Every headline says the IOC banned trans women from the Olympics. The athletes who’ll actually be barred are cis women who’ve never heard of the SRY gene.
Ugh. At first I was just furious as usual that the trans community was being picked on, again, for something that is not in any way a problem. But now I have something else to be upset about. Fuck the IOC. No one should watch the Olympics they don't give a shit about the athletes!
Thank you Parker. Your accurate analysis and context on this conflated news story helped me and reduced the stinging. It just sucks. I love the Olympic Games and what they stand for. My heart goes out to the athletes and people this will affect.
"Children's safety" laws for Internet and social media use that don't actually safeguard children. Policies ostensibly meant to uphold the sanctity of women's sports that make it worse for the women competing. This is what happens when you treat standards with all the delicacy of a sledgehammer and don't listen to experts. Infuriating.
As I said: patriarchy and its subsets capitalism and Nazism in entirely predictable action -- the malignancies we must overcome if our species is to survive, and if we are to have an earthly motherland on which to thrive.
Fascinating. I, too, had read the headlines and was angry at yet another attack on trans women. Thanks for untangling the details that MSM are too lazy to spell out. I’m still outraged, but now for a different reason.
The AP’s own coverage of today’s policy acknowledges that “it is unclear how many, if any, transgender women are competing at an Olympic level.”
I'm noticing this more and more, the media pretending something is "unclear" because they simply don't want to acknowledge certain facts.
Here's one from yesterday:
"It was unclear who exactly the US negotiating team was in contact with, as officials from Iran’s foreign ministry and military denied Trump’s statements that negotiations were taking place."
No, it's not "unclear", you just don't want to type the words "The President is lying."
This is fascinating and disturbing. It sent me down a rabbit hole to learn more about the SRY gene and how it might relate to trans women. I had a very troubling chat with Gemini about it. Gemini reported that most, if not all, trans women have the SRY gene - this after Gemini also told me (after I asked) whether it was common for a trans woman to be genetically tested. The answer was no.
In other words, there is no way to know (that I could find out) how common it is for a trans woman to have the SRY gene. So, as you note, this may or may not have ANYTHING to do with trans women. But it will most certainly screw with women merrily competing as women, only to find out that have a genetic anomaly that may or may not have conferred an advantage on them.
This comment was particularly on point, I thought:
"The IOC's decision is not particularly surprising given that the next Olympics are in the US, where President Trump seems to be on a mission to eradicate trans people. His campaign against trans people includes requiring visa applicants to the US to disclose their sex assigned at birth, and if it differs from the gender marker on their passport or other official documents, they risk visa denials or allegations of fraud. This recent change to immigration laws makes it highly unlikely that any trans athletes will be travelling to the US for the 2028 Olympics, regardless of the IOC decision. The IOC should revisit its decision ahead of the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane."
Another point that is sticking out to me is that men who have some kind of DSD will never be excluded from sport. Sounds like a sex discrimination lawsuit that needs to be filed.
Thanks to Ms. Molloy for illustrating with exceptionally courageous and vivid clarity two points that define the society in which we live. These are (1)-the capitalism-mandated journalistic choice of seductively deceptive clickbait over provocatively compelling information, a subset of the Ayn Rand moral imbecility at the fountainhead of profiteering (phrasing deliberate); and (2)-the ideology-mandated, eternally irremediable misogyny and racism that is the defining core of patriarchy.
Obvious rhetorical question: since such hateful discrimination is inseparable from the patriarchal organization of society, why not ameliorate it by accommodation -- that is, why not establish additional categories to accommodate the IOC's obviously bigoted exclusions? Obvious rhetorical answer: because the IOC is too bigoted -- too bottomlessly hateful -- to ever consider such a humane solution.
(Real) investigative journalists' (genuine) investigative questions: (1)-who owns the IOC; and (2)-how many of those owners are ChristoNazifying the failed and former United States or Nazifying the ever-more-ecogenocidal global economy?
(Thinking and feeling with the yet-fully functional instincts of a near-lifelong journalist approaching his 86th birthday, I can't doubt that would be one damn fine scoop-the-world story...if anybody'd dare let it see the light of day.)
