player who could occupy such a position in the elite women’s game would not be an exceptional male player. The perception of being exceptional would only arise from competing against those with a physical disadvantage.
Which is what the female category exists to protect against.

Re boxing specifically, all things else being equal (assuming a male and a female of the same height, same weight, same muscle mass) - male people still punch, on average, 2.6 times harder than women.
That “average” is important here, partly for safety, but also because it demonstrates that a male being able to punch harder than a female in the same weight category is not a talented male, but a relatively normal man.
That relatively normal man should not be considered the 20th best, the 3rd best, or the best female boxer, because the female boxers are at the upper limits of what’s possible for female bodies, while the male boxer in well within the capacity of male bodies.

Apologies for length, but I think it deserves a full answer

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 12:36 pm That's all fair enough and perfectly understandable, but is based on the certainty that she's actually a man, which, following the above thread at least, doesn't seem to be 100% clarified unless we accept the IBA at their word.

Important clarification, despite the noise.

Nobody, in any official capacity anywhere, is denying the validity of the test results themselves, and they are currently legally binding on the boxers based on their failure to appeal the test results.

There are legitimate reasons to not use the IBA as an organisation, but despite that, the objections to the results themselves is only actually noise around discourse, and not subject to any serious attempts to deny.

This is important, not least because denial would seem to make it incumbent to find the fact of the matter. What’s actually happening is an attempt to paint the results as *irrelevant* to the integrity of the competition