By Wayne Allensworth
By now, all of you have registered the public outrage over biological males boxing females in the Olympics. Social conservatives have expressed dismay over the pummeling the former have given the latter. They often mistake what is going on in the boxing competition in Paris for “trans” athletes (biological men who have “transitioned”) beating up women. In this case, the question of biological sex still comes into play, but not in that way. In fact, the two boxers in the Olympics competing as women are apparently among a small, unfortunate group of people with DSD, “disorders of sexual development,” or, if you like, “disorders of sexual differentiation.” As I understand it, these are conditions in which people are born with chromosomes, genitals, or reproductive organs that do not fit precisely into male/female patterns.
As explained in the video below, the two boxers in question, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, reportedly have male XY chromosomes, but had undeveloped male sex organs at birth and were identified as females. Both reportedly failed the chromosome test administered by the International Boxing Association at the 2023 World Boxing Championships and were disqualified. The IBA also cited Khelif’s high testosterone levels as a reason for disqualification. The test results, however, were never published. Both have long competed as women, and do not claim to be transgender.
Whether the two said they were “transgender” or not, the issue of “gender testing” for athletes’ eligibility for competition is very much in play in this story. The International Olympic Committee has no such test and does not, as many sports governing bodies do, test for testosterone levels in athletes competing in women’s competitions. There is also a political element to the tense relations between the IBA, often described as a “Russian run organization,” and the IOC. In other sports, the IOC usually defers to that sport’s international governing body regarding questions of “sex and gender,” but the IOC cut off relations with the IBA in 2019 and has its own standards for judging boxers’ eligibility.
Back in 2021, the IOC said it would no longer require athletes to undergo “medically unnecessary” procedures, such as “hormone level modification,” to compete at the games. The IOC stated in its “Framework” document on “transgender and intersex” (“intersex” referring to athletes such as Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting) that it intended to ensure that “everyone, irrespective of their gender identity or sex variations” can compete in a manner that “respects their needs and identities.” The document was released after the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, which featured “transgender and intersex” athletes openly competing for the first time (though the IOC had officially allowed “transgender” athletes since 2004). A New Zealand weightlifter, for instance, competed as a female and had apparently “transitioned” after male puberty, but qualified under the rules set by the International Weightlifting Federation. Current guidelines for the Olympics are not binding on international sports bodies, but reportedly include a codicil requiring that the transition procedure be completed by the age of 12, i.e., prior to male puberty, for a “trans” athlete to be eligible to compete as a female. There are “transgender and non-binary” athletes competing at the Paris Olympics. When those athletes “transitioned” and what “non-binary” might mean regarding the issue of biological sex is unclear to this observer.
The IOC’s Framework document replaced guidelines dating from 2015, which set a limit on testosterone levels for athletes competing in women’s sports and required some of them to undergo treatments that at one time included undergoing “gender reassignment surgery” in order to compete. Today, there are no longer any “invasive” physical examinations, either, used to determine an athlete’s eligibility for the Olympics.
Some of you may recall those very male looking female East German athletes competing in the Olympics during the Cold War, especially at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. The use of steroids by female athletes was part of the argument going on at the time, and the Soviet bloc had pioneered steroid use in international competitions. That’s the backdrop for today’s surreal denial of biological reality. “Doping,” as in using “Performance Enhancing Drugs” is officially off limits, but the biological advantages of testosterone production in nominally female athletes is off the table as far as the Olympics is concerned. As explained in the video, people like Khelif and Yu-ting appear to have undergone male puberty, and gained the usual physical advantages of males over females that would give them a leg up in sports competition, including heavier bone structure, height, aggressiveness and muscle mass advantages that accompany higher levels of testosterone production. That same “intersex” condition was part of the controversy around South African middle distance runner Caster Semenya, who challenged the rules governing track and field international competitions requiring testosterone suppression treatments in order to allow Semenya to continue competing.
One can feel some sympathy for the tragic circumstances of people like Khelif, Yu-teng, and Semenya, but nonetheless understand the frustration of biological women forced to compete with them. Yet the issue at hand is only superficially one of fairness—women athletes being faced with competing against biological males—and more importantly concerns biological sex as a reality. The Italian woman boxer who stopped her fight with Khelif and said the fight was unfair was not entirely off base in doing so. NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines and others who complained about “Lia” Thomas, who was eventually banned from Olympic competition by World Aquatics, swimming’s international governing body, were justly angry about the blatant unfairness of “Lia’s” competing in women’s swimming events. But, again, the issue is at heart far more profound.
