1144
JK Rowling falls silent as she could be prosecuted in Imane Khelif lawsuit
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1144 points (96.6% liked)
News
23367 readers
1874 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't get it. They took a test that revealed they have XY chromosomes in 2023.
I haven't seen any reporting confirming that she's got XY chromosomes. But if you have an article, please correct me if I'm wrong. What I've been able to find is this:
Banned governing body that’s fueling outcry on Olympic boxers has Russian ties and troubled history
Summary-
The disqualification was done in a tournament run by an organization banned by the Olympics.
She participated in tournaments run by this organization with no issues for the last several years.
The organization hasn't said why she was disqualified.
The man spouting the 'trans woman' claims is the leader of the organization. He's a friend of Putin and described as a drug trafficker.
Her disqualification happened after she beat the previously undefeated Russian boxer Amineva 3 days post fight.
There's more in the article, but these are the quick bullet points I came up with.
Troubled Russian ties and corruption in the Olympics.
Lie. They've said their tests found xy chromosomes.
But they haven't said what test they performed to determine this, which would be the norm so the results can be verified.
What is your point? If it's such the norm why hasn't she released the results herself?
Why does she have to? Why would she have a copy of a test allegedly done by a 3rd party that, based on news reports, was just using it as an excuse to eliminate her for beating a Russian opponent?
Do you know she doesn't have the test results? When I get medical tests done I usually do receive the test results.
There are news reports saying she's a man if you care so much about news reports.
It's funny how it works both ways. She doesn't have to release the results. And they don't have to release them so you can verify it either. Playing your own stupid game. Why do they have to release the results?
You seem to be misunderstanding, intentionally I would guess. They claimed they did a test to "confirm" she was not a woman, I'm saying that's a steaming hot load of bullshit and they were just looking for an excuse and they have no results to release.
Please cite your sources saying there are news reports that she's a man.
That user is basing their position on a Daily Mail article citing LePoint, a french right-wing magazine, that quotes one of her trainers, who said (with context) "There was a problem with her hormones and chromosomes, but she's a woman. That's all that mattered to us."
Nowhere does that even suggest she has XY chromosomes, and, to state the obvious, he's not a doctor. He's responding to an unsubstantiated allegation, and probably giving it too much credit. He even says that she underwent a testosterone test that came back within female norms.
It really is simple. The burden of proof is on people making these claims, and we're not taking the word of a blatantly corrupt organization, that had a vested interest in disqualifying Khelif, who would not say what test was administered or what the results were. If they had more specific information, they wouldn't shut up about it, because won't even shut up now with less to go on.
Here you go.
Are you sure I'm the one intentionally misunderstanding things?
First of all, and you knew I was gonna lead with this, The Daily Mail?
Ok, let's pretend that's a legit news organization, now read my comment quoting Snopes and tell me if that answers any of your "questions".
This is the source of the daily mail article. It's an exclusive interview with her coach since apparently you don't care to look further into it. Again, who is intentionally doing what here?
Anyways they should just test the chromosomes of their fighters at the very least. It's a simple blood sample nothing too invasive at all. I don't really care to watch an XY beat on an XX personally I don't see how it's an equal fight. Watch whatever you want though.
So you ignored the Snopes article, got it. You only seem to reply to the comments that are easy for you to deflect, how interesting.
What snopes article. Wtf are you talking about lmao. I think you were talking to someone else not me about that. Makes sense seeing how delusional you are anyways.
Ok I'll repeat myself: elsewhere in this thread I replied quoting the Snopes article on this subject. Are those instructions too confusing for you?
You never linked a snopes article to me. You never quoted anything from a snopes article to me. I don't know who you replied to but it's not on my thread here.
The thread begins when someone says something. Then people reply. ELSEWHERE in this thread is a reply, from me, quoting Snopes. Go back to when systemglitch commented in this post, follow the path to my reply quoting Snopes.
If I cared to reply to your comment you made to someone else I would have lmao. You can either quote relevant parts to me to what I'm talking about or you can fk on off. I'm not going on some wild goose hunt to track down a comment you made to someone else.
I mean even after looking I don't see any snopes article link. And I don't see any quotes.
Uh huh, on my screen it's literally 2 comments below this one, kinda feels like you're looking for an excuse not to answer. Kinda like that time a wrestling organization looked for a bullshit excuse to disqualify someone, what a lovely parallel.
Ok? That's on your Lemmy app. On my screen it is not like that. Like a normal person you can just copy and paste in whatever relevant parts you want me to respond to. Hell, you can even paste the link to the comment you made or the link to the fucking snopes article. At this point I don't even care to engage with you anymore.
You might be the most low effort person ever. Good luck in your future life, you'll need it.
