Paris Olympics 2024

[JLM]

[wordsfromlee]

With this and Flav Flav, I'd love to know what other mad sponsors there are

 

[SuperBacon]

In the pocket of Big Parma*

 

 

*yes I nicked it.

[BomberPat]

The idea that the Olympics, or any sport, should be legislating against "biological advantages" is obviously patently absurd the moment you try and apply it to anything but a child's interpretation of gender. It's like asking for tall people to be banned from playing basketball because it's unfair on shorter players. If you start trying to police boxing by not letting someone compete because they have a "punching power advantage" over their opponent, what does that realistically actually do to the sport? 

And Amy Broadhurst's Tweet hits the nail on the head - for the transphobic argument to work, you have to believe that Imane Khelif is absolutely unstoppable and a danger to her opponents. But what of the nine times she's lost? Where does it leave those women? And even of her wins, only a tiny minority of them were by knock-out, so she's not this powerhouse just punching out her opponents with ease. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Not that white women aren't subject to this, but it's very telling that the worst attacks on athletes accused of being trans have been non-white women. Transphobia is only ever a hair's breadth away from racism, and the ultimate end goal is of policing what an "acceptable" woman's looks and behaviour can be, and any deviation from that is subject to suspicion. And it's easy for transphobes to rally behind combat sports because most people don't really understand them, and it elicits a kneejerk equation of combat sports with domestic violence (which is in itself heteronormative in assuming that male-female competition uniquely resembles domestic violence, as if domestic violence doesn't exist in same-sex couples), and allows them to make scare stories about how her opponent "could have a broken nose", which sounds dangerous and scary, until you remember that her opponent is also a fucking boxer, and getting hit in the face rather comes with the territory.

[lanky316]

22 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

 It's like asking for tall people to be banned from playing basketball because it's unfair on shorter players. If you start trying to police boxing by not letting someone compete because they have a "punching power advantage" over their opponent, what does that realistically actually do to the sport? 

Frankly as someone who's enjoyed some of the amazing athleticism at times in the volleyball, seeing many good rallies and efforts be ruined purely because "14 foot tall mountain says nope" I am all for banning taller people from some sports. It would also have saved me from decades of "oooh you should play basketball".

It's all a load of bollocks, even in the event that's brought this to everyone's attention the other person at the centre of the whole thing made it clear "no it's not because she's really a man" it's kept running and such a deflating but unsurprising sign of how many cunts there are with the usual rent-a-mob offering their deliberate misinformation.

[Carbomb]

I am extremely reluctant to use this term, considering the people who usually tend to use it and what they use it for, but there's also an element of misandry powering this misperception: that it's perfectly acceptable that there are male boxers with the power to deal out horrific damage that potentially could cause brain damage or even death, and have that considered part-and-parcel of the game, but the moment a woman has this ability, it must mean that her opponent is a male and a woman-beater. God knows how they would process someone like Amanda Nunes.

What I really don't get is that, from what I understand, Khelif isn't a trans-woman, she's cis. With the amount of sheer gate-keeping of the narrow confines of what constitutes a woman according to these people, it's virtually fascistic. Quite frankly, we already know what kind of people are that exclusionary and prescriptive about gender, and historically it's been described as toxic masculinity. Sounds like we're discovering what toxic femininity looks like.

[MachoLibre]

53 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

What I really don't get is that, from what I understand, Khelif isn't a trans-woman, she's cis.

From what I understand, correct. Assigned female at birth, but of a DSD that means they have formed male characteristics as they've matured, having gone through male puberty and shown to possess XY chromosome. It's an extremely unique and nuanced situation, that does probably require the discussion, particularly when it comes to combat sports, all the more so with the more we learn of concussions and brain injuries. Khelif isn't at fault, competing legally and within the IOC rulings. Whether they need to be adjusted for such unique circumstances is the real discussion. It's not necessarily as simple or dismissive as the extreme argument coming from either side; 'She's a woman, there's no issue' / 'She's trans, this is bullshit'.

Edited August 2 by MachoLibre

[SuperBacon]

Well one of transphobes favourite reasons to use when dismissing transwomen is "A real woman has a cervix" so there will be a very confused number of them this week as Khelif does indeed have a cervix. 

Still, nice of Logan Paul to confirm he's a massive cunt. Will be switching my 11yo from Prime to Gatorade from now on. I'll show him!

[Sergio Mendacious]

It's horrendous, we need to sort this out, and have a separate Olympics for women who aren't fit.