The madness that condones allowing the mutilation of sexually confused children and sanctions women competing against biological males is part and parcel of a wider detachment from reality endemic in this disordered post-modern era. The assumption behind the dominant Zeitgeist is that since sexual differences exist on a continuum, with the lines, as in the rare cases of people who are born with DSDs, being somewhat blurred at the margins, that sex is not a biological reality, but, rather, a “social construct.” Thus, the current privilege of the term “gender” over that of “sex.” It’s a delusion that claims that absolute equality can be achieved simply by denying the “bigotry” of differentiating between the sexes. It’s the delusion behind diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which assumes a “blank slate” view of humanity, one without consideration of differing group abilities and interests. It’s the delusion behind the notion that we are all potentially self-creating and that self-creation is not subject to questioning.
And it’s a dehumanizing delusion that deprives us of all the actual and beautiful “diversity” that makes us human beings and not interchangeable widgets in the globalist utopia to which bodies like the IOC aspire.
Chronicles contributor Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel, Field of Blood. For thirty-two years, he worked as an analyst and Russia area expert in the US intelligence community.
Please consider supporting American Remnant: A green “Donate Today” button has been added at the end of each article (see below) appearing on the website. If you value what AR is doing, please consider supporting the website financially. $5, $10, or any amount that you can afford. Regular donations would especially be appreciated. Thank you!
Hopefully, the focus brought to the issue of DSD athletes at the 2024 Olympics will hasten the sporting bodies to find a resolution. As the referenced video addresses, even testosterone is not a definitive indicator since a body’s ability to convert testosterone can apparently be impacted as well. I would not be surprised if it eventually came down to XY presence plus validated male puberty. The DSD population is not large, but the issue won’t go away by itself.
I lean strongly toward those (DSD & Trans) who have experienced male puberty be directed to male competition. They are either good enough to be on the world stage or not. Don’t care about how they define their gender and live their non-athletic time.
As for “absolute equality can be achieved simply by denying the “bigotry” of differentiating between the sexes” … there are probably many who have that position concerning basic opportunities in life and work where artificial barriers have been constructed by society. Only the fringe folk will extend that to feats of raw strength and other areas where physical male/female differences truly impact capability. I come down on the side that those who can, should be allowed to, Throughout history, when there is a shortage of folk to do something, society figures out how to modify the task so more can be enabled. Example: the large female workforce that ran the factories during WW2. When worker supply and demand normalized, many women left, but some stayed to create a new normal. We are not worse for it as long as high level performance is obtained.
Now how you got to “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which assumes a “blank slate” view of humanity, one without consideration of differing group abilities and interests” is baffling to this reader. It took me awhile to figure out that the half generation between us meant you came along after the civil rights upheavals of the 50-60’s. Maybe that period is just academic to you. I remember billboards bragging that there are no blacks in a central Texas county. I remember company owned swimming pools enjoyed all season by white employees then used by black employees the final day after which the pool was drained and “disinfected”. I remember my college dorm janitor who had an engineering degree and could never get a job in the field. I know grown black men who to this day put their wallet on the dash of their vehicle so no cop will assume they are going for a weapon when pulling it from their pocket. We are still a long way from “equity and inclusion”.
I don’t deny that DEI programs can be poorly executed and go off on tangents. What I do deny is that educating students, employees, and society in general about real history is a bad thing. If a society has no understanding of real history, they cannot avoid repeating past mistakes. As for the claim that doing so makes the kids feel bad about themselves … my guess is that isn’t so much a statement about the kids, but the maturity of the parents that are raising them.
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Nobody said that educating anybody was a bad thing. My point is that DEI as I understand it focuses on group disparities–if there is a disparity in group representation in a given profession then it must be, and is assumed to be, because of nefarious actions on the part of employers. Experience and common sense tell me that there is probably something else going on which accounts for a lot of the differences, namely that abilities and interests vary, even if one adjusts for relative opportunity. If “equity” means imposing percentage quotas to reflect group representation, then only totalitarian methods can achieve that sort of absolute equality. It’s a demand for equality of results. The Communists already tried it and that didn’t turn out so well.
