Algerian boxer Imane Khelif’s participation at the Paris 2024 Olympics is “not a transgender issue”, a spokesperson for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has said.  Khelif beat Italy’s Angela Carini on Thursday (1 August), in a fight that has reignited an online storm about her participation in the Games, despite the fact she has been confirmed as eligible to enter the women’s boxing event.

The welterweight bout lasted just 46 seconds, with the Italian boxer saying she was forced to concede defeat. “I am heartbroken,” Carina said, reports The Guardian. “Regardless of the person I had in front of me, which doesn’t interest me, regardless of all the row, I just wanted to win.”

Khelif previously competed at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. She and fellow boxer Lin Yu-ting were disqualified from last year’s World Championships after failing to meet eligibility criteria.

Lin, who represents Taiwan, was stripped of third place at last year’s World Championships after failing a gender eligibility test. Khelif was disqualified in New Delhi for failing a testosterone level test, following information from the IOC. 

Further details on why the pair were disqualified from the World Championships were not given at the time. IOC spokesman Mark Adams addressed the controversy again on Thursday (1 August), reiterating that Khelif and Lin both comply with Olympic eligibility rules and clarifying that their participation had nothing to do with trans issues.

“I repeat, all the competitors comply with the eligibility rules”, Adams stated (via The Guardian). “But what I would say is that this involves real people.”

He added: “And, by the way, this is not a transgender issue. I should make this absolutely clear.” Khelif told the BBC after her latest victory: “I am here for gold. I will fight anybody, I will fight them all.”   The IOC previously said that “all athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games comply with the competitions eligibility and entry regulations as well as all applicable medical regulations”. 

In response to claims about Khelif, the Algerian Olympic Committee said it “strongly condemns** the unethical targeting and maligning” of their boxer**, calling the attacks on her “deeply unfair”. 

Featherweight Lin is set to take on Sitora Turdibekova on Friday (2 August). 

Archived

According to Wikipedia Khelif is natal woman with DSD making her having high testosterone levels. Not much detail is given about fellow boxer Lin_Yu-ting also cleared to fight in the Olympics after being stripped of a medal for gender issues before. It seems she competed in women's tournaments throughout her life.

So this makes this another Caster Semenya case with a notable difference, the amount of anti-trans propaganda coverage the IOC boxers' issue has received is objectively more troubling even compared to Fallon Fox's MMA matches.

Please have this in mind and debunk whoever claims that this is a trans issue. Point out that their definition of woman leaves actual women out of it, unless they are the Marjorie Taylor Greene type.

And the endless attempts to control free-speech via obscenity laws...

Sometimes we are bugged by some commonplace behavior, belief, or attitude, but bringing it up will come off as obnoxious and elitist. We all have those. I will tell you two of mine, in hope I am not unknowingly a snide weirdo.

1 - And/Or is redundant: Just use OR

At some point it was funny in context (like "the OP is stupid and/or crazy). I can hardly find a context that is not similar to this (arguably) ableist template.

In formal logic there is no use case for saying 'and' OR 'or', because simply OR entails AND.

If there was a valid case it should represent the logical structure of 'AND' OR 'XOR', but it is obvious that this is OR.

So, whenever we are tempted to say "and/or" it is kinda definitive that just OR should suffice.

2 - A 'steep' learning curve means the skill is quickly mastered : Just use 'learning curve'

Apparently stemming from an embodied metaphor between the steepness of a hill and the difficulty of climbing it, this misnomer is annoyingly common.

I have yet to find a single source that does not yield to this erroneous, ubiquitous misconception.

Same goes for the fancier alternative 'sharp' learning curve.

In fact, in a diagram where the vertical axis is the skill mastery and the horizontal is time, a steep curve would mean that the task is quick or easy to master, since it reaches the higher level quickly, hence the steepness.

Since the literal alternative ('Rust has a smooth learning curve') will be counter-intuitive and confusing, and I bet nobody will adopt it, I suggest the following solution.

Almost every time you feel the need to reach for this phrase, YSK that probably just using 'learning curve' should suffice. For example 'This language has a learning curve'. It gets the message across, without making others question your position in the graph interpretation learning curve.

What are your mundane grievances?

Context: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-rages-non-binary-hurricane-1919219