Gender in Sport (Split)

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

It's one of the areas where a single universally accepted description would clearly be helpful. 

But a second ago you just said that not being able to define what a woman is isn't a problem? 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

It's one of the areas where a single universally accepted description would clearly be helpful. 

Is this where you go on a moral crusade now because I didn't explicitly say 'Of course they should be' women only?'

They need to be safe for the victims, regardless of gender. 

A rape crisis centre was just one example. The more general point is that clearly there are times when women require women only spaces. As you said, a definition of a woman is therefore required in order to allow those spaces to exist. You said you didn't see the lack of a definition as a problem but clearly it is for the reasons I've just outlined. 

[Colinjb]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But a second ago you just said that not being able to define what a woman is isn't a problem? 

To me. This debate exists and causes issues precisely because it's difficult to provide an ans....

Here we go again. 

It is the arguing with an idiot scenario I mentioned earlier. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

To me. This debate exists and causes issues precisely because it's difficult to provide an ans....

Here we go again. 

It is the arguing with an idiot scenario I mentioned earlier. 

Is it really necessary to throw around the insults again? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. 

So your view is that you are unable to provide a workable definition of what a woman is. You accept that a definition is necessary but it would have to come from someone else with a greater understanding or more education on the matter that you hope people would be able to build a consensus around? Have I got that right? What would you propose we use in the meantime prior to getting this definition and what if it isn't possible to come up with a definition that you believe would be satisfactory? Who do you think should assist in formulating this definition if you are unable to come up with one? You'd have to continue to exclude biological males from women only spaces in the meantime and you'd have to use some sort of definition to do that. 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Where is it reported that Khalif has testicles ?

It hasn't been. It seems that Hypo made that up. 

Khelif has been found to be a biological woman, notwithstanding her chromosomes and hormones.

Hilarious that blokes on a football forum think that they know better, and expect people to be able to explain why they support that independent finding.Those agreeing with the independent decision don't have to justify a thing. 

Fuck me, this place. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It hasn't been. It seems that Hypo made that up. 

Khelif has been found to be a biological woman, notwithstanding her chromosomes and hormones.

Hilarious that blokes on a football forum think that they know better, and expect people to be able to explain why they support that independent finding.Those agreeing with the independent decision don't have to justify a thing. 

Fuck me, this place. 

I didn't make it up. I provided an answer to that post but it seems it's been removed when the topic was moved to its own thread. 

It may be the case that things have been misreported from yesterday. We may have to wait and see. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I didn't make it up. I provided an answer to that post but it seems it's been removed when the topic was moved to its own thread. 

It may be the case that things have been misreported from yesterday. We may have to wait and see. 

I think it's an answer that you want. Khelif is a woman.

What makes you feel qualified to argue against an independent finding? You're a dog with a bone on this, but have zero credentials as far as I know to argue as you do.

Sure, have your opinion that she's a geezer if that's what you're saying, but don't be expecting other people to come up with stupid definitions to when they don't agree with you, and don't have to. 

[Weston Super Saint]

According to my education - A in GCSE biology - combined with having seen Crocodile Dundee, I can formally state :

Tits and a fanny = a woman

Cock and balls = a man

That is the definition that everyone can get behind.

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's an answer that you want. Khelif is a woman.

What makes you feel qualified to argue against an independent finding? You're a dog with a bone on this, but have zero credentials as far as I know to argue as you do.

Sure, have your opinion that she's a geezer if that's what you're saying, but don't be expecting other people to come up with stupid definitions to when they don't agree with you, and don't have to. 

I wasn't arguing against an independent finding. A statement was released that I read earlier today which said she is a biological woman so doesn't have XY chromosomes. That is different from what was reported yesterday. 

That's an entirely separate issue from what a woman is. No one asked for a stupid definition of what a woman is, I simply asked if he had any definition at all and he's said that he isn't capable of providing an adequate one. 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[Challenger]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Not quite as hilarious as some of the desperate comments on here, but I've still awarded it one of those smiley face things.