I also think your paradigm is at least sixty years old–we’ve had a black president, black cabinet members and a lot more. As a boy, I was sympathetic to black people. At this juncture imposing government mandated quotas can cause more racial tension than it relieves. That’s apart from the fact that the powers that be are asking me to swallow potential barriers to advancement for my children and grandchildren, essentially requirements that are forever, assuming a sort of original sin that can never be expiated. No thanks.
Mr. Allensworth, I think there is a missing of point here and your excellent wordsmanship sails past it a bit too easily. I’ll attempt to address your reply points in order, but try to regroup around my perspective toward the end.
You may not have said educating related to DEI was bad, but the stoked antiwokeism movement has been able to achieve that end in many ways. The movement has chosen a particular definition for DEI and then effectively convinced many that there is no other.
Example of competing definitions can be found in Florida:
The Florida Board of Education … defines DEI as “any program, campus activity, or policy that classifies individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation and promotes differential or preferential treatment of individuals on the basis of such classification.”
DEI, as defined by DEI professionals, is aimed at correcting inequities within an organization for marginalized groups — this could include implementing accessibility measures for people with disabilities, correcting discriminatory hiring practices, addressing gender and racial pay inequities and more.
For a public that has a decreasing attention span and is substituting soundbites for education, the loud voice in the room is the Florida wording which sounds like something that is best done away with. Any true societal positives to DEI efforts get swept away in the resulting tide of public outcry. While courts battles have ruled that Florida went too far, antiwokeism won the war for minds. Mass cancellation of anything related to DEI takes everything … the positives along with the negatives … while (cleverly?) making it seem they are not anti-education.
“Experience and common sense tell me that there is probably something else going on which accounts for a lot of the differences, …”
In this we are in agreement, but then take different paths. Maybe you favor the stance that since governmental action to address DEI went down the troubling approach of quotas in a silly attempt to force outcomes without addressing fundamental underlying causes, best to just make DEI an “unmentionable” and move on. I take the path that says it’s time we learn from what didn’t work and put heads together to address root causes.
The fundamental injustices that existed in the 50’s & 60’s built up to a boiling point with mass protests and riots. Frustration unleashed a pent up emotional, even violent response that was both wrong and probably unavoidable in the face of then existing political resistance to change.
Fast forward six or seven decades and we see new versions of frustrations being released by generations who may no longer feel the injustices of the 50’s. These younger generations don’t care about the relief their elders relished. They care about the obstacles they face today. Actually I suspect you do as well, but in a totally different way. Should you be faced with swapping the education facilities your children and grandkids have for those of many inner city facilities … would you really rule out taking to the streets at some point? “They” want the obstacles to be dealt with. You want the obstacles to stay out of your backyard. Related, but very different.
“your paradigm is at least sixty years old” Mr. Allensworth, such twisting is beneath you or at the very least, you grossly missed the point. I referenced things “before your time” to say those days of old are not things I just read about. Rather, I was there. And do not gloss over that I ended my references with 2024 grown men’s response to a very real fear: a traffic stop could go wrong far faster than you would ever imagine for yourself. Run a little test for me … everytime you get into a vehicle as a driver over the next 30 days, remove your wallet and put it on the dash while saying “I do this to improve the chances I will survive a traffic stop”. You will probably feel silly doing that. Just remember, it’s not a silly exercise for others.
Now to regroup …
In the late 1860’s the only significant non-white populations in the USA were black and the native american indian. I know so little about the native american situation that I shall not address it. The black population underwent a massive societal change in the 1860’s. About a hundred years later, after enduring Jim Crow and related injustices, things boiled over to the point of no return. Again massive societal change.
And as could be anticipated, changes come about more frequently in our more connected world, so it has only taken 60 years to get to today. Plus we’ve added more populations of “unequals”: brown, asian, middle eastern, and various religions, along with the ever-present, but only recently “outed” alternate sex and gender populations.