Ugh. At first I was just furious as usual that the trans community was being picked on, again, for something that is not in any way a problem. But now I have something else to be upset about. Fuck the IOC. No one should watch the Olympics they don't give a shit about the athletes!
Thank you Parker. Your accurate analysis and context on this conflated news story helped me and reduced the stinging. It just sucks. I love the Olympic Games and what they stand for. My heart goes out to the athletes and people this will affect.
"Children's safety" laws for Internet and social media use that don't actually safeguard children. Policies ostensibly meant to uphold the sanctity of women's sports that make it worse for the women competing. This is what happens when you treat standards with all the delicacy of a sledgehammer and don't listen to experts. Infuriating.
As I said: patriarchy and its subsets capitalism and Nazism in entirely predictable action -- the malignancies we must overcome if our species is to survive, and if we are to have an earthly motherland on which to thrive.
Fascinating. I, too, had read the headlines and was angry at yet another attack on trans women. Thanks for untangling the details that MSM are too lazy to spell out. I’m still outraged, but now for a different reason.
The AP’s own coverage of today’s policy acknowledges that “it is unclear how many, if any, transgender women are competing at an Olympic level.”
I'm noticing this more and more, the media pretending something is "unclear" because they simply don't want to acknowledge certain facts.
Here's one from yesterday:
"It was unclear who exactly the US negotiating team was in contact with, as officials from Iran’s foreign ministry and military denied Trump’s statements that negotiations were taking place."
No, it's not "unclear", you just don't want to type the words "The President is lying."
You might call this "The unclear option"
This is fascinating and disturbing. It sent me down a rabbit hole to learn more about the SRY gene and how it might relate to trans women. I had a very troubling chat with Gemini about it. Gemini reported that most, if not all, trans women have the SRY gene - this after Gemini also told me (after I asked) whether it was common for a trans woman to be genetically tested. The answer was no.
In other words, there is no way to know (that I could find out) how common it is for a trans woman to have the SRY gene. So, as you note, this may or may not have ANYTHING to do with trans women. But it will most certainly screw with women merrily competing as women, only to find out that have a genetic anomaly that may or may not have conferred an advantage on them.
I found these comments from relevant scientists (mostly) from Australia informative: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-transgender-women-banned-from-competing-in-womens-events-at-the-olympics. I wouldn't bother reading anything on a US .gov site at this point. But, in most cases, the comments agree with you, Parker.
This comment was particularly on point, I thought:
"The IOC's decision is not particularly surprising given that the next Olympics are in the US, where President Trump seems to be on a mission to eradicate trans people. His campaign against trans people includes requiring visa applicants to the US to disclose their sex assigned at birth, and if it differs from the gender marker on their passport or other official documents, they risk visa denials or allegations of fraud. This recent change to immigration laws makes it highly unlikely that any trans athletes will be travelling to the US for the 2028 Olympics, regardless of the IOC decision. The IOC should revisit its decision ahead of the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane."
Another point that is sticking out to me is that men who have some kind of DSD will never be excluded from sport. Sounds like a sex discrimination lawsuit that needs to be filed.
Thanks to Ms. Molloy for illustrating with exceptionally courageous and vivid clarity two points that define the society in which we live. These are (1)-the capitalism-mandated journalistic choice of seductively deceptive clickbait over provocatively compelling information, a subset of the Ayn Rand moral imbecility at the fountainhead of profiteering (phrasing deliberate); and (2)-the ideology-mandated, eternally irremediable misogyny and racism that is the defining core of patriarchy.
Obvious rhetorical question: since such hateful discrimination is inseparable from the patriarchal organization of society, why not ameliorate it by accommodation -- that is, why not establish additional categories to accommodate the IOC's obviously bigoted exclusions? Obvious rhetorical answer: because the IOC is too bigoted -- too bottomlessly hateful -- to ever consider such a humane solution.
(Real) investigative journalists' (genuine) investigative questions: (1)-who owns the IOC; and (2)-how many of those owners are ChristoNazifying the failed and former United States or Nazifying the ever-more-ecogenocidal global economy?
(Thinking and feeling with the yet-fully functional instincts of a near-lifelong journalist approaching his 86th birthday, I can't doubt that would be one damn fine scoop-the-world story...if anybody'd dare let it see the light of day.)