Edited August 2 by Challenger

[Turkish]

 

[saint francis]

If only they boxed naked we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

[saint francis]

Actually I'm not sure it would make things any clearer.  As you were.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My money is on this bird for the gold…

 

 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I think it's an answer that you want. Khelif is a woman.

What makes you feel qualified to argue against an independent finding? You're a dog with a bone on this, but have zero credentials as far as I know to argue as you do.

Sure, have your opinion that she's a geezer if that's what you're saying, but don't be expecting other people to come up with stupid definitions to when they don't agree with you, and don't have to. 

Had another look into this and it appears that there is an IBA dna test that was not disputed by the athlete which is where the claim about XY chromosomes comes from. The ioc statement today rather contradicts that. If I were the athlete and the IBA are incorrect then I'd probably sue them. 

There's a few academics suggesting Khelif is 46XY 5ARD which would make them genetically male but this could be incorrect. 

This is an interesting article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I think it's an answer that you want. Khelif is a woman.

What makes you feel qualified to argue against an independent finding? You're a dog with a bone on this, but have zero credentials as far as I know to argue as you do.

Sure, have your opinion that she's a geezer if that's what you're saying, but don't be expecting other people to come up with stupid definitions to when they don't agree with you, and don't have to. 

Really good science of sport podcast from a noted sports scientist. Explains why this athlete is a man:

https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/paris-special-episode-males-are-about-to-fight-in-womens/id1461719225?i=1000664021676

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, pingpong said:

She failed a secretive test (unknown protocol or reliability) run by a discredited organisation, which has no relevance to the Olympics.  She is biologically female, no evidence of xy chromosomes, no evidence of testicles, this whole argument is just weird.  She's not transgender or intersex, this whole thing is based on baseless assumptions because of what the IBA did before they were suspended and stripped of their status.

 

The IBA say the opposite. Why would they lie? For what purpose? If they had made up the test why would the athletes accept it and not appeal? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this if you get the opportunity to listen:

https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/paris-special-episode-males-are-about-to-fight-in-womens/id1461719225?i=1000664021676

[Sheaf Saint]

Wow. Went out fir a few hours and he's still on his crusade I see.

So basically Hypo, what you're saying is that your entire argument is based on some completely unverified reports you read somewhere else online but can't actually substantiate. That kind of ignorant rumour-mongering is what led to the violence on the streets of Southport the other day. 

And for the love of God would you please stop referring to Khelif as 'them'. It makes you look like a colossal prick.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Wow. Went out fir a few hours and he's still on his crusade I see.

So basically Hypo, what you're saying is that your entire argument is based on some completely unverified reports you read somewhere else online but can't actually substantiate. That kind of ignorant rumour-mongering is what led to the violence on the streets of Southport the other day. 

And for the love of God would you please stop referring to Khelif as 'them'. It makes you look like a colossal prick.

The IBA claimed that Khalif has XY chromosomes. Khalif had the opportunity to appeal this decision to the independent CAS to irrefutably prove this to be a lie but decided not to do so. Why not? 

I assume you will be unable to define what a woman is either. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The IBA claimed that Khalif has XY chromosomes. Khalif had the opportunity to appeal this decision to the independent CAS to irrefutably prove this to be a lie but decided not to do so. Why not? 

I assume you will be unable to define what a woman is either. 

You care a little too much about this Hypo. 

It's lovely outside. 

[Sheaf Saint]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The IBA claimed that Khalif has XY chromosomes. Khalif had the opportunity to appeal this decision to the independent CAS to irrefutably prove this to be a lie but decided not to do so. Why not? 

You keep referring to this dodgy test by the IBA as proof, but even they would not go so far as to state that Khelif is biologically male, so how you can do that despite never having seen the results of this secretive test they did is beyond me.

As to why she withdrew her appeal against this, I cannot say. There are numerous reasons why she might have done that, but it does not in any way prove your case.

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I assume you will be unable to define what a woman is either. 

