BBC Article Explains Olympic Boxing’s "Gender Row"

VintageBetter

VintageBetter

Senior Member
Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting: What does science tell us about boxing’s gender row in Olympics?

"A frenzied debate has raged over the International Olympic Committee clearing the duo to compete in the women's boxing in Paris, despite them having been disqualified from last year's Women's World Championships for failing to meet eligibility criteria.

Amid the heat, science is shedding increasing light on our different chromosomal make-ups and what advantages they may bring to sport.

But the research is ongoing and even among the experts who spend their professional lives working on it, there are differing interpretations on what the science tells us.

We do know that the process of sex determination starts when a foetus is developing. Most females get two X chromosomes (XX), while most males get an X and a Y chromosome (XY).

Chromosomes influence a person's sex. But hormones are important too, before birth - as well as later on during puberty. While the baby is still growing in the womb, hormones help the reproductive organs develop.

However, at some point through the pregnancy some babies’ reproductive organs don’t develop in the way most people's do.

This can be caused by conditions called DSDs: differences in sex development…."
 

I commented about the Paris Olympics in a different thread a week or so back and received a lecture about it from another member. Seemed he felt the thread was his property and he would make rules about what could or could not be discussed. That being said, like many recent events the Paris Olympics appear to be rife with controversial issues. I liken it to the half time shows of the US Super Bowl, which seem to have become a contest to identify the most controversial display, and worthy of censorship for a family audience.
 
There's a second boxer and a shot putter also. Known 'science' should be subject to debate or change but certain things are a given or constant like gravity(until the apocolypse)

The IOC seems to be doing more gymnastics than the athletes with their 'science'
 

CarolfromTX said:
There needs to be some kind of standard across the board, or it will be the death of women’s sports.
Click to expand...
You might be right.
Reportedly the IOC, determination of a person's sex is proved by whatever it says on their passport.
Sex determination ought to be based on a karyotype test-- a blood test which shows whether XX or XY.
 
ChiroDoc said:
You might be right.
Reportedly the IOC, determination of a person's sex is proved by whatever it says on their passport.
Sex determination ought to be based on a karyotype test-- a blood test which shows whether XX or XY.
Click to expand...
But there also needs to be a test for hormones. Because those boxers had some pretty high testosterone levels, whether it was natural or enhanced.
 
TennVet said:
I commented about the Paris Olympics in a different thread a week or so back and received a lecture about it from another member. Seemed he felt the thread was his property and he would make rules about what could or could not be discussed. That being said, like many recent events the Paris Olympics appear to be rife with controversial issues. I liken it to the half time shows of the US Super Bowl, which seem to have become a contest to identify the most controversial display, and worthy of censorship for a family audience.
Click to expand...
The truth is, media highlights the controversies to GET PEOPLE TO CONSUME media. They need your eyes on the screen and if you are doing other things, like living life, they will highlight some new controversy to get you to pay attention to them.

Example: In current news, which is so focused on the topic we cannot discuss on this site, now they are pouring over every real or imagined controversy about any and all candidates. I find it to be so boring and I cannot wait for November.

When did the news media decide it had to turn a major election into a torture cycle? IDK. But that’s how they do it.

Long gone are rational, calm discussions about each side’s platform positions. They save that for the debates so we, the sheep, will tune in.

Media Studies 101 should be required in every high school in America. Teach the young people how the game works and who is making the most money from it.
 
VintageBetter said:
The truth is, media highlights the controversies to GET PEOPLE TO CONSUME media. They need your eyes on the screen and if you are doing other things, like living life, they will highlight some new controversy to get you to pay attention to them.

Example: In current news, which is so focused on the topic we cannot discuss on this site, now they are pouring over every real or imagined controversy about any and all candidates. I find it to be so boring and I cannot wait for November.

When did the news media decide it had to turn a major election into a torture cycle? IDK. But that’s how they do it.

Long gone are rational, calm discussions about each side’s platform positions. They save that for the debates so we, the sheep, will tune in.

Media Studies 101 should be required in every high school in America. Teach the young people how the game works and who is making the most money from it.
Click to expand...
I may be completely wrong but I think the decline in journalism, media, the news can trace the downward movement to CNN and its sudden popularity, and the expansion of cable TV. It's like all the broadcast outlets were at the starting blocks for the 100 yard dash. The race for ratings was on. Seems like overnight there were 24/7 so called news channels everywhere. Then look at the absence of broadcast icons like Cronkite, and Huntley - Brinkley.

We were in the new era of embedded reporters, shock jocks, Dan Rather and his big flog, drunk Diane Sawyer, made up news from Peter Jennings. The list goes on and it really isn't a glowing tribute to what once was a trusted and honorable profession. Is it any wonder that politicians saw an election gold mine in free advertising simply by encouraging bias, sound bytes and edited interviews. Then ad the fact that advertisers joined in the fray by feeding millions into the ratings mill.
 
As I mentioned in the other thread, the problem for me isn't the fighters involved - it's with the governing bodies. Too many sports are tip-toeing around the transgender issue because they're afraid of it. And who is paying a price for this waffling? Women! Who would have thought it?

