In the Paris Olympics, media and pundits piled on any commentators expressing opposition to transgender athletes playing in women’s sports. From the opening ceremony to the coverage, these athletes were presented as demonstrably women who could not be barred from competition. Now, the International Olympic Committee has announced on Thursday that it would restrict women’s sports to biological females and establish a genetic test for eligibility. The only question is who is going to apologize to JK Rowling and countless others called bigots for their calling for a biological rule to protect women’s sports.
The IOC adopted the standard test based on the Y protein, also known as SRY, which is responsible for the initiation of male sex determination.
“Based on scientific evidence, the IOC considers that the presence of the SRY gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development… The scientific evidence is very clear: Male chromosomes give performance advantages in sports that rely on strength, power, or endurance.”
That directly contradicts arguments presented in the Supreme Court just this last year and the position of many Democrats who continue to support transgender athletes playing in girls’ sports in states like California.
This is not a new finding. A 2019 study in The Journal of Medical Ethics found that the IOC’s previous rules allowing transgender men to compete in women’s sports created “intolerable unfairness.”
Yet, the Democrats still attack those who adopt the same position as the IOC and other organizations. Recently, Arizona state senator Catherine Miranda mocked a young female athlete for not wanting to compete against boys and suggested that she was not competitive enough.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) similarly mocked conservative activist Riley Gaines for simply being too slow to compete against transgender girls.
The Nation called the recent discussion of state bans on transgender athletes a “hatefest” and “bigotry.”
Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) was attacked when he said publicly that he would not want his girls playing against biological males. A Democratic flash mob immediately formed to denounce him as a bigot.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.
Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One of his top aides actually resigned rather than work with Moulton. Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage over his discussing his concerns.
As various international organizations come to the same conclusion, it is doubtful that the recriminations will end. Advocates continue to insist that the concern of any advantage is a “myth.”
In the meantime, Rowling is still treated as persona non grata for arguing that transgender athletes are undermining the great advances in women’s sports.
I can see it now: Ladies, Gentlemen and the Contradicting Deniers the door to insanity has been nailed shut, glory be to SRY. Of course, I’m speaking of the hidden microphone at the Convention of the Sane.
The IOC Committee is now going to require this test for everyone applying to participate in Women’s Olympic Sports?
It seems a bit overkill, but I think the athletes will accept this as way preferential to competing with a biological male.
The SRY gene on the Y chromosome determines in the fetus if testes will develop. That should work for 99.99% cases to disqualify biological males. It would unfairly disqualify women with AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) — a very rare condition conceived as XY and with SRY gene, where testes grew but the testosterone produced is ignored by the growing fetal tissue. AIS kids grow up looking like, acting like, and feeling like girls. They don’t menstruate, and are shocked to discover as teens that the cause is AIS.
IOC will likely want to accomodate AIS women who test positive for SRY gene. They grew in the womb and afterwards as biologically female.
It’s a big victory for the Olympics and USA 2028 to have this controversy put to rest now. It might set a precedent more widely foe women’s sports.
It’s a clown show. Have congress change the CRA 1964. The athletic orgs were supporting this trans issue? Title ? doesn’t have “trans” athletes. How did this get by at the lowest level in court?
File it under bizarre.
“IOC will likely want to accomodate AIS women who test positive for SRY gene. They grew in the womb and afterwards as biologically female.”
If you have accurately described the AIS condition, and it is also as rare as you claim, than I think that the sanest way to deal with it is for the IOC to set up an appeals process for any athlete initially denied status as a woman on the basis of the SYR test, and address the issue within that appeals process. An appeals process probably isn’t a bad idea anyway.
While this is good news, the fact that a ‘test’ is required is peak madness. What in the holy hell has happened to people? That is partially a rhetorical question.
James,
I think your sentence would be better read as, “What in the holy hell has happened to people’s common sense?”
Be interesting to read historians take on this period in human history.
@Upstate
Very much agreed. I’m still not sure, spoken partly tongue in cheek, humans will see a 22nd century, but if we do, surely this period will be looked upon as a second Dark Ages. We might as well be talking about phrenology or bloodletting humors with leeches with the modern left’s version of ‘science’.
The maddening thing is largely they KNOW they are gaslighting and lying, they just want power by any means, the rest of us be damned. So they prey upon people that couldn’t possibly know better. There’s a four letter word for that that begins with an ‘E’ and ends in an ‘L’.