Seeing as there is no watertight universal definition, no. And neither will you. But this is just a deflection on your part to distract from the key issue here, which is you being unable to substantiate your claim about Khelif being a man. 

As far as I am concerned, if someone presents as a woman, identifies as a woman, has female genitalia, is registered as a female on birth certificate, raised as a girl, and passed multiple gender tests to allow her to compete as a woman, then she is a woman. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

You care a little too much about this Hypo. 

It's lovely outside. 

Yet you're replying on the thread about it. You're absolutely free to just not respond. I've just watched gb win a silver in the pool so quite capable of watching that and typing on here. 

[Turkish]

So is it a bird or a bloke?

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

You keep referring to this dodgy test by the IBA as proof, but even they would not go so far as to state that Khelif is biologically male, so how you can do that despite never having seen the results of this secretive test they did is beyond me.

As to why she withdrew her appeal against this, I cannot say. There are numerous reasons why she might have done that, but it does not in any way prove your case.

Seeing as there is no watertight universal definition, no. And neither will you. But this is just a deflection on your part to distract from the key issue here, which is you being unable to substantiate your claim about Khelif being a man. 

As far as I am concerned, if someone presents as a woman, identifies as a woman, has female genitalia, is registered as a female on birth certificate, raised as a girl, and passed multiple gender tests to allow her to compete as a woman, then she is a woman. 

Khelif and Lin are not believed to be transgender, and @ReduxxMag made that VERY clear in our July 28 article.

They are believed to be impacted by a Difference of Sexual Development, in which there is a developmental abnormality in secondary sex characteristics. This is a medical condition which can manifest with children being born with ambiguous or disfigured genitalia. Male children impacted by DSDs are often "assigned female at birth" due to these genital defects, as there is a genuine assumption they are girls.

Thus, their identification documents would be completely irrelevant in this case. As is the fact they were "raised as girls." That's entirely expected for male children with DSDs.

Even more so for male children with DSDs in socially conservative countries.

Is a boy without a penis more likely to be raised as a boy or a girl? Exactly.

Over the last 72 hours, the IBA has released two separate statements confirming that Khelif and Lin were not subject to testosterone testing, but had instead been subjected to a separate test validated by two independent laboratories.

That test confirmed they were not eligible to compete in women's boxing as per the IBA guidelines.

Crucially, the IBA defines "woman" as "an individual with XX chromosomes." In their guidelines, they also indicate that the gender tests they use to determine if a person is eligible to compete with women is a chromosomal test, not a hormone test.

In their second statement, the IBA condemned the IOC for allowing Khelif and Lin to proceed as they believed it was putting female boxers at risk and that they did not support "boxing between the genders."

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a fully independent tribunal which oversees all disputes in elite athletics. Every athlete has a right to bring a case to the CAS.

Lin did not challenge the disqualification.

Khelif challenged the disqualification but withdrew the appeal before it could proceed through the court.

Please ask yourself why. If they were genuinely female,  why would they have chosen to refuse their opportunity to establish that in an irrefutable and legally binding way at a fully independent venue? Literally none of this would have happened had they simply submitted their tests to the CAS.

Buuuut... Consider that all decisions at the CAS are public information. It was through a CAS challenge that the world became aware that Caster Semenya had XY chromosomes, for example.

If Khelif and Lin had proceeded through the CAS, there would have been irrefutable evidence, documented by an independent body, that they were either male or female.

So why? Why did they not want the CAS to examine their tests? Why did they not want this information to be public? I think the reason is obvious.

The IOC has long had an issue with the IBA because the IBA has refused to disqualify Russian athletes on the basis of their national identity.

Claims of the IBA's "corruption" can basically be summarized to "Russia bad, Russians evil." The IBA has literally no history of bullshitting about the sex of boxers involved and it doesn't benefit them in any kind of way to do so. 
 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

11 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Seeing as there is no watertight universal definition, no. And neither will you

Being born with reproductive organs which produce either eggs or sperm is a perfectly straight forward definition which covers 99.999% of the population. The very small number whose organs produce either both or neither are clearly hard to define but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. As far as I’m aware Khelif ovulates and is therefore a woman, the issue here is one of fairness and testosterone imbalances, rather than gender definition.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

Being born with reproductive organs which produce either eggs or sperm is a perfectly straight forward definition which covers 99.999% of the population. The very small number whose organs produce either both or neither are clearly hard to define but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. As far as I’m aware Khelif ovulates and is therefore a woman, the issue here is one of fairness and testosterone imbalances, rather than gender definition.