Can you imagine committing yourself to years of sacrifice and hard work, only to be out-muscled by a man? It's truly shocking. The Olympic Committee really screwed up.
 
 
againstthegrain said:
"It has become obvious that sex determination, according to the genetic sex, is a complicated matter that not only requires the presence of Y chromosome. But, is only the genetic sex that defines gender? What about the internal *******ia, which after all specify the reproductive ability of a person? It is known that testes formation require the presence of two hormones: testosterone and AMH. So, a mutation of their gene or of their receptor gene results in feminization of the internal *******ia despite the presence of the Y chromosome."


Plenty of studies out there indicate that there is much that is not known about this topic and it's WAY more complicated than most make it out to be.
Click to expand...

In the case of the boxer at the Olympics, it is very complex. The fighter had never lived as a man, and physically present traits of female - from birth!

It's complex, and it's important to ensure fair play, which is why the IOC has failed. These decisions should be made at the top.
 
^^^At the top of what? And what factors should be considered by whomever makes the decision?

Unfortunately the 2nd question is apparently unanswerable at the moment.

One thing I'm certain of is a corrupt sports body should NOT be the final word.
 
againstthegrain said:
^^^At the top of what? And what factors should be considered by whomever makes the decision?

Unfortunately the 2nd question is apparently unanswerable at the moment.

One thing I'm certain of is a corrupt sports body should NOT be the final word.
Click to expand...

The "top" in this case are the governing bodies for whatever sport is in question. They decide the rules, and this is just another one of them. The IBA, which is a board with its own issues, had previously banned this fighter from going in the ring against women. The IOC took control of the sport within the auspices of the Olympics, and reversed that decision.

I'm not going to get into the "corrupt sports bodies", because honestly I'm pretty tired of anyone in a position of authority being labelled "corrupt" the whole time. Sometimes it's just bad decisions being made.

That said, that's the job they took on. Let them get in the experts, let them dialog and come to a conclusion. Given the developmental benefits of man over a woman in a combat sport, I think most wished the IOC had been far stricter.
 
TennVet said:
I may be completely wrong but I think the decline in journalism, media, the news can trace the downward movement to CNN and its sudden popularity, and the expansion of cable TV. It's like all the broadcast outlets were at the starting blocks for the 100 yard dash. The race for ratings was on. Seems like overnight there were 24/7 so called news channels everywhere. Then look at the absence of broadcast icons like Cronkite, and Huntley - Brinkley.

We were in the new era of embedded reporters, shock jocks, Dan Rather and his big flog, drunk Diane Sawyer, made up news from Peter Jennings. The list goes on and it really isn't a glowing tribute to what once was a trusted and honorable profession. Is it any wonder that politicians saw an election gold mine in free advertising simply by encouraging bias, sound bytes and edited interviews. Then ad the fact that advertisers joined in the fray by feeding millions into the ratings mill.
Click to expand...
It actually started in TV News when CBS and others decided to move the News division from its own, separate wing, into the Entertainment division.

Here is an explainer: The Transformation of Network News - Nieman Reports

The news divisions never had to worry about making money - that was for the sit-coms to worry about. Then TV stations reorganized and they moved to fighting for ratings with their TV news shows (because higher ratings mean the stations can charge advertisers more for commercials, thus increasing profits).

I have long suspected this was one real reason Cronkite retired so young. That guy had been reporting wars since WWII. He knew what it was to report the casualty count EVERY night on the evening news.

Then, CBS wanted to make him and the news team dance like monkeys for the highest ratings? I’m sure he must have said a few fine swear words to his wife over that thought.

NOW, thanks to the Internet and clicks, clicks, clicks, newspapers have moved to the SAME MODEL. Now newspapers runs stories not because it’s important stuff the public needs to know - the stories are to GET CLICKS.

SEO - seach engine optimization. Even the words they choose to write headlines are chosen partly based on how much SEO those words will generate.

Who is not so much dancing for ratings? PBS and NPR, although people have argued they are beholding to their donors, but IDK if a donor base is nearly as powerful as the ratings system and clicks.

If you have never seen the movie “Network”, you’ll have to watch it. It’s kind of dated, but the principles in it are the same - how low will a TV station or news outlet go to get ratings?

Why was Fear Factor even on network TV? Because it’s an example of how low they will go.

Do they have any chubby weather ladies in your area? They have zero in my area and that’s been the case for four decades. Why? TV news can’t find any size 16, super-smart, articulate and maybe even funny female meteorologists? NO! It’s because the more gorgeous weather ladies will make the guys tune in if only for the weather. They won’t hire a chubby lady who reminds him of his wife.

It’s all planned Tenn, all planned to make people tune in and not change that channel! The sensationalism, the videos from way outside your area that have nothing to do with your local news, the pretty people, the graphics and the set design. It’s all about making “good TV”, not reporting news necessarily relevant to all parts of the community.
 
Read something where one of the her trainers says she was too hard on woman sparring partners. Apparently they tried several different sparing partners and they all said she was too. rough.

The more pictures I see of her the more I see a man. Her jaw is too wide, squared off. Her upper body just had too much muscle even for a woman boxer. Woman normally have more fat than men. She was too cut. Even for men to cut and/or muscular is hard unless they have the perfect diet and supplements to keep the muscle mass up.
 
And the loser is women's boxing.
We have a family friend who's boxed at the last two Olympics and a Commonwealth Games, she's won medals too. She's spent 17 years training and now it looks like she might be denied the opportunity to go to the LA Olympics.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top