With the Paris Olympics gender debates still raging worldwide, let me offer a number of quick points, and then share a longer quote or two on this matter from someone more qualified to speak on this. I of course have already written on women taking a beating at the hands of those who clearly are not women in the full sense of the word. My earlier piece is found here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2024/08/02/violence-against-women-in-sport-and-the-need-for-moral-clarity/
Quick comments:
-Those people with very rare Intersex and related conditions do exist. One of course can have sympathy for the very few folks born this way. But that sympathy stops if they see no problem in bashing women.
-Men should not assault women, and those who have clear male characteristics, let alone who have XY chromosomes and are producing testosterone should never assault women. The picture I have used of Khelif above very much makes my case.
-Yes, women should not beat on other women either. But that is sadly now a reality. So at the very least, we should do all we can to minimise violence against women. And that means demanding men – or near-men – do NOT compete against women in contact sports, at the very least.
-The International Boxing Association had already disqualified Imane Khelif (Algeria) and Lin Yu-ting (Taiwan) for failing gender eligibility tests. And Lin Yu-Ting was disqualified from the 2023 Women’s World Championships for testing positive for “XY chromosomes”. But the IOC was happy to let them waltz right in! They have decided not to test for these things, and have said that whatever is found on a person’s passport is all they need!
-I have been following the Intersex issue for over three decades now and even have a section on it in one of my earlier books. Homosexual activists sought to hijack these folks with this exceedingly rare condition for their own nefarious purposes back then, including seeking to push fake marriage. This group is still being hijacked today by the homosexual lobby, the trans lobby, and those who are happy to destroy women’s sport.
-As I have said quite often now, I cannot get my head around this:
Christians defending the satanic attack on Christ in the opening ceremony.
Christians defending the satanic attack on women in the boxing ring.
-If I were to make a meme using Forrest Gump, I would have him saying this: “And just like that, leftists have suddenly decided that a vagina determines your gender again.” Or this: “And just like that, some folks calling themselves conservatives and Christians think it is just fine to beat up women.”
-Bottom line: If we cannot rightly call Khelif a male, we cannot rightly call Khelif a female. Someone in this very limited and rare category where there is confusion and ambiguity, yet has these many obvious male characteristics, should NOT be fighting those who clearly are female.
Thoughts from one authority
One expert who has been writing and lecturing on these topics for decades now is Robert A. J. Gagnon. What he posted on the social media a few days ago is worth sharing here in its entirety. He said this:
There is mischaracterization of an Algerian boxer by the name of Imane Khelif who today in the Olympics had his first boxing match in female boxing, in which he beat up on a female boxer, Italy’s Angela Carini, in 46 seconds, hitting her with a force that she had never experienced before and possibly breaking her nose.
The IOC is claiming that the Algerian is a female, but bases this conclusion entirely on the fact that the Algerian’s passport reads “female” and has always identified as a female (not exactly rigorous scientific criteria). Khelif apparently was raised by his parents as a female when he was misidentified by doctors owing to ambiguous or female-like genitalia. The media (even those referring to him as a man) have bandied together referring to him with the pronouns “she/her.”
Yet “Imane” is a man. In 2023 the International Boxing Federation disqualified him from female boxing when they found that he had the male XY chromosome pattern and a testosterone level that put him far outside the normal female range.
To be sure, some commentators have speculated that he is a so-called “XY female” with a DSD (disorder of sex development) known as hyperandrogenism (a condition in which a female produces abnormally high levels of testosterone).
But this is a misdiagnosis. Given the XY and testosterone, Khelif likely has internal testes that produce sperm (the definitive determination of the male sex) and significant levels of testosterone, resulting in male muscle mass and power. His being raised as a female from birth in the conservative country of Algeria probably occurred because he possessed external genitalia that were either underdeveloped for a male or even female-like in appearance.
Let’s begin with a little basic science:
Throughout the animal kingdom, an organism’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) it can or would produce. Males produce sperm (small gametes) and females ova (large gametes). There is no third gamete type; therefore sex is binary. The existence of the so-called “intersex” who have some degree of ambiguity in external genitalia don’t undermine the sex binary at all, because sex is determined not by the shape of the external genitalia but rather by the equipment (even if only internally) capable of producing (or at least designed to produce) sperm or ova (h/t to biologist Colin Wright for this info).
