[Livia]

Originally Posted by BBXX

No, why do you ask?

Because in this thread you've spoken about gun deaths in the USA and used an example of Republicans attacking Democrats.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Livia

Gun ownership is written into the constitution if the USA. Not sure why you're bringing up the constitutional rights of another country to embroider your argument. Mexico and Brazil both outdo the USA in firearms deaths but no one ever mentions that. I wonder why...?

I wasn't aware the conversation purely centred around the UK, particularly as the conversation has centred mainly on a worldwide sporting competition and a Boxer from Algeria.

I bought it up because it's a good example of something posing a risk, yet the rights of the citizens is still given priority. My point was many people who support gun ownership, despite it being the leading cause of death amongst children in the USA, will not support trans women being in women's spaces because it is a risk to women despite the risk they speak about being incredibly low. That doesn't make sense... and goes some way to prove that for many (not saying you or others on this thread) they don't actually care about the risk to women, they just don't like Trans people.

And it's that kind of attitude which is why it's risky linking criminal cis men pretending to be trans to actual trans people, which many people do.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I wasn't aware the conversation purely centred around the UK, particularly as the conversation has centred mainly on a worldwide sporting competition and a Boxer from Algeria.

I bought it up because it's a good example of something posing a risk, yet the rights of the citizens is still given priority. My point was many people who support gun ownership, despite it being the leading cause of death amongst children in the USA, will not support trans women being in women's spaces because it is a risk to women despite the risk they speak about being incredibly low. That doesn't make sense... and goes some way to prove that for many (not saying you or others on this thread) they don't actually care about the risk to women, they just don't like Trans people.

And it's that kind of attitude which is why it's risky linking criminal cis men pretending to be trans to actual trans people, which many people do.

Fine. Just wondered by you wouldn't use examples of UK legislation. Nothing about this story us connected to the USA. Not the boxers and not the Olympics in question.

For the record, I have no problem with trans people. I have a problem with self-identification. It was always going to cause problems and give an advantage to abusers and at the same time make the lives of genuine trans people much harder.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I wasn't aware the conversation purely centred around the UK, particularly as the conversation has centred mainly on a worldwide sporting competition and a Boxer from Algeria.

I bought it up because it's a good example of something posing a risk, yet the rights of the citizens is still given priority. My point was many people who support gun ownership, despite it being the leading cause of death amongst children in the USA, will not support trans women being in women's spaces because it is a risk to women despite the risk they speak about being incredibly low. That doesn't make sense... and goes some way to prove that for many (not saying you or others on this thread) they don't actually care about the risk to women, they just don't like Trans people.

And it's that kind of attitude which is why it's risky linking criminal cis men pretending to be trans to actual trans people, which many people do.

Amen

[Crimson Dynamo]

Khelif's gold under scrutiny once again as feminist group complains



Women’s rights group ICONS says Imane Khelif’s 🇩🇿 Olympic gold medal 🥇
“should be withdrawn” after medical report claims Algerian boxer suffers from
5-alpha reductase deficiency, a sexual development disorder found in genetic
males.

https://x.com/thbharatcurrent/status...64218463322192

https://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...iny-once-again

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Khelif's gold under scrutiny once again as feminist group complains



Women’s rights group ICONS says Imane Khelif’s 🇩🇿 Olympic gold medal 🥇
“should be withdrawn” after medical report claims Algerian boxer suffers from
5-alpha reductase deficiency, a sexual development disorder found in genetic
males.

https://x.com/thbharatcurrent/status...64218463322192

https://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...iny-once-again

Imane Khelif is a biologically born female


how many more times do i need to repeat myself

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

What's the answer? Maybe just ignoring him?

I wish you could block ppl on here

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by BBXX

How many school shootings would you say need to happen for it to be a problem, and would you, a Trump supporter, support the legislation to ban guns due to them being the biggest killer of kids in the USA?

Originally Posted by Livia

Gun ownership is written into the constitution if the USA.

Indeed and I think the issue of firearms in the US illustrates quite clearly what I was talking about; there's this idea that we need "loads of evidence" of the risks associated with male-bodied people in women's spaces in order to take safeguarding action... that "if that happens" action can then be taken.

When in reality, we know fine well the risks posed by males to women and girls, and we (the world) have vast experience of human actions and psychology to know that it would be very odd if predatory individuals didn'y take advantage of loopholes in access.

