World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
So put those women in a higher class. There are plenty of women with "masculine" physiques... or are you going to claim Brittney Griner is also not a woman?
I don't think it's fair to penalize a woman who works all her life to get to a certain level and just make her compete against someone who maybe hasn't had to work at all because they are physically male. If anything, we need to make a class for people who are physically male but presenting female.
Are you talking about Khelif? How do you know she is "physically male?" What does that even mean? Is Brittney Griner "physically male?" Because she looks bigger and stronger than Khelif.
As far as I can tell, that reliable information isn't out there other than the fact that a Russian judge said she tested as XY and that she's tested for high testosterone. I'd say XY is a pretty good starting place to call someone male or at least not traditionally female, if that test can be trusted.
But I think a lot of the controversy here comes from a lack of trustable info.
You mean the Russian judge who said that after she beat her Russian opponent? Cool. Let's see the evidence.
You aren't believing a Russian judge, of all people, without evidence, are you?
Also, does that mean anyone with XY gonadal dysgenesis needs to be genetically tested before they're allowed to compete? If so, at what age should they be tested? The youngest Olympian this year is a 12-year-old skateboarder from China. The youngest Olympican ever was an 11-year-old figure skater from China.
Now... bear in mind that many women who have that particular condition are not even aware that they have it.
Would you be willing to support either genetic testing or genital examination of 11 or 12-year-old girls? Do you think that might make girls and women less likely to aspire to be athletes than they might occasionally have to compete against a "man?" Because I sure do.
No, I'm not saying I believe him, and yes I would like to see the evidence. It's pretty hard to draw conclusions without it.
And no I don't support genital inspections of 12 year old girls, and frankly don't think genital inspections are probably the best way to decide this. I think chromosomes and hormone levels are probably the best we have, and maybe there's just a class for athletes that fall outside the norms for their sex, similar to weight classes, because it's pretty clear that it does give a huge advantage.
But it's worth considering that maybe 12 year olds just shouldn't be in the Olympics in the first place.
Why not, if they're the best athletes in their country?
Also, it is far more complicated than you have any idea about. This person can explain it better than me:
Fair enough. But why not handle these exceptions in the rules then? If they don't confer a major competitive advantage then let them compete as the sex they feel like.
But I don't think we can draw this out to a full blown man who identifies as a woman so gets to compete against women. As usual, there is a sensible middle ground, and you have to get into the weeds a bit to sort it out.
Its like people who say only "pure capitalism" or "pure communism" is the best system, when in fact they are both garbage options, and the best is actually capitalism constrained by socialist policies like in Scandinavia. Yes, it's messy and complicated and hard to figure out, but that's pretty much always the case for coming to the best result.
The extremes on either side are almost always wrong.
What is a "full blown man" in your definition based on what I pasted above?
Also, who gets to decide that and what is the test?
Anyone who fails the tests for the other cases you list. The governing body of the sport gets to decide, and tests are decided by scientists and doctors.
The governing sport body in this case being the IOC. Who did decide. You just don't seem to care for their decision.
So make up your mind.
When did I say I didn't like their decision? I said I wanted more information.
Why? They decided she qualified. That should be enough.
For the same reason anyone wants to know anything. Because if anyone is to have an informed conversation about this, we need to know how they come to their conclusions. Their lack of transparency is a large part of why this controversy exists in the first place.
It's none of your business what's between their legs or in their chromosomes. This wouldn't even be a question for anyone who wasn't an athlete.
Yes because outside of athletics it doesn't really matter.
Which do you think would be more likely to discourage girls and women from participating in competitive sports, the chance that they might have to compete against a "real" woman or the requirement that they let everyone else know about their private medical records?
I don't think any of this matters until you get to college level or olympic level sports, at which point I highly doubt it would dissuade any would be competitor. But I do think if it got bad enough it could dissuade women. For example, if you just let men compete openly and without scrutiny in any women's athletics competition, which seems to be what some people are advocating for here.
The youngest Olympian this year was 12. The youngest Olympian ever was 11.
Why? Why would any woman want to not only prove their biological sex, but allow that private medical information to be public?
How about letting women compete openly and without scrutiny in any men's athletics competition? Shouldn't men be tested too?
All of this I've covered in this thread except the last point.
I don't have any problem with women competing openly and without scrutiny in men's athletics competition because I can't think of any sport where it would confer an advantage. If there were one, I would be against it in that sport. Though safety would still need to be a consideration in any contact sport.
Also worth mentioning, I am not against the idea of getting away from the idea of having sports separated by sex completely, and somehow tiering them by ability. But I think that would be exceedingly difficult to do in a way where it was safe and fair for everyone, especially when it comes to boxing and martial arts. But for other non contact sports, I don't see any reason to have a division by sex at all, just have tiers from best to worst.
Which other threads? I'm supposed to find everything you wrote in conversations with other people in the hopes that I can find out why you think an 11-year-old Olympian shouldn't have their gender tested but an 18-year-old Olympian should?
Also, how do you define a gender-based advantage in a sport? Can you define it?
Also covered under the threads spawning from this parent thread. I'm starting to feel trolled here, so please just read the comments under this parent thread, I've answered all your points already.
I'm trolling because you expect me to find all of your other conversations in a thread with over 150 posts to find out whether or not you actually answered my questions and I find that unreasonable? Really?
They are literally all in branches of this thread. I'm not going to keep answering the same questions over and over (many of which I already answered for you specifically).