Independent Leyton Orient Forum

So, if I've understood your reply, although Khelif is a man, he's a bit of a wuss who sometimes gets beaten up by women

This is an 800,000 follower account asserting that the claim that Khelif has XY chromosomes is “false”

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 2:31 pm This is an 800,000 follower account asserting that the claim that Khelif has XY chromosomes is “false”

JK Rowling
Trump
Elon Musk
Russia
AND Homophobes!?

It’s like an online left winger’s angry wet dream!

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.

This.

the results of the tests aren’t the IBA’s word. Each boxer was tested twice, in independent labs.
The only thing preventing scrutiny of the actual results is the absence of consent from the athletes to do so.
The athletes had the option of a well established path to establishing that the tests were not safe, by appealing to the court of arbitration for sport. Both athletes chose not to do so.

To restate - it’s only in online discourse that there is any suggestion that the test results are not legitimate. It’s not a claim that has been made by either boxer, nor is it a claim made by the IOC.


The literal only reason for any flimsiness on any aspect of this is the IOC’s unsustainable position of “disregard the tests, act as if there is nothing to see here whatsoever”


The claim by MM that this “conveniently” happened after a Russian boxer lost her undefeated record is, ironically enough, obvious conspiracy thinking that a moments thought demonstrates the flaw - had the boxer gone ahead with the appeal, the scandal of faking a sex test result just to preserve a record would have been laid bare. Unfortunately the boxers must have had a match to ref on appeal day

Genuine questions:

How many boxing bodies are out there? (Is it the same as the mens where there are multiple - equally shady - organisations?)

How many others have recognised the IBAs test results and stopped these boxers from competing in women's category?

I’m assuming that there are plenty of shady boxing organisations, no different to the men’s. (The shadiness of sporting bodies being part of the problem, and why the IOC should be able to be trusted)

As far as I’m aware, the athletes haven’t participated in anything competitive other than the Olympics since failing the eligibility test, and haven’t passed any eligibility test (other than the “having a passport” one) - I’ll check on that though

Represented Algeria at the Arab Games apparently, four months after the ban.
There’s no suggestion that any eligibility testing took place, so far as I can see.

WARNING: what follows is an OPINION

I would hypothesise that had there been any eligibility test either way for the Arab games, it would constitute a large part of the discourse, whether “she passed when it wasn’t dodgy Russians”, or “that’s two athletic bodies that found him to be male”. My hypothesis therefore is that in that competition, it is not in anyone’s interests to test promising athletes’ eligibility, as all eyes were on Khelif getting to the olympics, no need for a socially conservative nation to probe too deeply

(I wouldn’t claim to be an expert in the nuance of boxing at amateur or pro level, by the way.

It may well be that Khelif has tested 100 times and been shown to be female, but it’s just been criminally underreported in the last two weeks, or it may be that the level of boxing in which Khelif competed hasn’t really got its head around policy making in this area until the poo hit the fan)

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 3:52 pm My hypothesis therefore is that in that competition, it is not in anyone’s interests to test promising athletes’ eligibility, as all eyes were on Khelif getting to the olympics, no need for a socially conservative nation to probe too deeply

Yep, that would stack up.

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.

One thing I’ll say about this, which might actually be surprising.
I use “man” as a neutral term to mean “male human person”, but mostly I avoid using that term for Khelif (I may well have slipped up a few times or used it for emphatic exasperation, admittedly, and I use “he” and “him” to maintain clarity that I’m discussing from the perspective that we’re discussing a male in a female category)

I don’t think that - given where the cultural understanding of this topic currently is - it’s helpful to think about Khelif in terms of “man or woman”, especially because this topic *is* a big one for actual right wing social conservatives (and religious types in Khelif’s own country)

One thing that is worth me restating is that Khelif almost certainly grew up with a sincere - and understandable - belief of being female. In a socially conservative country into which Khelif was socialised as a girl.

The idea that Khelif is “a man”, if that was how the story evolved, would almost certainly involve mean that Khelif would be forced/pressured to adopt a different set of societal expectations, living within a socially conservative society that would not tolerate any “feminine” traits that Khelif is comfortable with.

That’s why the relevant stuff here isn’t about living “as” a man or woman (both meaningless other than “according to arbitrary stereotypes”) but is only about ineligibility for the female category on the basis of having male advantage.

I think people with DSDs deserve better than to be fast tracked towards athletic success, by sports bodies exploiting loop holes in eligibility as well as the fact that transgender participation in opposite sex categories elite sport has also muddied the waters around the importance of sex in sport, only for the individual athletes to find themselves scrutinised when on the biggest platform.

That failing is on the organisations that failed. It’s on the IBA for targeting individuals for testing instead of screening all athletes, it’s on the Olympics for putting its head in the sand and hoping it’d all go away.

Not a huge amount I disagree with in that and I can't be arsed to discuss the bits I'm not 100% on board with.

Absolutely agree there should be consistent testing, for fairness in all elite sports and safety in combat sports.