Actually, it’s a smart approach since it answers “Who decides?” in a totally objective way.
Your comment suggests you think “anyone can see the difference” (so it shouldn’t matter who decides). You don’t think a system based on informal, subjective perceptions is going to be gamed?
@Anonymous
If we were talking about something subjective that would make sense. We aren’t.
Put two biological d**** together and see how much progeny you get. You are an idiot. I would not be at all surprised if your lot go back to test tube babies to claim your idiocy. Fortunately for us, the way chromosomes work, that would not bear fruit, either. It’s called: science.
I am beginning to think the entirety of the humanities and subjective philosophy in colleges and later mainstream culture were initially a great idea for people with the capacity to think critically and actually consider and compare; for anyone born after 1990, not so much.
In other “follow the science” news, it appears climate change has been, um, changing not for centuries but for millennia (aka thousands of years). Proof? It appears that human beings were not the first “noble savages” to wipe out other savages. Neanderthals preceded humans in mano-a-mano (gorilla?) warfare; they followed what all organisms do: conquer others in their midst. Neanderthals in France > 65,000 years ago expanded beyond “their” region and replaced other Neanderthals throughout Europe.
Move over “white replacement theory”. Neanderthals were the original replacement group long before Democrats cried us a postglacial river
Archaeogenetic insights into the demographic history of Late Neanderthals
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2520565123
This study provides evidence for a widespread genetic replacement in the demographic history of European Neanderthals. By integrating mtDNA and archaeological data, we reveal a geographic contraction followed by the expansion of Late Neanderthal populations, likely influenced by climatic fluctuations and resulting in a high genetic homogeneity before their disappearance. Specifically, our analyses suggest that Late Neanderthals across Europe largely derive from a major diversification event that took place ~65 ka in southwestern France. This was followed by a wider geographic spread, which is consistent with a postglacial population re-expansion across Europe.
That’s interesting. Basically Neanderthals are the same species as we are because they could breed with us and provide viable offspring. Modern Europeans and Asians still carry significant amounts of Neanderthal DNA, [I do]; but sub-Saharan Africans generally don’t.
I suspect it is reasonable to refer to Neanderthals and modern humans as a collection of subspecies. The genetic distance between recognized subspecies of tiger is likely less than the distance between modern human subspecies.
One question is whether it is advantageous to have Neanderthal DNA or not. I think it is a likely benefit or it wouldn’t have been preserved. I wonder if Neanderthals were smarter than we are? They had bigger brains.
The hierarchy of taxonomy, as I remember from high school / college, is Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. However, since I was a kid, another higher rank was created known as Domain
Thus Homo refers to the genus while the species is denoted by neanderthalensis and </sapiens. Thus neanderthals (Europe and Asia) and humans (Africa) are indeed related on a genus order, they could interbreed and share a genetic origin. Then again, we humans share genes with many organisms including mice, fruit flies, plants and bacteria. We (all organisms too) got our nucleic acids (RNA, DNA) from viruses. These aforementioned organisms preceded us, so we literally benefited from their successes in evolutionary pressures. For example, the human innate immune system developed from plants. We differ from plants as to immunology in that we have an adaptive immune system where as plants do not. Only vertebrates have an adaptive immune system, which comprises about 5% of all living organisms. So we are “superior” to non-vertebrates as to immunology
As to brain size, recall that the size of the brain does not determine smartness. The sperm whale has the largest brain of all living organisms, and the African elephant has the largest brain of all land animals. The human brain is a fraction of their sizes. I think it would be impossible to compare our human brain tissue to that of any extinct Homo genus because we do not have a tissue sample. Skull size might help but what did their skull contain as to proportion sizes? When we say “brain” we are using a broad category. Today’s African elephant has a much larger brain than humans. However, that is in part because they have a huge cerebellum which is responsible for motor coordination. Our cerebellum is much smaller because we are not huge animals that need to coordinate our extremities for movement. Elephants need a larger cerebellum given their extremities and movements. What makes humans more intelligent is the pre-frontal cortex. The human prefrontal cortext is the largest of all animals, even larger than apes. See
Enlargement of the human prefrontal cortex and brain mentalizing network: anatomically homogenous cross-species brain transformation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00429-025-02896-7
All types of species interbreed. Catholic priest, Father Gregor Mendel, Catholic theologian, Abbot, scientist and “father” of genetics, interbred plants. Animals interbreed as well: lions and tigers, polar bears and grizzly bears, whales and dolphins, etc. Were Neanderthals smarter than humans? Well they are extinct and we are not, so there is that. But we certainly are acting more like bacteria than intelligent chordates. I suspect Neanderthals would have handled Leftists quite differently than us. Perhaps we would be rid of leftists if we acted more like Neanderthals.