That isn't the issue according to the podcast I posted above and the FAQ I posted from the woman who broke the story. 

[Colinjb]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Being born with reproductive organs which produce either eggs or sperm is a perfectly straight forward definition which covers 99.999% of the population. The very small number whose organs produce either both or neither are clearly hard to define but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. As far as I’m aware Khelif ovulates and is therefore a woman, the issue here is one of fairness and testosterone imbalances, rather than gender definition.

A friend of mine was born without everything from the cervix up. But very clearly female. One of the recent contestants on Race Across the World had the same condition. 

Just shows, it's so difficult to do. 

[Sheaf Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Khelif and Lin are not believed to be transgender, and @ReduxxMag made that VERY clear in our July 28 article.

They are believed to be impacted by a Difference of Sexual Development, in which there is a developmental abnormality in secondary sex characteristics. This is a medical condition which can manifest with children being born with ambiguous or disfigured genitalia. Male children impacted by DSDs are often "assigned female at birth" due to these genital defects, as there is a genuine assumption they are girls.

Thus, their identification documents would be completely irrelevant in this case. As is the fact they were "raised as girls." That's entirely expected for male children with DSDs.

Even more so for male children with DSDs in socially conservative countries.

Is a boy without a penis more likely to be raised as a boy or a girl? Exactly.

Over the last 72 hours, the IBA has released two separate statements confirming that Khelif and Lin were not subject to testosterone testing, but had instead been subjected to a separate test validated by two independent laboratories.

That test confirmed they were not eligible to compete in women's boxing as per the IBA guidelines.

Crucially, the IBA defines "woman" as "an individual with XX chromosomes." In their guidelines, they also indicate that the gender tests they use to determine if a person is eligible to compete with women is a chromosomal test, not a hormone test.

In their second statement, the IBA condemned the IOC for allowing Khelif and Lin to proceed as they believed it was putting female boxers at risk and that they did not support "boxing between the genders."

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a fully independent tribunal which oversees all disputes in elite athletics. Every athlete has a right to bring a case to the CAS.

Lin did not challenge the disqualification.

Khelif challenged the disqualification but withdrew the appeal before it could proceed through the court.

Please ask yourself why. If they were genuinely female,  why would they have chosen to refuse their opportunity to establish that in an irrefutable and legally binding way at a fully independent venue? Literally none of this would have happened had they simply submitted their tests to the CAS.

Buuuut... Consider that all decisions at the CAS are public information. It was through a CAS challenge that the world became aware that Caster Semenya had XY chromosomes, for example.

If Khelif and Lin had proceeded through the CAS, there would have been irrefutable evidence, documented by an independent body, that they were either male or female.

So why? Why did they not want the CAS to examine their tests? Why did they not want this information to be public? I think the reason is obvious.

You think it's obvious, because the assumption you are making supports the narrative that you want to be true. But have you even considered other possibilities? I suspect not.

Perhaps because she realised that the appeal would only be relevant to the disqualification in 2023 and would therefore not change anything, so it wasn't worth the stress of going through an appeals procedure when the body that disqualified her has been completely discredited and it would not stop her from being able to compete in other competitions hosted by bodies that are satisfied with her gender eligibility. 

Or, given the dodgy nature of the Russian-led IBA, perhaps she was being threatened somehow, or offered incentives to drop the matter. We'll never know.

Quite simply, there is not enough information out in the public domain to settle this one way or the other with any certainty. But what is certain is that your earlier claim that simply having XY chromosomes makes you biologically male is false, given that not even the IBA are making such a claim in this case.