That doesn't make her not female, or trans. From the Snopes article about this:
There are genetic conditions, termed differences of sexual development, in which biological females are born with XY chromosomes but possess female anatomy, or that affect how a biological female regulates and reacts to testosterone, causing levels typically associated with males. Though there is no independent confirmation that Khelif has these conditions, people born this way would legally be considered female or intersex.
Debates over these issues in the context of women's sports have nothing to do with a purported "woke" or "trans agenda," because such instances involve women who were born as women, identify as women and have not undergone any sex reassignment surgery or procedure to change this fact. That is what IOC spokesperson Mark Adams meant when he clarified to the press "this is not a transgender issue."
Gender-reassignment procedures require significant financial and medical resources. The notion that a woman from a rural western Algerian village who sold scrap metal to support her boxing career would have had the ability to undergo such a procedure in a deeply conservative Muslim country that prohibits the practice is extremely unlikely, at best.
Apparently that is not true. There was a report of test taken and result was xy, but the report was never shown to the public and the lab that took the test has been banned.
Seems they are attacking the wrong group then.
Yes, I believe Rowling was quite misinformed in this aspect.
According to anti-trans people like her, there are only men and women. At birth Khleif was medically determined to be a woman and always lived as a woman. End of story, particularly for people like JKR who think this is a simple issue.
Hey look it's a mouth breathing transphobic science misunderstander
Don't shame, but educate. There's no need to be rude over this.
Sure there is. That mouth breather is refusing to use a woman's feminine pronouns over an unsubstantiated rumour about a minor medical abnormality. They're being ten times as rude as I am.
Where?
Here: https://lemmy.world/comment/11819572
This person uses "they" instead of Khelif's she/her pronouns.
I'm sorry but no. Using gender-neutral language does not describe gender; using 'they' isn't to misgender, it just leaves the gender unspecified.
You can correctly use 'they' for anyone. If they'd said 'he', now that would've been different...
(Edit: typo)
Yeah, it's so minor. I think that commenter is only looking for a reason to be upset on behalf of someone else and use that as an excuse to blow up.
Yea, they seem to have a pretty short fuse...
I didn't say they were misgendering her, I said they refused to use her preferred pronouns. Surely you can agree with the factual accuracy of that statement.
Also, how do you even know her preferred pronouns in English? Did you ask her?
Imane is a Muslim from a country where being trans is illegal. I think she's said enough words to the effect of preferring she/her despite the language barrier. If you expect her to be familiar enough with English to describe her preferences with regard to the specific grammatical rules of it, I find your demand xenophobic and racist. Her preferences can easily be inferred from the translations of what she says in her own language, in the context of her own country's and religion's social norms.
again, gender-neutral wording like they/them don't say anything about gender or her own identity. 'They' does not refer to a third gender. I'm not demanding anything from her. You're the one who brought up using the correct pronouns. So I expect you to be familiar with English grammar.
I think your language-policing is ridiculous. You can't expect someone unfamiliar with a situation to be up-to-date with how to affirm someone's gender correctly. Gender-neutral language functions as a safe fall-back in such situations. You can rightfully expect people to not misgender people. You cannot be rightfully offended at people using gender-neutral language. The only person I'm making demands of currently is you, because you're making this discussion unnecessarily hostile.
I'm not accusing them of misgendering her. I'm just saying they didn't use her preferred pronouns. I thought I already explained that fact. You keep on going back to this issue and trying to accuse me of misgendering. What's with all the false accusations? I already explained that I don't have as big a problem as you seem to think I have. Is it that you just want there to be a big blowout fight so you're trying to invent an argument on my side for you to rail against?
No, I just mean to say that they didn't use her preferred pronouns. Surely you can acknowledge this is the correct factual interpretation of what happened. A simple yes or no will suffice, I don't want this massive argument. I'm not interested in a big fight.
I'm just saying you're making a big deal out of nothing. Have a good night now.
yea, nah.
Edit: Using a word is not the same as refusing to use another word in its place.
I'm about to enjoy blocking you.
The bullshit about XY chromosomes is pretty stupid, which is why the other replier provided an article and a few key points in refutation.
The OP's comment didn't read to me as particularly incendiary, but thanks for labelling them as transphobic and mouth breathing with no precedent! Really appreciate good contributions to discourse like yours.
EDIT: not sure what the downvotes are for. XY chromosomes are not exactly valid for determining sex, much less gender. Women might have Y chromosomes, or even three copies of X. Gender has nothing to do with this at all, in fact.
Using XY as an argument is therefore bullshit.
Even if it's bullshit, there's no need to call someone a mouth breather unprovoked. The other thread seems to be a shitshow anyway, so I'm glad the replier is being called out.
You're welcome, glad to be of service.
Please do bring facts. Then, cite your sources. You have sources, right?
... right?
Narrator: "they do not"