On Saturday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) issued a surprising correction after claiming for a week that Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting were actually born women and have Differences in Sexual Development (DSD), a range of rare conditions in which a person’s genitalia do not necessarily match with their chromosomes or hormone levels. In this weekend’s column, I cited that IOC claim that Khelif is not a transgender athlete. Yet, there remains considerable confusion on how the IOC and the boxing governing body is framing this issue and the question of gender.
IOC chief Thomas Bach said: “We have two boxers… who were born as women, raised as women, who have passports as women, who have competed for many years as women. And this is a clear definition of a woman.”
Bach chastised critics and warned them not to “confuse the two issues,” stressing that this was not “about the transgender issue.” However, he then confused many by saying “this is not a DSD case.”
The IOC later issued a correction:
In today’s IOC – Paris 2024 press briefing, IOC President Bach said: ‘But I repeat, here, this is not a DSD case, this is about a woman taking part in a women’s competition, and I think I have explained this many times.”
What was intended was:
‘But I repeat, here, this is not a transgender case, this is about a woman taking part in a women’s competition, and I think I have explained this many times.’
The key claim of the IOC is that both boxers were “born women.” Clearly, the identification on their passports (and how they were raised) can differ from country to country.
In 2023, the International Boxing Association (IBA) President Umar Kremlev explained the IBA’s decision to disqualify Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting and Algeria’s Imane Khelif from 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championships. While there remains confusion on the testing used by the IBA (or the reliability of those tests), it issued this statement:
“Based on DNA tests, we identified a number of athletes who tried to trick their colleagues into posing as women. According to the results of the tests, it was proved that they have XY chromosomes. Such athletes were excluded from competition.”
Various media also did their own “fact checks” with outlets like USA Today stating that the “outcries from anti-trans celebrities and politicians” were based on false claims and the boxers were born women.
NBC also cited “attacks from anti-LGBTQ+ conservatives online who claim they’re transgender.” It stressed that the IBA could not be trusted since the group was banned by the IOC. (IBA was banned for corruption and financial related issues).
Notably, buried down in the CNN report on the controversy is a line that would seem significant that “Khelif… has not said she has DSD.”
In the meantime, IOC spokesman Mark Adams has said that these determinations are left up to each sport’s international governing body because “they know their sport and their discipline the best,” Adams added that “I hope we all agree that we’re not calling for people to go back to the days of sex testing which was a terrible, terrible thing to do. This involves real people and we’re talking about real people’s lives here.”
Yet, it seems odd that such major criteria of qualification would be left up to each governing body. There should be a consistent rule across the Olympics. Yet, the Human Rights Watch maintains that gender testing violates fundamental rights to privacy and dignity.
My friend Marc Siegel, Fox medical analyst, argues that the testing side can be as simple as a hormone swab.
Media is still insisting that these are not transgender athletes. Many articles cited GLAAD and InterACT. On Sunday, GLAAD was insisting that Khelif is not transgender, but is now referring to the DSD claim as something the IOC has maintained:
Imane Khelif is a woman.
Imane Khelif is not transgender and does not identify as intersex.
Because Imane Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 International Boxing Association (IBA) championship due to an unspecified gender eligibility test, which has different eligibility criteria than the IOC, there have been unconfirmed reports that she may have a variation in her sex traits, also known as differences of sexual development (DSDs).
DSDs are a group of conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs. According to the NIH, some people with DSDs are raised as female but may have sex chromosomes other than XX, or elevated testosterone levels.
Athletes with variations in their sex traits, or DSDs, are not the same as transgender athletes. Conflating the two is inaccurate.
It is not verified that Imane Khelif has a variation in sex traits or DSDs.
If you are confused, you are not alone.
Legally, there continues to be a debate on the criteria used in these competitions. However, the GLADD statements seems to suggest that there is uncertainty on the underlying facts.
Some of the confusion may be due to the use of transgender versus intersex.
There is a difference between transgender athletes and intersex athletes. Transgender refers to someone who has a gender identity that is not in alignment with their sex.
Intersex refers to someone who has reproductive anatomy or genes that align with conventional definitions of male or female, including different chromosomal profiles. ESPN explained that “an example is someone who is partially or completely insensitive to androgens, such as testosterone. They may be assigned female at birth but have XY chromosomes because of their body’s physiological insensitivity to androgens.”
