The sad case of Imane Khelif

[gtyellowjacket]

If some 16 year-old boy on his varsity football team gets crushed into a lifeless ball by Ty Haywood, the 6'5, 285 lbs offensive tackle who will be a freshman at Alabama next year... that's ok, as they are both boys. But if some poor girl gets hurt fighting for the basketball with another girl who happens to have elevated testosterone... that we need to throw down and do anything to stop from happening.

This just reeks of a paternalistic, misogynistic culture where boys must go out and explore the world, but girls must be protected from the outside world at all costs.

I've discussed things with A couple different people. What are you focused on that I'm claiming is sacrosanct specifically?

Because I think I've been pretty flexible on a lot of things.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Well, I think that many comments on this thread illustrate a key point about politics today: In many "controversial" topics we should learn to trust science and medicine and, in a broader sense, expertise.,
The problem we face today is, in simplest terms, that MAGA people are ignorant. They do not know things and they seemingly do not know, or care, that they do not know things.
I think we would be better off as a society if folks would dispense with the foolish notion that their "Opinion" automatically matters. Far better, when we are discussing things like pregnancy and abortion, vaccines, biology and biological sex, transsexuals and physical strength etc. if MAGA folks would simply accept that they lack knowledge and education and should trust expertise rather than their "opinions," [And, as a corollary, googling far right web pages is not the same as "research."]

I was thinking the same thing until you said MAGA. The amount of folks on this thread who have clung to " If she says she's a girl, let her compete" no matter what the science says about testosterone levels and how it affects a woman's body is pretty shocking.

 

[Calheel]

I was thinking the same thing until you said MAGA. The amount of folks on this thread who have clung to " If she says she's a girl. Let her compete" no matter what the science says about testosterone levels and how it affects a woman's body is pretty shocking.

What does the science say? Does the science mention she has lost 10 fights to other boxers?

I don't think testosterone level is a very good proxy for "unfair advantage that is inconsistent with reason for dividing genders in sport." And there is absolutely no "scientific" consensus about what is the "correct" level of testosterone or how effective hormone-blocking drugs are in combatting that advantage, nor the precise medical harms that come from taking such blockers.

And I'm probably on the conservative side of 90% of the posters on this board on this issue. I just think that you have a fairly simplistic and unnuanced view of a complicated issue.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What does the science say? Does the science mention she has lost 10 fights to other boxers?

I don't think testosterone level is a very good proxy for "unfair advantage that is inconsistent with reason for dividing genders in sport." And there is absolutely no "scientific" consensus about what is the "correct" level of testosterone or how effective hormone-blocking drugs are in combatting that advantage, nor the precise medical harms that come from taking such blockers.

And I'm probably on the conservative side of 90% of the posters on this board on this issue. I just think that you have a fairly simplistic and unnuanced view of a complicated issue.

I agree the science isn't clear. I think her and Ms Lin's dominating performances in the Olympics are compelling evidence but not definitive. I'll add that amateur boxing is different as you tend to fight at a younger age against older boxers to gain experience. Mike Tyson lost 6 times as an amateur and went on to dominate the division for a decade as a pro. Lennox Lewis lost 9 times as an amateur.

I think my view is fairly nuanced allowing for other sexed women to compete at lower levels while excluding them from higher level competitions. Compare that to the most popular plan on this board which is other sexed can compete no matter what or in MAGA land where no one gets to compete. I haven't seen any other proposals on this thread but maybe I'm missing someone.

 

[TarHeelGrad]

I agree the science isn't clear. I think her and Ms Lin's dominating performances in the Olympics are compelling evidence but not definitive. I'll add that amateur boxing is different as you tend to fight at a younger age against older boxers to gain experience. Mike Tyson lost 6 times as an amateur and went on to dominate the division for a decade as a pro. Lennox Lewis lost 9 times as an amateur.

I think my view is fairly nuanced allowing for other sexed women to compete at lower levels while excluding them from higher level competitions. Compare that to the most popular plan on this board which is other sexed can compete no matter what or in MAGA land where no one gets to compete. I haven't seen any other proposals on this thread but maybe I'm missing someone.

There is a HUGE difference between someone who was born with male genitalia, went through puberty as a boy, and then transitioned (or is in the process of transitioning) to a woman vs. someone who was born with female genitalia and then went through puberty as a girl (speaking specifically about the boxer here). IMHO, testosterone should not come into play here. Or, if it does, males with exceptionally high testosterone levels should be held to the same standard, namely not being able to compete if their levels are too far outside "the norm" for their age bracket, whatever that may be.

As an example, my next-door neighbor growing up was 6' and 170 pounds by age 12. He was a swimmer, and looked absolutely ridiculous on the blocks against other 12-year olds. He was top ranked in the state in the 50 freestyle. Parents thought it was unfair that such a "beast" could compete against kids who were barely 5' tall. I think that he topped out around 6'7" and ended up playing football for Pitt. A true man among boys when he was younger.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

There is a HUGE difference between someone who was born with male genitalia, went through puberty as a boy, and then transitioned (or is in the process of transitioning) to a woman vs. someone who was born with female genitalia and then went through puberty as a girl (speaking specifically about the boxer here). IMHO, testosterone should not come into play here. Or, if it does, males with exceptionally high testosterone levels should be held to the same standard, namely not being able to compete if their levels are too far outside "the norm" for their age bracket, whatever that may be.