...and (to go back to the US/guns comparison) we have NUMEROUS extremely clear examples of how much harder it is to "un-do something later" rather than taking a proper minute to fully assess the safety implications in the first place. "We'll just hope for the best, forge ahead and think about it later if there's a problem" is not what will happen. If full access is given by law and there does turn out to be a huge safeguarding concern, it'll be very hard to address, and will probably never be fully addressed, or at the very least not before significant harm has been done.

[Ammi]

…just an update on the original thread/story…


Imane Khelif: IOC confirms Olympic boxing champion launching legal action over medical allegations…

Imane Khelif, the boxer who won Olympic gold amid a gender eligibility row, is taking legal action over media reports in France allegedly detailing her leaked medical records, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has said.

The boxer took gold in the women's welterweight competition at this summer's Games in Paris amid huge controversy after the International Boxing Association (IBA) said the Algerian had been disqualified from last year's World Championships for failing gender eligibility criteria.

Khelif's first opponent in Paris, Italian fighter Angela Carini, signalled she could not continue with their bout 46 seconds in, saying she "had never felt a punch like this".

Khelif filed a legal complaint with the French authorities over the online abuse and harassment she was subjected to during the Games, and the IOC said on Wednesday she was now also taking action over new reports which emerged in France earlier this week.

It also said it was "saddened" by the abuse Khelif had received since her appearance in Paris.


"We understand that Imane Khelif has taken legal action against individuals who commented on her situation during the Olympic Games Paris 2024, and is also preparing a lawsuit in response to the latest reporting," an IOC spokesperson said.

"The IOC will not comment while legal action is ongoing or on media reports about unverified documents whose origin cannot be confirmed."

The statement pointed out Khelif had been competing in women's boxing "for many years", including at the previous Games in Tokyo as well as IBA-sanctioned events.

The IBA was stripped of recognition by the IOC last year over governance failures. That meant it was the IOC which ran - and set the entry criteria for - the Olympic boxing tournament in Paris.

The IOC statement added: "All the athletes who participated in the boxing tournament at the Olympic Games Paris 2024 complied with the competition's eligibility and entry regulations, together with all the applicable medical regulations enacted by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit (PBU).

"As with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes were based on their passport details."

The IOC said the same rules had applied during the qualification period. Its statement concluded: "The IOC is committed to protecting the human rights of all athletes who have taken part in the Olympic Games as per the Olympic Charter, the IOC Code of Ethics and the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights. The IOC is saddened by the abuse that Imane Khelif is currently receiving."

Khelif said after winning gold: "I am fully qualified to take part in this competition - I am a woman.

"I was born a woman, I've lived as a woman and I've competed as a woman. There's no doubt that there are enemies of success and that gives my success a special taste because of these attacks."


https://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...al-allegations

[Nicky91]

she just is one of those women who looks more masculine than others, so i'd also place her into the category of women's boxing, with more women who also look very masculine, who got a lot of muscle, like that it would be a lot fairer for everyone i think


but Imane Khelif is and always has been female




i mean Navratilova also always has been female, while also looking questionably masculine, and not very feminine at all



in my nation you also got a couple

Lucia Rijker, Nouchka Fontijn, Sherida Spitse


whom got very masculine traits, lots of muscle, the former two of which who also were boxers, and the latter who has been a international at our women's football team


to name a couple of examples, sooo to say Imane Khelif is trans is a insult


not every woman looks like a disney princess or social media influencer honestly


no offense of course

[Nicky91]

the IBA has been one vile organisation honestly, under the regime of Umar Kremlev

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by BBXX

As I said it's a very complex issue. I do understand your point, but also in another respect, why is it up to trans people to disavow the activity on criminals using their identity as a gateway to be a criminal? If I pretended to be a Republican before attacking a Democrat, is it up to Republicans specifically to speak about it? Or if I attacked someone and claimed it was a religious-led attack despite being atheist? I am not sure.

Secondly, shining a spotlight that is not a widespread issue creates a very real threat to legitimate trans people, so I do understand. Some people will very much blur the lines between the two.

There are many times bigots use negative association with a certain demographic as a bargaining chip to try and prove their own prejudice as truth. For instance, if a gay man is caught being a paedophile, there will be many, many people using one incident to say "See... I told you so". It happens all the time. Hell, I have literally read it on here. And so it's very risky for a marginalised minority to shine a spotlight on something that many people will associate with their identity even if it is unrelated.