I’ll let evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven take over from here, in a revised lengthy tweet on X that she posted in connection with today’s boxing match. But first a little word about her background: Hooven has a PhD in Biological Anthropology from Harvard University. After getting her PhD she became an award-winning lecturer at Harvard for 20 years in human evolutionary biology. She is the author of T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us (Holt, 2021). Her continuance at Harvard was made untenable by president Claudine Gay and the DEI functionaries when she appeared on FOX in July 2021 and acknowledged that sex was both biological and binary. Hooven, a lifelong Democrat, is now a senior fellow at the center-right American Enterprise Institute. Here is Hooven, commenting on the case of the Algerian:
[Male] athletes with XY DSDs who have testes (usually internal), XY sex chromosomes, male-typical levels of testosterone, and functional androgen receptors are often described as females with “hyperandrogenism,” i.e., abnormally high levels of testosterone. They experience physical benefits of this high testosterone during puberty, which translate into athletic advantages over females. The issue for sports is that athletes with the XY DSD 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), may be socialized as female, may be legally female, and may live and identify as female; but they are male.
These individuals are usually born with female-appearing genitalia, which can lead to being sexed as female. Here’s why. 5-ARD is caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the enzyme 5-alpha reductase, which converts testosterone into a more potent androgen, DHT. This androgen interacts with the androgen receptor, like testosterone, and is necessary for the typical development of male external genitalia (penis and scrotum) and the prostate. Without DHT, female-typical external genitalia develop…. DHT is also responsible for male-pattern baldness and dark, coarse facial hair, which is why people with the condition have smooth skin that can give a feminine appearance.
The “decision makers” are aware that athletes with 5-ARD are male, and that they experience the benefits of male puberty. The requirement to reduce their testosterone to typical female levels isn’t discriminatory, since these are males who are asking to compete in the female category. But more significantly, all the relevant scientific evidence shows that reducing male T in adulthood does not undo the physical benefits of male puberty….
I’ve been asked if men with the DSD 5-ARD (in which ppl cannot convert testosterone into the more potent androgen DHT) experience the typical benefits of male puberty, that would give them an advantage in strength and speed relative to women. This is relevant to questions about whether male athletes with 5-ARD should be allowed to compete in the female category. This is an excellent question, because it could be the case that DHT is necessary for the development and maintenance of male-typical muscle, lean body mass and strength. If that were the case, then people with 5-ARD might not have a typical male advantage, because the lack of DHT would perhaps lead to a more feminine pattern of fat, lean body mass and strength…. Perhaps the top researcher in this area, Shalendar Bhasin, who is scrupulous in his methods, has examined this very question. The answer appears to be: no, testosterone does not need to be converted to DHT to exert its typical anabolic effects.”
*Androgens are hormones “that regulate the development and maintenance of male characteristics,” including “the development of the primary male sex organs” in the embryo stage, “and the development of male secondary sex characteristics at puberty. Androgens are synthesized in the testes, the ovaries, and the adrenal glands. The major androgen in males is testosterone…. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in utero causes differentiation of the penis, scrotum and prostate. In adulthood, DHT contributes to balding, prostate growth, and sebaceous gland activity. Although androgens are commonly thought of only as male sex hormones, females also have them, but at lower levels: they function in libido and sexual arousal. Androgens are the precursors to estrogens in both men and women” (Wikipedia)
When asked by someone as to what we might call someone like Khelif where there was some ambiguity at birth, Gagnon replied as follows:
I am sympathetic that the parents and child did not set out to deceive others, and in this case were misled by external genitalia, at least prior to puberty. He knows the results of the gender test administered by the International Boxing Association. So he should now correct his previous self-identification to be in harmony with his actual biology, however difficult that might be. Otherwise, he is (going forward) carrying on with deception, and attempting to take an award that rightfully belongs to a woman. He had a chance to appeal his disqualification to an independent appeal board, but chose not to carry the process through, obviously because he senses he has no case. And it is clear that he has a man’s power and should not be in a boxing ring with a biological female when serious physical harm can be done to the woman.