As an example, my next-door neighbor growing up was 6' and 170 pounds by age 12. He was a swimmer, and looked absolutely ridiculous on the blocks against other 12-year olds. He was top ranked in the state in the 50 freestyle. Parents thought it was unfair that such a "beast" could compete against kids who were barely 5' tall. I think that he topped out around 6'7" and ended up playing football for Pitt. A true man among boys when he was younger.

I definitely think testosterone is one of the factors that should come into play. It does give competitors a massive advantage over those that get much less through puberty. I think the case can be made that female genitalia at birth plus a y chromosome, like these two boxers, should not preclude them from competing in women's sports and I think the case could be made they they shouldn't be allowed to compete, like Caster Semanya at track and field. We could make a blanket rule for all competitions or we could make different decisions for each sport and level of competition taking into account safety and fairness.

But to ignore the effects of testosterone doesn't seem supported by science.

 

[grubar]

I agree the science isn't clear. I think her and Ms Lin's dominating performances in the Olympics are compelling evidence but not definitive. I'll add that amateur boxing is different as you tend to fight at a younger age against older boxers to gain experience. Mike Tyson lost 6 times as an amateur and went on to dominate the division for a decade as a pro. Lennox Lewis lost 9 times as an amateur.

I think my view is fairly nuanced allowing for other sexed women to compete at lower levels while excluding them from higher level competitions. Compare that to the most popular plan on this board which is other sexed can compete no matter what or in MAGA land where no one gets to compete. I haven't seen any other proposals on this thread but maybe I'm missing someone.

I claim no expertise here. But my sense is that under the broad umbrella of this topic, as it pertains to sports, there are about four categories of people:
(1) Some people are simply born with biological realities that are not identical to other boys or girls. Thus,for instance, the production of testosterone.
(2) Some infants are born with biological characteristics that generally yield some sort of very early medical intervention where parents opt for specific procedures and essentially "choose" a gender for the child
(3) some people - later in life - conclude that there is a disconnect between their bodies as biological realities and their own sense of self. And, unless MAGA morons intervene, they opt for medical transitions with the aid of doctors and support of parents
(4) Some athletes have used drugs to enhance their competitive position

Seems to me folks in groups #1 and #2 should certainly be left alone
Seems to me that folks in category #3 - who have transitioned - should be allowed to compete and it should be left to doctors and specialists - NOT MAGA morons - to assess how they can compete
Seems to me we all agree that medical interventions for competitive gains should be barred.

To repeat myself: There is a segment of our society which is anti-science and anti-expertise and anti-knowledge. I think they should have no voice in any topic tht calls for knowledge

 

[rodoheel]

No. There are several governing bodies that agree with me, including track and field and swimming.

"Several governing bodies" did not rule Khelif ineligible; one did. We don't know what other bodies (like those that govern track or swimming) would say about Khelif because they haven't reviewed any information or tested her.

 

[Calheel]

I definitely think testosterone is one of the factors that should come into play. It does give competitors a massive advantage over those that get much less through puberty. I think the case can be made that female genitalia at birth plus a y chromosome, like these two boxers, should not preclude them from competing in women's sports and I think the case could be made they they shouldn't be allowed to compete, like Caster Semanya at track and field. We could make a blanket rule for all competitions or we could make different decisions for each sport and level of competition taking into account safety and fairness.

But to ignore the effects of testosterone doesn't seem supported by science.

Again. Testosterone is not the only reason for the male athletic advantages over females and chemically lowering testosterone is not a "scientific" fix. Read some science for yourself. Stop thinking there are easy fixes for this situation by lowering testosterone.

The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[gtyellowjacket]

"Several governing bodies" did not rule Khelif ineligible; one did. We don't know what other bodies (like those that govern track or swimming) would say about Khelif because they haven't reviewed any information or tested her.

Correct and Ms Khelif may not fall under the other sexed criteria. We only have the claim of a biased boxing governing body who has not produced any test results they say they have.

But some women certainly do and we should be discussing policies on whether they should be allowed to compete.

 

[farce©]

Correct and Ms Khelif may not fall under the other sexed criteria. We only have the claim of a biased boxing governing body who has not produced any test results they say they have.

But some women certainly do and we should be discussing policies on whether they should be allowed to compete.

Yet you keep claiming she has a Y chromosome. We don’t know why the IBF banned her.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Again. Testosterone is not the only reason for the male athletic advantages over females and chemically lowering testosterone is not a "scientific" fix. Read some science for yourself. Stop thinking there are easy fixes for this situation by lowering testosterone.

The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Out of curiosity, when you googled this, how many links and scientific papers on the effects of testosterone on performance did you have to ignore before you got to this one?

 

[Zoo_View]

Yet you keep claiming she has a Y chromosome. We don’t know why the IBF banned her.

Someone on this thread is a perpetual contrarian and y’all keep engaging him.