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

A friend of mine was born without everything from the cervix up. But very clearly female. One of the recent contestants on Race Across the World had the same condition. 

Just shows, it's so difficult to do. 

Yes but that’s quite clearly a person with female reproductive organs, which would produce eggs, if healthy and free from deformities or abnormalities. It’s not difficult at all, it’s a very clear and straight forward definition.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

You think it's obvious, because the assumption you are making supports the narrative that you want to be true. But have you even considered other possibilities? I suspect not.

Perhaps because she realised that the appeal would only be relevant to the disqualification in 2023 and would therefore not change anything, so it wasn't worth the stress of going through an appeals procedure when the body that disqualified her has been completely discredited and it would not stop her from being able to compete in other competitions hosted by bodies that are satisfied with her gender eligibility. 

Or, given the dodgy nature of the Russian-led IBA, perhaps she was being threatened somehow, or offered incentives to drop the matter. We'll never know.

Quite simply, there is not enough information out in the public domain to settle this one way or the other with any certainty. But what is certain is that your earlier claim that simply having XY chromosomes makes you biologically male is false, given that not even the IBA are making such a claim in this case.

Had they just proceeded at the CAS, they would have not only had a definitive record that they were female but they likely could have had a settlement of some kind as compensation for their denial of opportunity. Almost no reason not to do this other than the conspiracy theory you've come up with in your response which seems wildly less plausible. What possible reason would they have to induce the athlete not to appeal? Why would the IBA lie in the first place? 

Khalif has high levels of testosterone. If they have XY as alleged  but they don't identify as transgender then that only really leaves one option. 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[Colinjb]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Yes but that’s quite clearly a person with female reproductive organs, which would produce eggs, if healthy and free from deformities or abnormalities. It’s not difficult at all, it’s a very clear and straight forward definition.

I remember her at school, we were learning about the seven life processes. 'MRS GREN,' one of them is reproduction. 

Her hand went up immediately bless her. 'Sir, I cannot reproduce, does this mean I'm not alive!?' 

Even when it comes to determining what is alive or not it's not clear cut..... Never mind something like biological sex. 

Edited August 2 by Colinjb

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Khalif has high levels of testosterone. 

Where are you getting that information from? 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Where are you getting that information from? 

Imane Khalif was cleared to compete at the 2024 Olympics having earlier failed a testosterone level test, but her opponent Angela Carini made an early exit during a first round meeting

Khelif was disqualified during the boxing world championships last year after "elevated levels of testosterone failed to meet the eligibility criteria," according to the IOC's website.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

So is it a bird or a bloke?

Maybe an amalgamation of both.

Let's go with a "broke"???

[Colinjb]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe an amalgamation of both.

Let's go with a "broke"???

Better then "Bike." Depending on your perspective. 

[Colinjb]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

For 99% of the population your reproductive organs are enough. There is no social convention on gender.

On the contrary. The definition of sex and gender we work from in teaching is that you have biological sex and gender identity. 

So, Gender, by definition is all about social convention. What society expects a girl or boy to be. 

The biology of the situation, which has been the hill to die on here, is actually 'sex.' 

Edited August 2 by Colinjb

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe an amalgamation of both.

Let's go with a "broke"???

Blird ?

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

On the contrary. The definition of sex and gender we work from in teaching is that you have biological sex and gender identity. 

So, Gender, by definition is all about social convention. What society expects a girl or boy to be. 

The biology of the situation, which has been the hill to die on here, is actually 'sex.' 

How many genders are there? 

[Colinjb]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How many genders are there? 

I'm not entering into this rabbit hole again. 

Go outside you sad sack and stick that non-sequitur up your arse. (Yeah, look that up, you need to.) 

Edited August 2 by Colinjb

[Lighthouse]

10 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

On the contrary. The definition of sex and gender we work from in teaching is that you have biological sex and gender identity. 

So, Gender, by definition is all about social convention. What society expects a girl or boy to be. 

The biology of the situation, which has been the hill to die on here, is actually 'sex.' 