If I grow up being told that I am a descendant of Czar Nicholas, and then learn later through testing that I am not, if I continue to declare that I am a descendant of the Czar I am practicing deception now, even if previously I was not.
And when asked further about the IBA and what it had determined. Gagnon said this:
It is almost certain that in the 2023 Women’s Boxing Championships they were disqualified by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA) not for testosterone levels but because they have XY chromosomes. Three pieces of evidence confirm this:
The IBA President said that the boxers disqualified at the championships had XY chromosomes.
The test that each received ruled them out for not conforming to IBA guidelines, which calls for a chromosomal test, not a hormone test, and which defines “woman” as “an individual with XX chromosomes.” Obviously, then, they were ruled out for not having XX chromosomes.
The disqualified boxers could clear up the matter by giving their consent to have the laboratories release the results of the gender tests, but they have not done so.
I am with Gagnon here. And this controversy will of course continue. But for me there are two main takeaways. There is something wrong about conservatives and Christians bending over backwards to defend the IOC on this. And it is always wrong to abuse women and seek to harm them.
My concern is that the test used was not disclosed. The old adage about ducks and walking etc apply.
Just as steroids are banned because they yield unfair competitive advantage, the same should apply to anomalous and testerone production whether natural or not.
One has to ask if the athlete was killed in the ring what then?
As usual you are right on track Bill. People claim that because we condemn wrongful behaviour that we hate the person but that simply is not true. I firmly believe eunuchs should be accepted and respected much like they were by the ancients but that does not mean the behaviour of a man beating up on women is remotely acceptable. Feminists are upset about the sporting unfairness but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I believe this man is as much a victim of the Father of Lies as anyone and the IOC needs to be wholly condemned for promulgating those lies.
I believe all people really need to be able to distinguish (rightly discriminate) between right and wrong behaviour and that laws which promote wrong behaviour are rightly condemned.
I believe people are being manipulated by introducing inherently false terminology – a technique which has been known for hundreds, if not thousands of years to control and influence people’s thinking. Perhaps the most striking evidence of this is when therapy to help people be happy the way they are and not hate themselves, is labelled “conversion therapy” and is outlawed.
These things are lies, promote destruction and evil and people need to wake up and rightly and forcefully condemn this wholesale promotion of untruths and evil.
Yes, down the ‘IOC rules’ rabbit hole we go. The hamster wheel is spinning off its spindle with this event, with all manner of rationalizing arguments and reactionary epithets being tossed around.
The solution is in appropriate competition rules but it runs much deeper than that. This is a cultural issue much more than a rules issue.
Misguided chivalry is a hard habit to break, obviously, but it must be broken if a long-term solution to this problem is to be found. Otherwise it will rear its ugly head in other ways. Chivalry may feel good but it does nothing constructive for women when it treats women like children. Both men and women find this utterly infuriating, perhaps enough to want to get into the ring and punch someone in the face repeatedly.
Feminism and misguided chivalry are two sides of the same coin. What we’re seeing play out here and everywhere at the moment is the end game for feminism and its enablers. We are in the future which these people have dutifully, if not smugly, sought after for decades.
The time for outrage was when feminism was in it its ascendancy. The infection has long since entered the bloodstream and we’re now in a time of disease.
The battle has moved into the GoFundMe pages, to compete in the victimhood stakes. This is another way feminists and their enablers destroy the morals of women – it’s far more lucrative and politically advantageous for women to compete as victims than on merit, and to climb aboard the resulting gravy train for all manner of unearned gains. None of that does women any moral good, and most of it infuriates moral women. We’re turning women into victimhood-porn stars and pole dancers to satisfy our moral outrage addiction.
Men shouldn’t assault women, inside or outside a boxing ring, and women shouldn’t do that either. But the losing boxer isn’t a victim of assault. She went into a face-punching contest where punching your opponents face more strongly then they punch yours is the whole point. If she didn’t want to get punched in the face by a stronger face-puncher, she should have chosen a different sport. We can treat her like an adult and let her make her own decisions about whether or not face-punching is a suitable activity and to accept the consequences of her decisions.