The athletes defending these two boxers have supported the claim that they are intersex athletes who were born female but have chromosomal differences.
What is most striking about the boxing controversy is that there appears little agreement on the underlying facts and testing. It is not even clear what Khelif has claimed in the past on these issues. That seems curiously undefined and irregular for a classification criteria. That was brought home by the confusion of Bach himself in warning against confusion on the issues.
On Saturday, Khelif defeated another female contestant, Hungary’s Anna Luca Hamori and Taiwan fighter Lin Yu-Ting also won the day before to advance to the semi-finals.
Biological men don’t belong in women’s sports! PERIOD!
How bout misogyny?
Something Islam does well.
Something sick men gravitate to
Actually, I compliment Professor Turley on bringing this up because this is a very complex problem medically and then it spills over in to legal thought and actions, and then sports.
I am totally against treating children under the age of 18 with puberty blockers and sex change surgery, if the are wholly “normal” and have no evidence of these DSD difficulties. DSD is totally different and, as the writers here can see, it is one thing to submit people to surgery and abnormal levels of hormones when they are a functioning physically, genetically and endocrinologically normally. If something is functioning normally you don’t change it. Mother Nature exacts a price if you do.
On the other hand when there is a non-normal state and the individual is having difficulty functioning as result of that , then intervention is appropriate.
Actually DSD is what gender services should really be focusing on and not wholly remaking people who are physically “normal”.
1-normal physical condition, normal gene function, normal hormones with normal function then likely gender dysphoria disorder and mental health counseling is preferred.
2-DSD-the person needs to be evaluated, the state of the person should be determined and diagnosed and then discussions with the individual as to whether surgery, hormones, or nothing is offered. Some people may wish no intervention at all. But all very individualistic to their “disorder”.
Unfortunately there are millions upon millions of people out there who are “normal” and could be gender dysphoria disorder (all the world is pre-op) according to surgeons.
There are a much lower numbers of people with DSD and the problems are far more complex and difficult.
Guess which problem get all the resources and medical intervention?
Tell that to the SWISS!
GEB,
Well said.
“If something is functioning normally you don’t change it. Mother Nature exacts a price if you do.”
Yes, the “first, do no harm principle” is quite sound. Unfortunately, that principle seems to have been largely abandoned by the contemporary medical-pharmaceutical industry, and nearly all of the practitioners that serve it.
can you see how this “medical” exemption could be and probably already is being exploited for athletes who want that extra edge?
that really is the problem here. it is a fairness problem.
for every action to accommodate an athlete who “suffers” from some “thing”, there are going to be at least that many athletes who will use this intentionally to provide for an unfair advantage.
I’ve written a few thoughts about this in this article. I believe the problem facing modern sports is the fairness doctrine and WHO GETS TO DECIDE RULES OF FAIRNESS.
right now, the Olympics committee has deferred ALL rules to the individual sports organization organizations. and that has become a hot mess as there are at least as many differences between rulings as their are with similarities. This has created a environment where the athlete who has done everything right by the book and has not exploited rules to BE AT A SERIOUS DISAVANTAGE.
literally, because of the turmoil and tyranny of these rules, the cheater athlete has the benefit of rules and is more likely to outperform than any other.
When you get right down to the matter, what is missing is a universal fairness policy set of rules. Across ALL SPORTS.
right now, the only common ruling body is the active anti doping authority and even that isn’t even close to what it should be to prevent cheating. But at LEAST all other athlete governing bodies recognize a single anti doping authority and respect the rules.
gender, trans, and intersex should have a universal fairness body of rules.
it’s time to reform sports and establish fairness.
this is getting stupid already
Are we witnessing the fall of western civilization?
*LORETTA
At least a definite dip in civilization.
Pbinca is correct and I compliment the writer on a good discussion and some of the stats. We are, by default, female, as stated. However when there is a Y chromosome, you need the genes on that chromosome to function normally, sometimes they do not. Sometimes other genes come into effect. Just having the right hormones and levels is no guarantee of correct function. All organs, including those associated with sex, have what we call receptors. They also have to work correctly by taking the signal from a drug or hormone and then responding in a way that is normal for the organ. If you lack the hormone or the functioning receptor then nothing happens. People can be XY and male and be totally insensitive to testosterone and, to a degree develop as female. Same can happen if you are XX but the estrogen may not be produced, or it is not correctly produced and has some variant in its chemical structure. And then things may change as puberty may occur. There are various degrees of all of these conditions.