[MachoLibre]

4 hours ago, BomberPat said:

And Amy Broadhurst's Tweet hits the nail on the head - for the transphobic argument to work, you have to believe that Imane Khelif is absolutely unstoppable and a danger to her opponents. But what of the nine times she's lost? Where does it leave those women? And even of her wins, only a tiny minority of them were by knock-out, so she's not this powerhouse just punching out her opponents with ease. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

This only applies when looking at the competitive aspect and entirely disregarding the human welfare aspect. This is to imply and assume that were a man to enter a woman's competition, it's as good as guaranteed they will smash through the competition and win everything, regardless of opponents skill. A skilled woman boxer could still defeat a man and perhaps crucially, that could well be by avoiding getting hit. Doesn't mean the potential dangers aren't there. Boxing is an insanely dangerous sport as it is, to put any competitors knowingly and unnecessarily in any greater danger is morally questionable and irresponsible. Knock-out or not, repeated blows to the head may cause long term damage that isn't immediately apparent. Yes, those physiological anomalies that exist often end up in said sports and so good at them entirely because of those physical advantages. Michael Phelps being a notable example of this. When it's only providing a competitive edge and when it's potentially causing physical harm or permanent physical harm to your competitors are very different discussions. Dangers certainly exist in combat sports with man vs man, of course. To avoid creating greater dangers is part of the reason why weight classes exist. Even there, it's far from perfect and weigh-ins have been flawed and manipulated to come in heavier come bell time, but I've seen that's started to change to avoid that. Hopefully more with the safety of competitors in mind, more so than competitive advantages.

Edited August 2 by MachoLibre

[Carbomb]

6 minutes ago, MachoLibre said:

This only applies when looking at the competitive aspect and entirely disregarding the human welfare aspect. This is to imply and assume that were a man to enter a woman's competition, it's as good as guaranteed they will smash through the competition and win everything, regardless of opponents skill. A skilled woman boxer could still defeat a man and perhaps crucially, that could well be by avoiding getting hit. Doesn't mean the potential dangers aren't there. Boxing is an insanely dangerous sport as it is, to put any competitors knowingly and unnecessarily in any greater danger is morally questionable and irresponsible. Knock-out or not, repeated blows to the head may cause long term damage that isn't immediately apparent. Yes, those physiological anomalies that exist often end up in said sports and so good at them entirely because of those physical advantages. Michael Phelps being a notable example of this. When it's only providing a competitive edge and when it's potentially causing physical harm or permanent physical harm to your competitors are very different discussions. Dangers certainly exist in combat sports with man vs man, of course. To avoid creating greater dangers is part of the reason why weight classes exist. Even there, it's far from perfect and weigh-ins have been flawed and manipulated to come in heavier come bell time, but I've seen that's started to change to avoid that. Hopefully more with the safety of competitors in mind, more so than competitive advantages.

Then we're getting into a wider discussion about why boxing as a sport should probably be banned. In the men's sport, you have guys like Deontay Wilder and Daniel Dubois who possess potentially lethal power. That's their natural advantage. But there are plenty of other boxers who get in the ring knowing those risks, because there's a whole array of training and skills to enable a fighter to mitigate or nullify that aspect. It doesn't even have to be Wilder or Dubois - at the higher weight classes, knockout is always a risk.

Point being, why is it an acceptable risk for a male fighter to take by training and fighting in that sport, but not when it comes to women's boxing? Knockouts are rarer in the women's game, because they tend to be smaller and lighter in general, but it should still be considered a concomitant risk.

[SuperBacon]

The Guardian is having an absolute nightmare couple of days. 

Ingle is a massive transphobe and now Ronay has acted like a massive twat as well.

A reminder that it's just another rag these days.

[MachoLibre]

32 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Point being, why is it an acceptable risk for a male fighter to take by training and fighting in that sport, but not when it comes to women's boxing? Knockouts are rarer in the women's game, because they tend to be smaller and lighter in general, but it should still be considered a concomitant risk.

The "transphobic argument" I was referencing, is I assume that they believe Man vs Woman boxing isn't right. Pat says that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because of the 9 losses. Were one man to compete against women and lose 9 times doesn't nullify the concerns of what could happen to make man vs woman commonplace.

In the same way a 300lb man isn't placed against a 150lb man. The examples you give they are of the same weight class and man vs man. I don't disagree on the general risks boxing presents, particularly when the heavyweight division is essentially; unlimited. 

Edited August 2 by MachoLibre

[Devon Malcolm]

I'm so tired. So fucking tired.

[Carbomb]

5 minutes ago, MachoLibre said:

The "transphobic argument" I was referencing, is I assume that they believe Man vs Woman boxing isn't right. Pat says that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because of the 9 losses. Were one man to compete against women and lose 9 times doesn't nullify the concerns of what could happen to make man vs woman commonplace.

In the same way a 300lb man isn't placed against a 150lb man. The examples you give they are of the same weight class and man vs man. I don't disagree on the general risks boxing presents, particularly when the heavyweight division is essentially; unlimited. 

I get that, but when a large chunk of the premise of the transphobic argument appears to be that her dominance must mean she's a man, then it's important to point how she's not dominant.