Or, we can change the culture that pretends equality is the good, right and proper thing for all people in all situations. We can start with feminism and misguided chivalry as they are two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Thanks Mena. As I mentioned in my piece, I would prefer that women not box each other. But until it ends, we can at least seek to make it less violent. So yes, a woman might meet a somewhat larger and stronger woman in the ring – that is one thing. But having to meet a much larger and stronger man in the ring is another matter. In this case, I prefer to condemn these men, and not pick on the women as much. For good or ill, they have trained half their lives to be there, and to have it ruined by a male is certainly unjust and unfair.
One more point if I may. Sport only has meaning if it teaches skills that are useful in other parts of our lives. Martial sports like boxing are taken up primarily for self-defence. There are fitness and confidence-building elements to them also but the essential purpose is self-defence. Ask parents why they take their daughters to these classes, and self-defence will be their principal reason. Women who take up martial sports as adults invariably have had an experience that makes them feel the need for greater self-protection.
Self-defence, by definition, is against those who might otherwise be able to overpower you, which for women is principally going to be men. Women do punch each other in the real world occasionally but 99% of the time that a woman would ever need a martial skill is when defending herself against a male aggressor. If a woman has trained half her life in a martial skill only to break down in tears when a relatively weak ‘male’ opponent hits her, she has wasted half her life. A better response would be to identify her weaknesses and learn how to overcome them, or accept that the sport hasn’t fulfilled it’s primary purpose.
This is not picking on the losing women, it’s a matter of realistic practicality. Women do need their own sporting classes, but martial sports are a class of activity where equality and even superiority against men is justified by its real-world usefulness. I won’t go so far as to say that women learning to take a punch like a man is a good thing, but still.
Feminists and misguided chivalrists don’t like the idea of women protecting themselves. They seem to want women under their sole protection, which typically results in outraged demands for the special treatment of women and very little of street value. It’s quite a dilemma in our equalitarian culture. Meanwhile, back on the streets where real violence is happening…
Mr nice guy conservatism and Mr nice guy Christianity is a big problem here. We want the world to like or love us so we compromise our beliefs hoping for positive returns. The world didn’t love Jesus, something I don’t think today’s Christians really understand, so they certainly won’t love us. Jesus wasn’t a rock star, he wasn’t a headliner, he wasn’t a mega-synagogue Rabbi, he wasn’t that cool guy everyone had at their parties. He didn’t go to places to network while keeping his mouth shut about God. He didn’t look to be seen while not actually doing anything. And that Jesus, the one who preaches the truth everywhere is disliked for it and is persecuted is foreign modern Christians.
My concern is that the test used was not disclosed. The old adage about ducks and walking etc apply.
Just as steroids are banned because they yield unfair competitive advantage, the same should apply to anomalous and testerone production whether natural or not.
One has to ask if the athlete was killed in the ring what then?
As usual you are right on track Bill. People claim that because we condemn wrongful behaviour that we hate the person but that simply is not true. I firmly believe eunuchs should be accepted and respected much like they were by the ancients but that does not mean the behaviour of a man beating up on women is remotely acceptable. Feminists are upset about the sporting unfairness but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I believe this man is as much a victim of the Father of Lies as anyone and the IOC needs to be wholly condemned for promulgating those lies.
I believe all people really need to be able to distinguish (rightly discriminate) between right and wrong behaviour and that laws which promote wrong behaviour are rightly condemned.
I believe people are being manipulated by introducing inherently false terminology – a technique which has been known for hundreds, if not thousands of years to control and influence people’s thinking. Perhaps the most striking evidence of this is when therapy to help people be happy the way they are and not hate themselves, is labelled “conversion therapy” and is outlawed.
These things are lies, promote destruction and evil and people need to wake up and rightly and forcefully condemn this wholesale promotion of untruths and evil.
Yes, down the ‘IOC rules’ rabbit hole we go. The hamster wheel is spinning off its spindle with this event, with all manner of rationalizing arguments and reactionary epithets being tossed around.
The solution is in appropriate competition rules but it runs much deeper than that. This is a cultural issue much more than a rules issue.