I googled “definition of species” and got the AI response that a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. That is the definition I have known of for decades.
Horses and donkeys can breed but not produce fertile offspring so they are said to be different species.
Pygmies and Austrians can produce fertile offspring so are regarded as the same species.
Neanderthals and ‘modern’ humans can produce fertile offspring [us] and are therefore the same species.
The resistance to the idea that Neanderthals and Denisovans are different species is due to inertia. By morphology they were assumed to be a different species but genetics showed that our ancestors had bred with them and so they are part of our species.
Brain size may not prove intelligence but traditionally among primates, Lucy, homo erectus, etc, brain size is a metric used to speculate on intelligence, so why not Neanderthals?
Big brains are costly, requiring a lot of nourishment. Is it possible that with the invention of agriculture it was no longer needed. Hunting mammoths might require more smarts than planting seeds. Also farming allows reproduction on a greater scale. Could be we didn’t need to be quite so smart anymore. I don’t know but there are many possibilities.
But by traditional definitions Neanderthals are a branch of our species.
Follow the science. Put some effort into learning rather than doubling down on your ideology bc you’re a stubborn Neanderthal.
– Cahill, J. A., et al. 2018. “Genomic evidence for hybridization between polar bears and brown bears during the Pleistocene.” Science Advances 4:e1701835. — Documents past hybridization and ongoing gene flow between polar (Ursus maritimus) and brown/grizzly bears (U. arctos), with introgressed alleles persisting in descendant populations.
– Kelly, B. T., et al. 2010. “Hybridization of red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in the southeastern United States.” Molecular Ecology 19(16):3347–3362. — Genetic evidence of hybridization and backcrossing among red wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs demonstrating fertile hybrids contributing to subsequent generations.
– vonHoldt, B. M., et al. 2016. “Admixture between wolves and domestic dogs: evidence from genome-wide SNP data.” Molecular Ecology 25(19):4604–4617. — Shows extensive wolf–dog hybridization with fertile introgression across populations.
– Cronin, M. A., et al. 2013. “Introgressive hybridization in New World sparrows: genetic evidence for fertile hybrid offspring.” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 66(3):1009–1020. — Example of fertile hybridization and gene flow among closely related passerine bird species (specific species comparisons in paper).
– Rhymer, J. M., & Simberloff, D. 1996. “Extinction by hybridization and introgression.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:83–109. — Review summarizing documented cases where hybrids were fertile and caused introgression (e.g., waterfowl, fishes, plants).
– McGaughran, A., et al. 2009. “Hybrid speciation and introgression in Helianthus sunflowers.” New Phytologist 183(3):526–538. — Demonstrates hybrid formation and fertile hybrid lineages (Helianthus anomalus and others) that became stable taxa.
– Kallio-Nyberg, I., et al. 2020. “Hybridization and fertile offspring between Atlantic and Pacific herring—evidence from genetic markers.” Evolutionary Applications 13(6):1371–1382. — Documents hybridization and backcrossing in clupeid fishes producing fertile hybrids.
– Petersen, S. D., et al. 2020. “Genomic evidence of polar–grizzly bear hybrids reproducing with grizzlies.” Current Biology 30(6):R255–R258. — Reports wild polar×grizzly hybrids and evidence they can breed with grizzlies, passing on genes.
– Pace, L., et al. 2019. “Genomic analyses reveal extensive hybridization in North American black‑capped and Carolina chickadees producing fertile hybrids.” Evolution 73(3):529–546. — Shows gene flow via fertile hybrids between closely related chickadee species.
Estovir,
Nice response but hybridization occurs between animals of the same species if we accept the long-standing definition of species that animals are the same species if they can produce offspring that are fertile.