For me, a bigger red flag than the lack of appeal (why fund it when she wasn't banned from competing) is the lack of an offer to undergo an independent test. I still think there are very good reasons to doubt anything the IBA says but that would be the obvious way to clear it up.

I still stand by my original point, you confidently providing a diagnosis is ridiculous as is saying you can clearly see when someone has gone through male puberty just from seeing them on TV . You cannot possibly have the knowledge to do that or to actually assess the evidence you have read about it, you didn't even pick up on the mention in your slam dunk article that they claim to have used a prenatal test. I mean, in an article that is purporting to be a cold hard look at the science, naming a completely inappropriate test is pretty sh*t isn't it?

'Look at this sciency stuff that proves my point' when you don't actually understand it is nonsense and no better than any other nitwit that claims to have done their research.

In fairness, when arguing with you I quickly get into being more interested in proving you wrong than in the fact too, which I think is as good a place for me to drop out of this one.

In the interests of finding some sort of common ground - what you see as me “diagnosing” is more intended to be that I’m staking future credibility by saying that I am certain - basically attempting to say that I’m not thinking aloud and hedging my bets on a complex subject, but saying something that I stake something on.
I do that more to avoid the annoying tendency people have of pretending they never said a thing they once did: my aim was to confidently state my position, and face the consequences if I turned out to be wrong (and maybe it’d be better phrased actually like this)

“There’s not a lot of responsible reporting around this, and most of it omits crucial information. Here’s the information that’s factual, and here’s why it’s relevant. Separately, here is a condition that I believe is the most compelling explanation for everything happening now”

What I did was open myself to potential future “lol ceb was wrong” by asserting it confidently - I’m still very confident in my account of what happened, but I’ll grant you that being more invested in the “bumping the thread” in a year to show how right I am is also likely to push buttons.

Look, on this (and the wider issue) you know I think you’re wrong, but I also 100% believe that your position was reached in good faith, and that it’s a result of a combination of not having a disproportionate interest in finding out exactly what is happening within this activism (that’s something I freely concede I have had) and so forming an opinion based on a progressive consensus and some acquaintances who answered whatever questions you may have had.

What has irked me about this is that you have never, ever engaged with me on this in a way that suggests that my positions are anything other than entirely, and self evidently unjustified to the extent that they’re not worthy of anything more than a sneer.

It’s why I maintain that I don’t actually have an issue with disagreement - I think strong disagreement is inevitable on this issue - but with misrepresentation of a legitimate position as extremism.
I don’t know whether you accuse me of conspiracy rabbit holes to push my buttons during a MB feud or because you genuinely believe it to be the case, but it pisses me off because, at the risk of protesting too much, I simply *haven’t done that*
I’ve got a good bullshit detector, and because I genuinely don’t come at any of these subjects from a dislike of gender non-conformity, I have no dog in the fight aside from a desire to understand, and be understood, and to advocate for what I think is rational - I could probably give you a far more scathing critique of the gender critical people you’d assume I’m aligned with than you would, because I’ve looked at what most voices have said, and found very few to be rational and compassionate, and because you’ve never, ever actually engaged with me on the substance of my beliefs on this, it does feel unfair that you have effectively dismissed everything I’ve ever said on this out of hand. Especially considering that before I joined the board again a couple of years ago, your initial posts on the subject were dismissive and condescending, as if the only possible objection was right wing social conservatism.

For what it’s worth, believe it or not, I actually hate this subject. I rarely discuss it outside of when there’s a relevant news story, but as you may have noticed, it pushes my buttons because the reporting of it is almost always misleading and lacking in clear language.

My main hope when discussing this is not to get people to agree with me, but to get understanding of exactly what the argument is.

Gonna make another prediction I’m certain of though…

This will not happen

Have you read the article?

Also, why do you love Harry Potter books so much? They're sh*t.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 8:18 am Have you read the article?

Yes

Khelif in the final.

I re-read to see if I’ve missed something for Conkles to ask that question.
Imagine my surprise to see that the article has, several paragraphs in, made the *minor* alteration of acknowledging that they’re basing the entire thrust of their story on a WUM (without a footnote clarifying the change)

The pertinent aspect for what I was doing is rolling my eyes at Tatchell, highlighting the sheer amount of misinformation; Rowling hasn’t actually done anything actionable here.
Reading what remains of the original article, the claim is that Rowling “implied that Khelif is trans”

Didn’t happen.

I notice you haven’t answered the question about HP books, though. Very telling.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 9:34 am I notice you haven’t answered the question about HP books, though. Very telling.

Rowling’s detailed plotting is genuinely great, and the way the books got more scary and complex as the characters aged worked really well.

Despite the fact that she’s got strong opinions on pronouns, however, I think maybe she should have focused more on reducing the adverbs.

Seems like the XY chromosomes people aren’t only going to win every men’s tournament they’ve finally won a women’s one too!



https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/ar ... ej8wqw0jjo

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... iming-gold

This is not neutral reporting

Interesting that Sean Ingle isn't covering it as he was.esrloer in the competition, he wasn't exactly neutral either (but the other way).