Male Boxers fighting Females in the Olympics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big_Nothing said:
I don’t need a synonym for the word nuanced. It’s just that you don’t seem to get it.

You want it to be nice and simple and when it isn’t
Click to expand...

It is nice and simple.

People need to meet certain criteria before they can partake in any number of things.

If you need certain grades to get in Oxford and you refuse to reveal your grades, you don’t get in.

If you want to fight in the 66kg weight category but refuse to get weighed, you don’t get fight.

If you need to be biologically female to box against females and you refuse to prove it, you don’t get to compete.

If you need a driving license to be able to drive and you don’t prove that you’ve got one, you don’t get to drive.

If you want to play in the under 10s football team and you don’t disclose your age, you don’t get to play.


People need to meet certain criteria for all sorts of things and a passport doesn’t always cut it, especially when the decision could result in real harm to opponents. (I refer you back to Fallon Fox fracturing his opponents skull).
 
Chutney said:
That's two questions.

But my answer is No (to the first one).
Click to expand...

So you’re against Khelif participating in the olympics. Ok, we’re in agreement on that one. Although I’m not sure why you didn’t answer the second one given that it would obviously be safer to determine their sex first in the interests of safety. To answer no to that is saying you believe that the odd male slipping through the net isn’t a danger to the female opponent. When he very much is.
 
king_hellfire said:
So you’re against Khelif participating in the olympics. Ok, we’re in agreement on that one. Although I’m not sure why you didn’t answer the second on given that it would obviously be safer to determine their sex first in the interests of safety. To answer no to that is saying you believe that the odd male slipping through the net isn’t a danger to the female opponent. When it very much is.
Click to expand...
I think you're now looking for an argument with someone who hasn't even disagreed with you.

The answer to the first implies the answer to the second. And the rest of your post puts words into my mouth that don't fit. I can see why all the people who have genuinely disagreed with you find you so unbearable.
 
Chutney said:
I think you're now looking for an argument with someone who hasn't even disagreed with you.

The answer to the first implies the answer to the second. And the rest of your post puts words into my mouth that don't fit. I can see why all the people who have genuinely disagreed with you find you so unbearable.
Click to expand...


I agree it *did* imply the answer to the second one, until you specified ‘to the first one’ by putting it in brackets. That then implies you agree with the first question, not the second. If you agreed with both there was no need to specify that you agree with the first question. 🤷🏻‍♂️


Anyway, regardless to all that, we can agree on the answers to both questions. 👍🏻
 
king_hellfire said:
It is nice and simple.

People need to meet certain criteria before they can partake in any number of things.

If you need certain grades to get in Oxford and you refuse to reveal your grades, you don’t get in.

If you want to fight in the 66kg weight category but refuse to get weighed, you don’t get fight.

If you need to be biologically female to box against females and you refuse to prove it, you don’t get to compete.

If you need a driving license to be able to drive and you don’t prove that you’ve got one, you don’t get to drive.

If you want to play in the under 10s football team and you don’t disclose your age, you don’t get to play.


People need to meet certain criteria for all sorts of things and a passport doesn’t always cut it, especially when the decision could result in real harm to opponents. (I refer you back to Fallon Fox fracturing his opponents skull).
Click to expand...

That makes sense. What criteria did this particular boxer fail and where can I view the evidence specific to this case?
 
king_hellfire said:
I agree it *did* imply the answer to the second one, until you specified ‘to the first one’ by putting it in brackets. That then implies you agree with the first question, not the second. If you agreed with both there was no need to specify that you agree with the first question. 🤷🏻‍♂️


Anyway, regardless to all that, we can agree on the answers to both questions. 👍🏻
Click to expand...
We can. Now calm down.
 
If we’re using the fact she didn’t appeal the previous ban as proof she is actually a cheating male, we should also be able to see if any of her opponents take the IOC to court as proof she’s not. In both cases it would be prohibitively expensive to go through a full trial which may be why it hasn’t happened.

The only solid information we have to go on is that the IOC, who have access to far more information than the public believe she’s female and allowed her to compete as one despite huge liabilities if someone could prove otherwise in court.
 
SilentProf said:
If we’re using the fact she didn’t appeal the previous ban as proof she is actually a cheating male, we should also be able to see if any of her opponents take the IOC to court as proof she’s not. In both cases it would be prohibitively expensive to go through a full trial which may be why it hasn’t happened.

The only solid information we have to go on is that the IOC, who have access to far more information than the public believe she’s female and allowed her to compete as one despite huge liabilities if someone could prove otherwise in court.
Click to expand...

I’m certain that it will all come out eventually. 👍🏻
 
Right.

I think it’s time to leave this thread. We’re all going round in circles. I think everything that needs to be said has been said by both sides.

We can bookmark this thread and when the results finally come to light we can reopen it and tell each other ‘I told you so’. 😀👍🏻

I’d like to say it’s been fun, but…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top