To your comment, yes we have prominent non-white politicians and authority figures along with many other “unequals” (my word) in many positions. However, I do not see efforts to normalize this collage of humanity. Rather I see vigorous effort to demonize the differences. And in fairness, the “demonizing” is not one sided. Maybe I should close by saying I am fatigued by “finger-pointing” being more promoted than “hand-shaking”. Sadly, I see your words being more supportive of the former and too silent in encouragement for the latter.
I don’t really quite understand what you are getting so upset about. Woke propaganda isn’t meant to fix anything, it’s meant as an expression of political power by beating us over the head with white guilt. It exaggerates wildly to prevent people from objecting. But I won’t be brow beaten. Here’s what I’m talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXcufOpvvr4
This material checks out with a lot of other things I’ve read. There is no need to hide our warts, and we shouldn’t, but wildly anti-American and anti-white claims only stoke more resentment–why am I supposed to accept this? The claims referred to in the video are what I object to, not to telling the truth, but the whole truth, about our history. I taught history in a high school for six years back in the 1980s and I think I did a fair job on that.
As far as police stops, I’ve had encounters with surly cops myself, but ask yourself a question: why are cops of any race extra wary when they stop a car with a black –especially black male–driver? Because they know it has a lot greater chance of going bad. Black crime rates are staggeringly higher than other races.
After 60 years of ending all legal segregation and doing everything possible to make amends, that seems hard to fathom. In fact, black crime rates soared, as did illegitimacy rates, after the Great Society was implemented. In 1960, most black kids had a father, Illegitimacy for blacks was at or below 20% as I recall– Daniel Patrick Moynihan, advising the White House at the time, was alarmed when he saw those rates soaring in the mid-60s and sounded that alarm to LBJ. The Great Society had some effects that went in a direction opposite of that intended.
The 60s sexual revolution and discarding traditional morality made it worse. National illegitimacy rates are a lot higher than in the 1960s, but much worse in black neighborhoods. So, there are some root causes at work–add in shipping American manufacturing jobs abroad that helped end a period of black economic advancement that started in the 1940s with black migrations to work in the auto and defense industries.
The best program for improving the lives of everyone, and all those problems, broken marriages, illegitimacy, unemployment, social dysfunction, are present in the working class of all races, is a good job, a stable family, and traditional morality. Maybe that’s what should the focus of policy and educating people, not ferreting out alleged thought crimes and wildly exaggerating our admitted shortcomings. It’s the woke left that is obsessed with race.
I can’t agree with you about normalizing sexual confusion. I don’t think every black, brown, Asian, etc. who makes their way here is “unequal.” In fact, some of those groups have higher, even much higher, income averages than whites. People who had no historic connection to America before immigrating are also encouraged to view themselves as victims. Why? It’s about power.
At least we seem to agree that setting group quotas is not where we want to go. That’s good.
Mr. Allensworth, I’m not upset, especially with you. Frustrated with the state of our nation is a better concept. We are but two vessels travelling our different worlds and have drawn different conclusions from our journeys. In some ways, we are each of different leaning … one who appears to feel America has peaked and is in decline and another who feels our search for a more perfect Union looks ahead to when we apply better solutions to old problems. Not so unusual, especially with our particular backgrounds. Mine has been an odd mix of many blue collar folks with a sizeable dash of corporate personalities. Without a doubt, your road has travelled varying cultures as well as much shoulder rubbing with governmental policy wonks.
BTW, I need to correct something I said concerning “unequals”. Bad word choice that would be more appropriate from a white nationalist than from me. My bad! It was a poorly chosen substitute for non-traditional 1860’s population groups. Some are prosperous, others are not, and all have been the butt of angry outbursts just because they are “different”: asians and COVID, Muslims and 9/11, yada, yada.
Maybe it’s my blue collar exposure, especially in Texas, Alabama and North Carolina that has impressed me with how many insidious ways local officials bend the laws to preserve social injustices. To borrow a word you use, those with the power are both capable, and often willing, to subvert intent. I think that’s how we get to groups saying on the one hand “we have laws that resolved that” and at the same time others saying “not much has changed”.
Just don’t get me started on gerrymandering that is aggressively done by both parties. To me it is a perfect example of party before people, winner take all, to hell with the Union.
Peace be with you, sir. Here’s to disagreeing agreeably.