I meant to tackle this bombardment on my, er, precious character already yesterday, but it was Friday evening, and I was having a little too much fun, so decided not to. I haven't followed the conversation since then, so the thread might have moved into other, less controversial and arguably more relevant areas already. So sorry, dear Mods, if I'm flogging a dead horse here. However, obviously I couldn't let this just totally go. I'll try to behave.
@JPT Well, at least you didn't use words like "dipshit", as one like-minded person did (apparently directed towards everyone who dares to have any problem with any of this issue). Still, it was a rather acid-y and accusatory post full of big words ("advocating discrimination", "incredebly dangerous") and a fair bit of assumptions from yourself imo, which you accused also me of. You'd probably like to think that this is a simple matter of human rights and fairness (towards people like Khelif), and nothing to do with ideology, politics, opinions and female safety. Guess what, I think you're wrong! Ergo...
In this particular case, you are advocating for discriminating against persons born with vaginas, who have identified as female for their entire lives, because the IBA simply claims to have proven those female persons have XY chromosomes. Even if they do, there are medical conditions which can cause that in, once again, a person who was born with female sex organs and always has identified as a female.
As little as I'd want to talk about anyone's vagina here, I guess I have to, since you brought it up...
Actually it's semi-encouraging to see you apparently acknowledging the fact that being born with a vagina is indeed something that pretty much determines that a person is a female. Bravo, I agree totally. Hooray for biology! However, the cynic in me suspects that you only say that here because you think it supports your argument in this instance. I mean, you should then also agree that being born without a vagina (like, with a penis) would make someone a man. And then the conclusion would be that a man can't become a woman, and a woman can't become a man, no matter what they do with their bodies and or identify as? Somehow I think you oppose that view, though. But I digress, so back to the subject at hand...
You give the impression that you know a lot about Khelif's history, including the true 'composition' of her vagina (?). You act like there is nothing to even debate about whether she's a female or male (or...?), and obviously you're not the only one in this thread. However, I've got news for you; it
is being debated, whether you like it or not. Just one example, Helen Joyce says in an interview with TalkTV
here that based on the available evidence (mainly that IBA's supposed failed gender test and testosterone levels), Khelif is a male and that's it. She also notes that IOC is not being open and transparent in their operation at all. I assume that Joyce is ideologically your total opposite, so you maybe don't care about anything she says anyway. However, you can't claim that she doesn't know or understand anything what she's talking about. Or maybe you can, but I'm then allowed to ignore it.
What is that supposed undisputable authority/source that we all have listen to and accept without any questioning on this issue? Even I have learned to be quite critical of the media and other information sources especially in recent years. For example, a large part of the Finnish media, while always noting that the Fox News is a mouthpiece for republicans/conservatives (duh), use the likes of CNN and New York Times as some kind of neutral sources. Ridiculous. Especially noticeable now when considering the big year in the USA.
Obviously one can and probably should be suspicious about the IBA, with its heavy Russian influence and all. Still, you don't say anything about the IOC and their credibility. What makes them such a very reliable governing body — outside that you happen to agree with their stance? How did they come to the conclusion that Khelif is a woman again? Wasn't it something as unconvincing as "it says so on her passport" and "she has always identified as a female" and "shut up" (well, the latter was mine, but they could've very well said that)? No politics or ideology involved whatsoever, I'm sure.
You also seem to want to police other people's language. And of course you (and many others) calling Khelif plainly a female, no ifs and buts, is all part of that = since Khelif
is a female, there is simply no argument against
her boxing in the female category. Now, I used the term 'intersex' just to be neutral, because quite frankly, I didn't (and I guess still don't) have a strong position on whether she's a male or a female. But hey, even Helen Joyce kind of agrees with you on that intersex is not a proper term, the difference being that she calls Khelif a male rather than female.
Also, why are you throwing that "she has always identified as a woman" line at me? You should've obviously realized by now that it means nothing to me and to many others, unless it matches the reality. Having said that, I have no reasons to believe that there is something sinister about Khelif identifying as a female à la "it's just a means to dominate in women's sports".
Lastly, maybe the most important thing why this is being so heavily discussed at all. In your post, you take no stand on whether Khelif fighting women might be unfair or even dangerous to female athletes; it's all about Khelif's etc rights and them not being discriminated. I can see some people posting a type of "gotcha" posts with quotes from Khelif's old opponent(s) and her supposedly mediocre record and low knockout ratio. I'm no expert, but do people generally have high KO percentages in amateur boxing anyway? One could also make a case that, well, if the record is so bad as people portray, then Khelif is not particularly talented, so it's all about the unfair advantages in other areas rather than pure talent in this case. I don't believe that per se, but I also think that people dismissing Khelif's career is just another way of whitewashing.
I'm no spokeperson or apologist for Carini, and apparently she has also retracted or at least apologized for some things she said and for that she quit. From my understanding, she has also gotten some criticism in her home country. However, I'm also not ready to dismiss her initial reaction in the fight when that right cross landed in her face. Nor will I call her a loser and whatever-phobe. Maybe she indeed felt something she hadn't felt before, which made her fear for her safety. How could you dismiss or laugh it off?! Are we in the "why did you become a boxer then?" or "sore loser!" level of discussion now?
You also fail to clearly define what a "gray area" is, which history has shown to be incredibly dangerous. You are making an assumption that a female who was born a female and continues to be a female being allowed to participate in women's sports will result in men simply claiming to identify as women so they can dominate in women's sports. There is no reason to make that assumption other than to justify discrimination. You say you've yet to see a good argument for why "intersex" people (once again, in the case that sparked your poorly thought out argument, we are talking about a female, not an "intersex" person). Based on how atrocious your argument is, I have trouble believing you would admit to recognizing a good argument, or accept it if you did. Simply put, nothing you said is based on reality, and all of it is meant to justify disallowing a person from doing something based solely on how you view that person's gender.
The rest of your post I found just so repulsive and has such false pretenses in my opinion (discussed largely already above) that I can't. I just can't. As far as I'm concerned, it's worth mostly of the old sandbox argument, "no, you are!".
One concession I will make though. I shouldn't have jumped straight away into the men (trans women, if you will) playing in women's sports issue already in my first post and I should've thought about the context more. However, not in anyway did I mean that because of specifically Khelif and the like will many men now suddenly decide to say they are women, so that they can dominate in women's sports. Nonsense. That could happen only if the sports organizations allowed it to happen. I obviously hope they never will.