Also the adrenal glands (not usually associated a great deal with sex) may oversecrete corticosteroids and cause a virilizing effect so that someone who is XX may show male like characteristics with a beard or mustache and difference in musculature.
Many of these people were called hermaphrodites in the past and then the convention in some countries was to use the term intersex, and some use the term DSD (Differences of Sex Development). All of which is confusing to the lay people.
This is the world of Endocrinology in medicine. Highly complex with a lot of genetics and variety of hormones and receptors and our body’s response to them.
This is not about Gender Dysphoria Disorder and puberty blockers or sex change surgeries of other wise “normal” people.
Although some of the DSD people end up having surgery and hormone manipulation to try to improve their lives and body function.
Endocrinology is difficult under the best of circumstances. Most people think of it as diabetes or thyroid disease. Oh! If only it was that simple.
That’s why I chose Pulmonary and Critical Care. Far more clearcut, life and death. Endocrinology can make you pull all of your hair out and make your brain hurt.
This is the worst olympics in history. Domestic violence (men striking women) being used as entertainment. Intentionally ridiculing an event an entire religion holds as sacred. Congratulations France, you win a golden raspberry award.
*LORETTA
It’s more serious than you say. There is a spiritual aspect in life. Some don’t recognize it. The Olympics were insidiously spiritually blessed by the sneaky entertainment. It’s called deception.
Oh my, but high school biology today must be so confusing. It was so simple before XY, XX, and occasional anomalies, but now? Mamma mia, che casino! So happy I’m on the late afternoon side of life.
I saw the muscles and facial structure on that Algerian boxer. The dude does not look like a lady.
This is just dumb.
All the women in boxing in those weight classes, at the Olympics should refuse to fight these two MEN. Let them win gold medals by shame.
Support women’s rights!
Agree. And everyone who has a problem with this kind of BS *SHOULD* be completely boycotting the Olympics, INCLUDING TV broadcasts and network or IOC related youtubes, but I would but that isn’t happening. If you are watching this crud, you are supporting it every bit as much as a financial contributor. It kills me that even such purportedly unwoke sites as Just The News are running articles on how “Olympic TV broadcasts are a great success, in spite of the controversy”. In a recent survey on JTN, >90% of the respondants indicated that they had zero intention of watching any of the Olympics. I have become increasingly disgusted about the apparently increasing hypocrisy at that domain, of late. Are the Solomons in the process of selling us out, like everyone else has done? 🙁
Upstate: Bingo! We accept aberrancy by our actions. In this case, when a woman competes against a man, though no personal fault, she aids aberrant behavior. Life isn’t fair. If a woman is anything but an XX, she should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. We spend too much energy and time on the outlier trying to make a game fair to one competitor and unfair to the rest.
S. Meyer,
Well said.
This whole “inclusion” thing has gotten out of control.
Thanks, Upstate.
Enjoy your boating. I haven’t been on mine in a long time, and it is now dead. My grandson is moving to my area, so I will pay for the boat to get in running shape and give it to him. I will also let him use my lift. I was never a great boater, so I worry a bit.
As usual, the left controls the words and therefore the world. They make up ridiculous words and acronyms that make no sense to anybody but fellow wack jobs and whose entire purpose is to obfuscate the obvious fact that, as Austin Powers could have easily summed it up in four words: “She’s a man, baby!”
I did enjoy the phrase “the most striking thing about this boxing controversy..” Very punny!
If “the left controls the words, ” is the left to blame for Turley’s illiteracy ? See: “such a major criteria” ….
It’s always men who have an identity crisis who want to compete against women. I don’t see many/any women who have identity issues wanting to go toe to toe with men. Why do you suppose that is??
Men have an advantage competing against women. Women are at a disadvantage competing against men. You don’t see trans men, because they can’t compete.
Anonymous, what the heck do you think Margot was saying? You just repeated her point.
@hullbobby – Many Thanks for turning the light on for the obvious. Keep up the good work, please.