Change the definition of species and I suppose you can say anything you like but that isn’t the way established standards work. Change the length of a mile and you can even say it is only two miles from LA to NY.
Maybe you are confusing subspecies [which produce fertile offspring] with different species which do not produce fertile offspring [horse, donkey, mule].
What we used to call human races [before pretending they didn’t exist except for state benefits] are essentially subspecies who are different but can still produce fertile offspring. Look up pictures of subspecies of tiger and note how similar they are. The morphological differences between the subspecies of tiger are dramatically less than the differences between a Pygmy and an Austrian but folks, illogically, shy away from recognizing human subspecies.
Start from the definition of species and go from there rather than being sidetracked by sloppy popular use of the term.
Estovir,
I think part of the problem you are struggling with has historical roots.
Initially some creatures were deemed separate species because of appearance without the opportunity to see if they could mate and produce fertile offspring. Often they were right but that system is vulnerable to errors.
Using only those characteristics we would classify Pekingese and pit bulls as different species. Similarly we would classify Pygmies or Neanderthals as different species from an Austrian; but using the traditional definition of species [breed with fertile offspring] we can see that Pekingese and pit bulls are the same species as are Pygmies, Neanderthals and Austrians.
As a science-oriented person you know instinctively not to change standards [grams, meters, or species definition], or you should.
Estovir, ask yourself this: .if we need a concept term for cohorts of differently appearing animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring [‘species’ has done the work till now] what do you propose? And what will ‘species’ then mean?
Correction: ‘different appearing” rather than “differently appearing.” Predicate adjective. Mostly a typo on my part.
I seem to remember the IOC and other sports groups figuring out chromosomes 60 years ago after the USSR and Bulgaria “girls” were winning all of the Field events with new performance records.
Should there be separate Olympic games for the trans community?
That would be fair. But the Olympic games are now a multi-billion dollar industry with tens of thousands of people employed in all phases to make them happen.
They also depend on making money off those who are spectators either in person or watching them (and their ad buys) on television.
Tranny Olympics won’t even be able to attract enough dedicated Democrat viewers to manage to break even, never mind not being perhaps the worst business decision either.
Do you think there would be enough athletes of Olympic caliber who are trans to make it interesting? I don’t.
“That would be fair. ”
What is “fair”, and what can be made to work properly, are frequently not the same.
What I see coming is entirely predictable. Activist and “human rights” groups are already calling the IOC’s rule a form of prejudice and “gender policing,” and they will work hard to redefine a basic genetic screen to keep the women’s category for women as an attack on trans rights rather than a protection of female athletes. In other words, the same voices that spent years insisting there was no meaningful male advantage will now try to turn a straightforward sex‑based eligibility rule into a human‑rights crisis, because admitting the science behind the IOC’s decision would mean admitting that those they labeled bigots were simply describing reality.
Have they identified the protein that allows otherwise functioning humans to unhitch themselves from common sense? With COVID, at least they had the excuse of being afraid. And with their support of braindead Biden they had their hatred of Trump. But with this Trans nonsense, there is no excuse to be found. No one ever believed females, from little girl participants to elite athletes, were undeserving of fair play. But activists redefined fair play in service to their politics, all harm be damned. Now, once again, these hardcore culture destroyers will see support on this issue diminish radically as great numbers of their former allies, organically outed as dupes, drop this cause and move on to the next idiocy.
Let’s quit calling them “Trans” and be honest and call them “female impersonators.
In Other News: Trans Athlete Claims Legal Defense after Applying to Women’s Team: Absence of Phallus
the Democrats still attack those who adopt the same position as the IOC and other organizations.
Democrats have a mutation in the SRY gene that makes them into retards, eg. X, Svelaz, George, “green” anti-MAGA TDS anonymous, who by the way can’t spell with a lick, another sign of being a retard. That he is a homersexual retard makes him insufferable
It’s either that or an alien parasite has infiltrated their brains in order to weaken the globe before the invasion of earth. Those aliens are pretty cleaver, they attack the weakest minds first to create a mass of chaos thereby weakening all social structures and governments allowing for a much easier invasion. Either way you look at it, prog/left morons are someone or something’s tools
“can’t spell with a lick, another sign of being a retard… That he is a ‘homersexual'”
You pretty well classified your own intelligence with that comment.
the left are clearly anti science and anti west. They need to be defunded and destroyed. STOP being nice to them
Democrats help us understand….how you believe people playing pretend is real?
