Khelif of Algeria and Lin of Taiwan have been the focus of intense attention — and often inaccurate commentary — because both were disqualified at the 2023 world championships

IOC President Thomas Bach said the “hate speech” directed at boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting at the Paris Olympics is “totally unacceptable.”

“We will not take part in a politically motivated … cultural war,” Bach said at a news briefing Saturday at the midway point of the Paris Games, where he wanted to draw a line under days of global scrutiny about the female boxers’ gender.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    5·
    3 months ago

    Tested,

    Again, we have no idea what test or who administered it. Not evidence of test results.

    found to have an advantage,

    Since we don’t know what the test was, we have no idea what that advantage was. Again, not evidence.

    disqualified,

    Once again, we do not know what they were disqualified for.

    refused to go through with an appeal.

    Please tell me exactly what they would have had to do in order to make an appeal. Do you even know?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        She agreed to that process

        How do you know that? How do you even know there is an appeal process? Let’s see your information.

        And you’re right, I don’t think “we gave her a test but we won’t tell you what it is” is sufficient, because it could be anything from genetic testing to inspecting their genitalia to someone deemed official walking in, saying, “I know a woman when I see one,” and leaving.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 months ago

            First of all, appendix 6:

            That says nothing about gender at all, nor is it about gender. You’re being very dishonest and I’m not sure why. Did you think I wouldn’t check?

            Secondly, you still haven’t explained to me why you don’t think how they were tested matters when the test, again, could be “I know a woman when I see one.”

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 months ago

                You absolutely are being dishonest. It is not a personal attack. You told me to look at appendix 6. Why did you tell me to look at that if you weren’t being dishonest?

                Did you mean appendix 7? Appendix 5? Which appendix was I supposed to look at?

                I just presume that if the participants agree to the testing

                What if she agreed to the testing because she was told if she didn’t, they would use their clout to make sure that she never boxed anyone again? What if she agreed to pull out of the appeal for the same reason? That would be in no way unprecedented in sports to threaten an athlete like that.

                You don’t know how she was tested. You don’t know why she stopped the appeal. All you know is that she was tested for something and she decided it was worth appealing at some point, but ended that appeal for unknown reasons. And the thing she was tested for was not testosterone.

                And based on all of that, you have decided that she is a man.