Identity crisis, my a$$. These are largely men who have chosen a sport, invested at least some time and effort, and then found out that they have no chance of being truly competitive. So they take what they see as the easier road of competing against relatively smaller and weaker women. In other words, sleazy, opportunistic, cowards looking for an easy, unearned payday.
*LORETTA
There are the co-ed sports. Shooting for instance. Women can fire handguns as well as men. It requires no muscle type nor strength.
People are incredibly different genetically. There are physical diseases of the sex chromosomes. An xy can lack an enzyme that allows the body to utilize testosterone for instance. If an xy is utilizing such medication that’s fine. I presume an asthmatic is allowed medication?
Submit DNA and a drug list. To ignore the fact that there are cheaters in the world is childish.
There is not a right to be an Olympic athlete
If you are disqualified because of a genetic anomaly so what ?
I am a normal male my genetics would never get me into the Olympics
Olympic athletes are always genetic extremes
I have no problems saying we will allow this but not that
Ultimately it is what people want to watch
Kristin Oren- They are in different weight classes: Imane Khelif in the 66kg class, Lin Yu-Ting in the 57kg class.
The ESPN description of intersex omits a very significant category: DSDs like 5-ARD deficiency, where an XY-genotype body responds normally to testosterone (and thus, according to research, has male-typical muscle development) but testosterone does not get converted to the more potent androgen DHT. The absence of DHT means the external genitals never develop into male-typical phallus and scrotum, and so a visual examination may classify the person as female, especially if secondary sexual characteristics like muscle structure and presence of breasts are not examined. So there are DSDs where, contra ESPN, androgens have important effects on XY individuals.
Then let’s give these freak specimens (and, unless you can demonstrate in convincing fashion that they comprise >1% of the population, I think “freak” is a defensible adjective) their own divisions in which to compete. “Men”, “Women”, and “Them” (since transgender advocates seem to love plural pronouns) works for me.
Swimming assoc did create a separate category…no one signed up.
Janice Janes,
I think that makes the most amount of sense.
Men’s sports.
Women’s sports.
Other’s sports.
I would be all for it!
If a separate category is created, no one enters, *AND* no one is allowed to compete as a woman (or a man, for that matter) who isn’t biologically suited to the category, that is perfectly fine with me. An opportunity has then been created for arguably more equitable competition with those of similar biology, and no one is taking cynical, tremendously unfair, advantage (and face it, that is exactly what is going on here) of misguided classification into the women’s events to win undeserved spoils, and deprive actual women athletes of the opportunities that they have worked so hard to earn.
So ?
Seems like Turley is exploring the bottom rungs on the ladder of people’s interests.
Somehow, with the cost of food, the ongoing election tampering, the threat of expanded wars, attempted assassination, invasion of our southern border, and probably 700 other pressing issues, I seriously doubt that many people have the time or energy or interest in caring about the “Gender Status of Two Olympic Boxers” and whether they are categorized as “Transgender or Intersex.”
Of course, my assessment doesn’t account for the intense interest given to these subjects by Turley’s hired trolls, whose brains appear to be empty until the Professor loads them up with the daily dose of nonsense along with orders to attack anyone that might disagree.
If Professor Turley upsets you so much why bother reading or posting. Just “move on” as your kind likes to advise.
The “gender” obsession is lead by the ruling class centered in Davos Switzerland for societal transformation purposes. People need to be aware of what is being done to them.
*LORETTA
Hear, hear.
I am new to the term DSD. The term intersex has a more specific meaning, applied to babies born with ambiguous genitalia (about 1:5000 births).
The fetus starts out with its set of chromosomes, but is indistinct sexually because the genes on these chromosomes involved in sexual development won’t be expressed until many weeks into pregnancy. Generally speaking, the default is to develop as a female. If the right set of genes located on the Y chromosome are expressed at the right time, a male child is developed. However, biology isn’t perfect, something you would never know if your experience of gender is based on only knowing a few hundred people. So, just knowing the chromosome type (XX, XY, XXY, etc.) does not tell the whole story, except to say, absent the male-shaping genes hosted on the Y, you for certain get a girl.
