hypochondriac

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

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.

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.

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.

I think it is rather sluggish in certain positions but I can understand why getting quality in might be hard. If we get the players in eventually then fair enough but if not it would be hard not to be at least slightly critical.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Had a break midway through to walk the snapdragon.

Would you support women only spaces for things like rape crisis centres?

I know that being able to answer what a woman is matters a great deal more to many women than it does to either of us. I'm sure you could imagine and I could provide you with a number of scenarios where being unable to define what a woman is may cause some problems.

Glad you read it.

So you genuinely can't answer the question then. Don't you consider it a little troubling if you are unable to have definitions of words? Can you not see how that could potentially cause some problems?

"it's understanding that the true answer may not be within your own capability to adequately answer for all to understand" Genuinely not trying to be antagonistic or thick but I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you saying that you are incapable of providing an adequate definition of what a woman is? Or that you are capable of providing an answer but not one that would be understood by the likes of me?

Colinjb is clearly not an unintelligent person. I genuinely don't understand this confusion that comes over previously clever people. Just a decade ago there wouldn't be an issue answering this simple question. Now you just get non-answers, obfuscation and deflection. You get it from world leaders too so it's affects a lot of people. It's so odd.

I haven't provided limited terms! All I did was ask for a definition! Either words can be defined or they can't. If I asked you to provide a definition of any manner of other things I presume you'd be able to do so yet simply asking for a definition of this particular word is in your mind too limiting? How on Earth is asking for the definition of a word limiting you? You have the entire English language at your disposal to provide any sort of definition you feel is suitable. Explain how it limits you?

"It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation." That's not an answer to the question of what a woman is. That's telling me what it isn't.

It really has no relevance to anything. It's of significantly more concern if you were unable to define what a woman is, particularly if you are in any sort of position of authority.

OK your latest tactic to not answer the very clear question- "what is a woman" is to ask me an unrelated question to try to get out of answering. Just want to be very clear here that you have been unwilling or unable to answer a very simple question which calls into question your other answers in this area. Colinjb is unable to provide an answer to the question: What is a woman? Just so we are clear. And to pre-empt your mindless response asking me about my GCSEs again, no idea why you think something I did decades ago is of relevance to what a woman is but I was very pleased with my results. Happy to answer in more detail once you've actually answered the question.

Me: "What is a woman" You: "It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation." So you've failed to answer the very simple question I asked and you're accusing me of not being able to get my head around your answer? It's simply evasion on your part since as I said you are either incapable of answering the question or you don't want to. I'm not sure why.