Misguided chivalry is a hard habit to break, obviously, but it must be broken if a long-term solution to this problem is to be found. Otherwise it will rear its ugly head in other ways. Chivalry may feel good but it does nothing constructive for women when it treats women like children. Both men and women find this utterly infuriating, perhaps enough to want to get into the ring and punch someone in the face repeatedly.
Feminism and misguided chivalry are two sides of the same coin. What we’re seeing play out here and everywhere at the moment is the end game for feminism and its enablers. We are in the future which these people have dutifully, if not smugly, sought after for decades.
The time for outrage was when feminism was in it its ascendancy. The infection has long since entered the bloodstream and we’re now in a time of disease.
The battle has moved into the GoFundMe pages, to compete in the victimhood stakes. This is another way feminists and their enablers destroy the morals of women – it’s far more lucrative and politically advantageous for women to compete as victims than on merit, and to climb aboard the resulting gravy train for all manner of unearned gains. None of that does women any moral good, and most of it infuriates moral women. We’re turning women into victimhood-porn stars and pole dancers to satisfy our moral outrage addiction.
Men shouldn’t assault women, inside or outside a boxing ring, and women shouldn’t do that either. But the losing boxer isn’t a victim of assault. She went into a face-punching contest where punching your opponents face more strongly then they punch yours is the whole point. If she didn’t want to get punched in the face by a stronger face-puncher, she should have chosen a different sport. We can treat her like an adult and let her make her own decisions about whether or not face-punching is a suitable activity and to accept the consequences of her decisions.
Or, we can change the culture that pretends equality is the good, right and proper thing for all people in all situations. We can start with feminism and misguided chivalry as they are two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Thanks Mena. As I mentioned in my piece, I would prefer that women not box each other. But until it ends, we can at least seek to make it less violent. So yes, a woman might meet a somewhat larger and stronger woman in the ring – that is one thing. But having to meet a much larger and stronger man in the ring is another matter. In this case, I prefer to condemn these men, and not pick on the women as much. For good or ill, they have trained half their lives to be there, and to have it ruined by a male is certainly unjust and unfair.
One more point if I may. Sport only has meaning if it teaches skills that are useful in other parts of our lives. Martial sports like boxing are taken up primarily for self-defence. There are fitness and confidence-building elements to them also but the essential purpose is self-defence. Ask parents why they take their daughters to these classes, and self-defence will be their principal reason. Women who take up martial sports as adults invariably have had an experience that makes them feel the need for greater self-protection.
Self-defence, by definition, is against those who might otherwise be able to overpower you, which for women is principally going to be men. Women do punch each other in the real world occasionally but 99% of the time that a woman would ever need a martial skill is when defending herself against a male aggressor. If a woman has trained half her life in a martial skill only to break down in tears when a relatively weak ‘male’ opponent hits her, she has wasted half her life. A better response would be to identify her weaknesses and learn how to overcome them, or accept that the sport hasn’t fulfilled it’s primary purpose.
This is not picking on the losing women, it’s a matter of realistic practicality. Women do need their own sporting classes, but martial sports are a class of activity where equality and even superiority against men is justified by its real-world usefulness. I won’t go so far as to say that women learning to take a punch like a man is a good thing, but still.
Feminists and misguided chivalrists don’t like the idea of women protecting themselves. They seem to want women under their sole protection, which typically results in outraged demands for the special treatment of women and very little of street value. It’s quite a dilemma in our equalitarian culture. Meanwhile, back on the streets where real violence is happening…
Mr nice guy conservatism and Mr nice guy Christianity is a big problem here. We want the world to like or love us so we compromise our beliefs hoping for positive returns. The world didn’t love Jesus, something I don’t think today’s Christians really understand, so they certainly won’t love us. Jesus wasn’t a rock star, he wasn’t a headliner, he wasn’t a mega-synagogue Rabbi, he wasn’t that cool guy everyone had at their parties. He didn’t go to places to network while keeping his mouth shut about God. He didn’t look to be seen while not actually doing anything. And that Jesus, the one who preaches the truth everywhere is disliked for it and is persecuted is foreign modern Christians.
Quite right Paul.