The level of BRAINWASH in the democrat party(The Left WOKE WORLD) is astounding and dangerous…they are raving fascist lunatics at this point!
Should there be separate Olympic games for the trans community? If so, then the men would still win based on genetics for those who don’t understand the genes.
phantomboldly.
I think they tried that once in some track and field event. No one showed up.
“in some track and field event”
Didn’t they name that event in tribute to two Greek gods: Hermes and Aphrodite?
well we could separate them into trans women and trans men, but I am certain they would still complain about something.
Finally, a politically-charged decision is precisely grounded in the science of gender determinism. It’s not the presence of the Y chromosome, but of a specific gene on it (SRY) that triggers male development. Why did it took so long to arrive at? The critical role of the gene was revealed in 1990.
What took so long was political calculations as to which way the wind was blowing.
I will be the first All-Pro transgender women’s basketball All-Star.
Secure Connection Failed
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
How could you when you don’t know which side of the ball goes in the hoop?
Good one, made my mornin.
Another victory in the war on trans madness. A strike for biology and nearly 2 billion years of life on this planet.
I think J K Rowling will do just fine. That lady is tough as nails. I fear if you cross words with her you will be reduced to a literary bloody heap.
So you’re a rabid MAGA, your comments prove such, you hate everything in life which you cannot abide. One would say you have “trans madness” on the brain.
Democrats are insane and will fight to prove it!
pot, kettle…..
I wish you’d call it quits for the day of getting turned on going after the MAGAs – I put on this hot Furry Tranny bedtime costume for you and you won’t even climb back into bed. Push away from that keyboard and come do pushups on me, lover!
Anonymous 9:21AM
Once again ATS demonstrates his All Stupid mantra.
He simply cannot help himself.
ECT might a good therapeutic venue for him.
Reminds me of the “madness”. . .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Beale_(Network)
GEB,
Well said.
Victory for all biological females. Protect women and women’s sports!
I am 6’2″, 265 lbs, all muscle, nasty, physical, incredible football player, MVP, captain, first team all-state junior and senior years, known for brutal, extremely vicious hits (but always clean. Never close to anything resembling a cheap shot) and I’m all male. I just realized what my calling is. Never dawned on me until this moment. I am going to have a change surgically and join the WNBA as a rebounder and an enforcer. Happy days are here again. Money will roll in. Cannot wait.
Love woke now.
Vicious and clean are mutually exclusive.. A future MAGAot.
clearly you never played nor did you ever see Dick Butkus play for the Bears
Ahhh, what a cutie!
Ever see? Nor will you. Hate to break the news, he’s dead.
try harder.
Clearly, you are an All Pro inside linebacker
Secure Connection Failed
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Not one trans-supremacist Democrat has the courage to demand the elimination of categories separated by sex. If these transgender extremists really think there is no biological difference between men and women, boys and girls, then why do we need two categories? We don’t. Unless there is a real performance difference. Which even trans-supremacists admit by their refusal to demand one category for every sport.
Not one trans-supremacist Democrat has the courage… trans-supremacist? What will you MAGAots think up next?
Lover, you’re so hot when you go after the MAGAots – now put that sexy Furry costume on, climb back into bed and let me give you some of that BJ Clinton lovin’!
I can think of one. It’s a Democratic Party summer picnic, and someone who’s had a few too many suggests playing tug-a-war, guys vs. gals. The howls go up in unison.
Now that’s funny.
Does AOC know thar Riley Gaines TIED for second with William “Lia” Thomas”?
Please inform her then.
She is likely to be in a drugged state… ketamine therapy, aka Soma.
The next thing we hear from J.K. Rowling may be a retort to the next attack on her for supporting the IOC determination. A retort from Hogwarts: Fie! A pox upon thee!
Magic is not real. There is no spell that can make a man a woman.
The spell: I am a woman.
personal opinions are rarely, if ever, accepted as evidence either in the scientific community or the judicial process. Delusion is just that, (a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, as a symptom of serious mental illness.)
Seems Democrats think they can wake up one morning and be a member of the opposite biological sex they were born. And they also believe they can wake up one morning and be a unicorn. Or a cat.