People say this a lot and it's always where the argument starts and ends. "Gender identity is different from biological sex." Then that's it, no definition, no context, no examples. For me to believe that, I'd have to agree to somebody else's ideas of 'man behaviour' and 'woman behaviour' which are personal, subjective and have no basis in science or factual information.

That whole argument can essentially be reduced to, "I self identify as myself," which is just meaningless.

[Colinjb]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

People say this a lot and it's always where the argument starts and ends. "Gender identity is different from biological sex." Then that's it, no definition, no context, no examples. For me to believe that, I'd have to agree to somebody else's ideas of 'man behaviour' and 'woman behaviour' which are personal, subjective and have no basis in science or factual information.

That whole argument can essentially be reduced to, "I self identify as myself," which is just meaningless.

I'll be fair, it's a simplification, albeit one I can rationalise. I need to communicate this to children and it's a starting point. 

The self identification point. Alas, it's where we are. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

I'm not entering into this rabbit hole again. 

Go outside you sad sack and stick that non-sequitur up your arse. (Yeah, look that up, you need to.) 

Those pesky restrictive things like asking for definitions again. Tricky. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

I'll be fair, it's a simplification, albeit one I can rationalise. I need to communicate this to children and it's a starting point. 

The self identification point. Alas, it's where we are. 

Goodness me. This absolutely should not be communicated to children under any circumstances. Do any children in your care ever ask you what a woman is? Do you tell them it's too complex to answer? No wonder we have so many messed up children with so many bizarre definitions. 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[Colinjb]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

More shite

Why do you need two quotes to ask a point?

You points are irrelevant to me now.

Edited August 2 by Colinjb

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Why do you need two quotes to ask a point?

You points are irrelevant to me now.

Yes because you were never able to answer what a woman is. You claimed to be unable to formulate a definition and were unable to tell me who should formulate a working definition in the meantime. It's absurd. 

There's no such thing as acting like a man or acting like a woman. If I decide to wear a dress and act in a way that I believe women act I'm still a biological man. Gender is invented bullshit full of offensive stereotypes. You can act in whatever manner you choose, it doesn't make you a new type of gender. 

Edited August 2 by hypochondriac

[egg]

50 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Imane Khalif was cleared to compete at the 2024 Olympics having earlier failed a testosterone level test, but her opponent Angela Carini made an early exit during a first round meeting

Khelif was disqualified during the boxing world championships last year after "elevated levels of testosterone failed to meet the eligibility criteria," according to the IOC's website.

The fact that the ioc and the boxing body can't agree highlights that this is more nuanced than the cock/balls or tits/fanny definition that you're desperate for people to make. 

[Colinjb]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

The fact that the ioc and the boxing body can't agree highlights that this is more nuanced than the cock/balls or tits/fanny definition that you're desperate for people to make. 

Save yourself from that idiot. Just let him roll in the mud he needs. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The fact that the ioc and the boxing body can't agree highlights that this is more nuanced than the cock/balls or tits/fanny definition that you're desperate for people to make. 

The reason they don't agree is because the IOC stopped sex testing athletes in 1999, instead deferring to individual sporting bodies but there is no formal oversight body for boxing which has never happened before so the IOC has created an adhoc boxing unit to oversee eligibility that has no guidelines for gender eligibility and has apparently been allowing boxers to compete as females if they have gender markers on their passports. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Colinjb said:

Save yourself from that idiot. Just let him roll in the mud he needs. 

I'm the idiot yet you're the one who can't define what a woman is or tell me how many genders there are. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

The reason they don't agree is because the IOC stopped sex testing athletes in 1999, instead deferring to individual sporting bodies but there is no formal oversight body for boxing which has never happened before so the IOC has created an adhoc boxing unit to oversee eligibility that has no guidelines for gender eligibility and has apparently been allowing boxers to compete as females if they have gender markers on their passports. 

So the ioc and iba can't agree, but you expect others on a forum to either agree with you or spell out a definition, for you to disagree with and go round in fucking circles. 

I'm out. Ta ra.