I hope I explained that okay.

I don't actually particularly disagree with any of what you've said here in principle -- all I would really say is, the politics of the issue (public discourse) should not affect, nor play into in any way, the actual discussion of safeguarding, policy and lawmaking around the issue; people who actually understand these issues should be properly assessing it in a reasonable and balanced way not subject to the often-explosive emotion that comes from both angles (and crucially, they must be allowed to be, without being subject to threats and intimidation either physical or to their careers).

That's not happening and that's not just on one group.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

Fine. Just wondered by you wouldn't use examples of UK legislation. Nothing about this story us connected to the USA. Not the boxers and not the Olympics in question.

For the record, I have no problem with trans people. I have a problem with self-identification. It was always going to cause problems and give an advantage to abusers and at the same time make the lives of genuine trans people much harder.

I agree with all of this.

It’s not just a simple issue of letting trans women into women only safe spaces…. It’s about trying to keep cis women safe.

I haven’t met a single person who agrees with this that hates trans people. I’ve even met a trans people who said this (she also said that she as a trans woman would have an advantage over a cis female, despite having taking hormones for years)

I’m not saying that there aren’t bigots who just use these opinions to try and hurt trans people. We all know that. But we also know that there are men out there who can literally just say “I identify as a woman” and enter cis female safe spaces without warning or care

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Livia

Fine. Just wondered by you wouldn't use examples of UK legislation. Nothing about this story us connected to the USA. Not the boxers and not the Olympics in question.

For the record, I have no problem with trans people. I have a problem with self-identification. It was always going to cause problems and give an advantage to abusers and at the same time make the lives of genuine trans people much harder.

They were just examples that came to mind, probably because I read more about US politics than I do UK stuff.

I am sure you do, and I do think your worry is legitimate, but I also worry about giving ammunition to bigots for issues that aren't as big as they're made out to be because I see it happen time and time again. It's a very nuanced subject and I respect the opinion on everyone I have discussed this with here today. It's too complicated and difficult to not.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by BBXX

They were just examples that came to mind, probably because I read more about US politics than I do UK stuff.

I am sure you do, and I do think your worry is legitimate, but I also worry about giving ammunition to bigots for issues that aren't as big as they're made out to be because I see it happen time and time again. It's a very nuanced subject and I respect the opinion on everyone I have discussed this with here today. It's too complicated and difficult to not.

The First Minister of Scotland lost her job over this "issues that aren't as big as they're made out to be "

and it was a big feature in Harris losing so Hugely in the USA

“Crazy liberal Kamala is for they/them, president Trump is for you,” declares
one Harris-Walz attack ad airing in the battleground states. Another simply
proclaims: “No men in girls’ sports.”

USA voters agreed

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

The First Minister of Scotland lost her job over this "issues that aren't as big as they're made out to be "

and it was a big feature in Harris losing so Hugely in the USA

“Crazy liberal Kamala is for they/them, president Trump is for you,” declares
one Harris-Walz attack ad airing in the battleground states. Another simply
proclaims: “No men in girls’ sports.”

USA voters agreed

I am yet to see solid evidence of men pretending to be women and then attacking women on a widespread level. That is what I mean by it not being as big as it's being made out to be.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

As I said it's a very complex issue. I do understand your point, but also in another respect, why is it up to trans people to disavow the activity on criminals using their identity as a gateway to be a criminal? If I pretended to be a Republican before attacking a Democrat, is it up to Republicans specifically to speak about it? Or if I attacked someone and claimed it was a religious-led attack despite being atheist? I am not sure.

Secondly, shining a spotlight that is not a widespread issue creates a very real threat to legitimate trans people, so I do understand. Some people will very much blur the lines between the two.

There are many times bigots use negative association with a certain demographic as a bargaining chip to try and prove their own prejudice as truth. For instance, if a gay man is caught being a paedophile, there will be many, many people using one incident to say "See... I told you so". It happens all the time. Hell, I have literally read it on here. And so it's very risky for a marginalised minority to shine a spotlight on something that many people will associate with their identity even if it is unrelated.

I hope I explained that okay.

Its not just up to trans people, women raise this issue all the time but are called TERFs, if the trans community allied with women it might make the issue more acceptable to discuss...just a thought, the issues affects women and trans women in the main so they should be on board with shining a light on the abuse of self ID by men