It’s true that the design for human reproduction is based on two sexes — but the implementation is imperfect, which should not be hard to accept. Claiming that humans only come in 2 sexes is true for very small populations (such as your extended family). It is riddled with exceptions for the population of a city, state, nation or globe. Do the math. In a country of 340,000,000, dividing by 5000, that means about 70,000 Americans were born with ambiguous genitalia, enough to fill a major stadium.
The larger the population you are willing to study, the more anomalies in sexual development will be found, both in varieties of anomaly and numbers within each.
For athletics, to protect the fairness of competition for female sports, it seems you need a multifactorial definition that includes only females with normal sexual development, and excludes edge cases with a Y chromosome, a partial Y chromosome, or abnormally high testosterone expression. Yes, some of those excluded will have been raised as girls.
A very thoughtful critique. Unfortunately the debate cannot be had, if the debate opponent will not define terms and relies on “context” and obfuscation.
It is time to define woman. Then you, or anyone else, can have this debate.
Chromosomes are the only sensible way.
*LORETTA
That was helpful. Prof T might have consulted an expert. You bring to light the idea of birth defects.
Lgbt people may indeed have physical defects. That does not mean they are immune to community standards of behavior.
Every single one of us (human and even semi-human lizard aliens like Gretchen Whitmer) has intellectual and physical strengths and weaknesses. For very practical reasons not all areas of endeavor are open to everyone. Excluding a tiny percentage of developmentally unusual people from women’s sports does not seem unjust and in fact seems to have safety and fairness in its favor. The IOC is off the rails with their current gender policy. I have not watched any of it and will not until there are major upheavals in personnel and policy. If my daughters had been faced with this crap when they were younger I would have been horrified to the point of either fixing the problem or pulling them from their teams.
I am not disagreeing
There are things that can be objectively measured
But the question of who can compete in which groups is not objective
There is no right answer
There is no fair answer
All Olympic athletes are by genetics and training at the extreme of their group
However you choose groups
You will not achieve fair
Because there is no such thing
It is likely that nearly all Olympic athletes have greater natural steroid levels
Ultimately we must set rules and those rule will have edge cases that are sympathetic to some
I do not disagree with you proposed standards
Only the presumption that an objective standard exists
“XY chromosomes”
In other words: Men — beating up on women.
This is IOC-sponsored barbarism.
Are these two fighters in the same weight class? Would be something to have two people with XY chromosomes fighting each other for the women’s boxing gold.
It sounds like DSD is the new woke term for ambiguous genitalia at birth. No matter what they call it having XY chromosomes means male not female. The IOC’s position is not only ludicrous but dangerous to female athletes.
Uncertainty is a feature of deconstructionism. People fight about meaning rather than the pathetic reality of men beating up women for Olympic sport.
Realists are open to accepting facts. Closed-minded individuals prefer simple narratives uncluttered with exceptions. You can tell the difference in the comments posted here.
If you are IOC officials dealing with millions of young athletes aspiring to be Olympians, you are forced into realism. You will be faced with a slew of edge cases. You hope to latch onto a stable base of facts — then use those for policy.
“Closed-minded individuals prefer simple narratives uncluttered with exceptions.”
Which statement is itself a “simple narrative uncluttered with exceptions.”
Before you pull the trigger on a gun, you might to see first whether it’s pointed at your own foot.
LOL good one
The ioc does not deal with millions
The left wants to “deconstruct” everything as a way to gain power and foist their radical ideas on an unsuspecting public through asinine terminology, mumbo jumbo reasoning, language that would make Professor Irwin Corey blush and pedantic virtue preening that renders argument useless.
I remember studying deconstruction during it’s infancy stage in the legal realm many years ago and it made no sense then and it makes no sense now. It is a magicians wand way of saying what you see is not really what is reality.
The rule should be if you are not a woman by genitilia or by chromosome configuration, then you are not a woman for Olympic purposes. Clean up the who detestable situation.
Inspecting genitalia is crude, invasive and unnecessary. The decision can be based on chromosome / genetic analysis, accepting “XX”, “XXX”, “XXXX” as female athletes, and excluding any chromotype with a Y, a partial Y, or the male-shaping genes normally carried on Y.
This can be determined at birth, giving parents a heads-up about sports eligibility as they raise their child. That seems fair.
Pbinca 7:39AM-a very reasonable process to use. Makes too much sense for some people to accept.
Ugh.