Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Olympic Disgrace

She
@She
Join to bookmark26likesJoin to like42comments
More than 6% of people changed their reported sexual identity over a six-year period, UK survey finds

No, not the opening ceremony insult to Christians worldwide. I am talking about the women's boxing event.

Yeah. I don't like the concept of "Women's Boxing" either. I'd rather see competition along the lines of "Women's Baking." Or "Women's Crafting." Or even "Women's Remodeling and DIY" (a forum in which even I might medal).

The current brouhaha seems designed to do nothing besides amplify the artificial confusion over the matter of what it is that makes a woman.

Here's the deal:

XX Chromosomes--biological woman

XY Chromosomes--biological man

End of story.

Not according to IOC spokesX Mark Adams:

But I hope we’re all agreed we’re not calling for people to go back to the bad old days of sex testing, which was a terrible thing to do and I’m sure we all agree that’s not the way forward in this situation.

Sorry. I don't agree. As long as you have a binary SEX distinction between what "Men" are and what "Women" are in your events, I think doing so is on you. When you have 57 — or 92, or whatever the number is these days — different "gender" events for each sport, then perhaps things might be different.

But, you don't. And they aren't.

Please tell me what is so wrong about the "bad old days" of sex testing (which would surely determine, without equivocation, whether or not these two apparent "men" have been put in the right bucket, when it comes to their eligibility for "men's" or "women's" events).

I'll wait.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (42)

  • Dr. Bastiat@drbastiat
    She (View Post):

    Not according to IOC spokesX Mark Adams:

    She (View Post):

    But I hope we’re all agreed we’re not calling for people to go back to the bad old days of sex testing, which was a terrible thing to do and I’m sure we all agree that’s not the way forward in this situation.

    I really wish Mark would explain precisely WHY sex testing was a terrible thing to do.

    C'mon Mark. Educate me. Because I don't understand.

  • Sisyphus@Sisyphus
    ReplyingtoDr. Bastiat

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    She (View Post):

    Not according to IOC spokesX Mark Adams:

    She (View Post):

    But I hope we’re all agreed we’re not calling for people to go back to the bad old days of sex testing, which was a terrible thing to do and I’m sure we all agree that’s not the way forward in this situation.

    I really wish Mark would explain precisely WHY sex testing was a terrible thing to do.

    C’mon Mark. Educate me. Because I don’t understand.

    He just gets off seeing actual women get crushed by fake women. It is an illness. He has self-identified, so he will not require testing. Just reeducation.

  • She@She
    ReplyingtoScott Wilmot

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    And then there is this idiot. Who is going to tell him about a scientific way to define a woman so that he can look into it? Sheesh.

    Yeah. He claims he's totally open to "the science" if someone can come up with an unequivocal definition of "a woman."

    Here you go:

    XX Chromosomes–woman

    XY Chromosomes–man

    The "feelz?" Not scientific. Not important.

    What on earth am I missing?

Scroll for later comments
+37 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 42 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.