It’s like you’ve set up to kick an important field goal in a big game; and, the contrarian has the goalposts on wheels.

Neither Morten Andersen nor Adam Vinatieri is making that kick because the goalposts will be on the move as soon as the ball is placed.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Yet you keep claiming she has a Y chromosome. We don’t know why the IBF banned her.

True enough. Both boxers have threatened legal action if the test results are released. That could be because the organization is a bunch of crooks or it could be because they don't want that genetic test out because of what it will show. But we certainly don't know if either boxer has a Y chromosome and I retract any statement implying they do.

 

[Calheel]

Out of curiosity, when you googled this, how many links and scientific papers on the effects of testosterone on performance did you have to ignore before you got to this one?

0.0%

This is a subject I've been paying close attention since the Dutee Chand case first became high-profile in 2014. You will note that the article, which I doubt you even read, is not biased in favor of any one position. It fairly discusses arguments on both sides of the testosterone debate and spends a good amount of time talking about the Chand case.

So, for essentially a decade I've had a nuanced understanding about testosterone testing and why it doesn't make sense as a solution to androgynous women and the alleged genetic advantages they have. You, on the other hand, appear to have read basically no scientific literature and then precede to tsk, tsk the rest of the board for being anti-science.

Honestly, you would benefit from taking some time to read the relevant literature and to educate yourself on the science before falsely moralizing to others on the board.

 

[Calheel]

True enough. Both boxers have threatened legal action if the test results are released. That could be because the organization is a bunch of crooks or it could be because they don't want that genetic test out because of what it will show. But we certainly don't know if either boxer has a Y chromosome and I retract any statement implying they do.

Well, I think it is pretty clear that she wasn't XX. The IBA letter says you need to be XX, and she failed that test because she was [redacted]. It doesn't take a great mental leap to understand that [redacted] probably had a Y in it somewhere, perhaps an XXY or XXXY or just XY, but most definitely not XX, because that is what the IBA was testing for.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

0.0%

This is a subject I've been paying close attention since the Dutee Chand case first became high-profile in 2014. You will note that the article, which I doubt you even read, is not biased in favor of any one position. It fairly discusses arguments on both sides of the testosterone debate and spends a good amount of time talking about the Chand case.

So, for essentially a decade I've had a nuanced understanding about testosterone testing and why it doesn't make sense as a solution to androgynous women and the alleged genetic advantages they have. You, on the other hand, appear to have read basically no scientific literature and then precede to tsk, tsk the rest of the board for being anti-science.

Honestly, you would benefit from taking some time to read the relevant literature and to educate yourself on the science before falsely moralizing to others on the board.

Perhaps you should have spent the last decade following the scientific literature a little more closely. Here are several more recent articles that describe the advantages that testosterone provides:

Female hyperandrogenism and elite sport - PMC

Emerging evidence indicates that testosterone, which can increase muscle mass and strength, stimulates erythropoiesis, promotes competitive behaviour, and enhances the physical performance of women. Indeed, the levels of testosterone within the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance - PMC

Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study | British Journal of Sports Medicine

Once again, "I definitely think testosterone is one of the factors that should come into play. It does give competitors a massive advantage over those that get much less through puberty."

 

[Ddseddse]

Correct and Ms Khelif may not fall under the other sexed criteria. We only have the claim of a biased boxing governing body who has not produced any test results they say they have.

But some women certainly do and we should be discussing policies on whether they should be allowed to compete.

No.

"We" shouldn't.

The governing bodies are all over this and have been from the start. WTF do you think that "we" have to add to this conversation?

How about "we" STFU and let the governing bodies which are 1) existentially vested in the outcome, 2) have expertise at their disposal that none of us have, 3) are in possession of the specific facts about individual cases that we are blind to... how about "we" let them get on with their business and "we" stop butting our ignorant noses in where they don't belong.

 

[Calheel]

Perhaps you should have spent the last decade following the scientific literature a little more closely. Here are several more recent articles that describe the advantages that testosterone provides:

Female hyperandrogenism and elite sport - PMC

Emerging evidence indicates that testosterone, which can increase muscle mass and strength, stimulates erythropoiesis, promotes competitive behaviour, and enhances the physical performance of women. Indeed, the levels of testosterone within the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance - PMC

Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study | British Journal of Sports Medicine

Once again, "I definitely think testosterone is one of the factors that should come into play. It does give competitors a massive advantage over those that get much less through puberty."

Out of curiosity, how many articles on Google did you have to skip over before you got to those two.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

No.

"We" shouldn't.

The governing bodies are all over this and have been from the start. WTF do you think that "we" have to add to this conversation?

How about "we" STFU and let the governing bodies which are 1) existentially vested in the outcome, 2) have expertise at their disposal that none of us have, 3) are in possession of the specific facts about individual cases that we are blind to... how about "we" let them get on with their business and "we" stop butting our ignorant noses in where they don't belong.

No. I think all of us ( or almost all of us) can continue to discuss the various issues involved like adults.

Out of curiosity, how many articles on Google did you have to skip over before you got to those two.

The first was number one. The second one was I think number four.