#ioc

They banned people with the SRY gene.

The SRY gene is typically found on the Y chromosome, although occasionally it appears on an X chromosome. People with an SRY gene may or may not have a testosterone-based puberty. They may or may not have a Y chromosome. They may or may not have a penis. They may or may not be amab. They may or may not be men. It is not scientifically reasonable to say that "biological male" and "SRY positive" are equivalent.

Sexual dimorphism in humans means there are clusters of traits that tend to appear together in two groups. Sperm vs egg production. Low vs high voice. Presence vs absence of Y chromosome. Presence vs absence of SRY gene. More facial hair vs less. Tall vs short. Longer vs shorter penis/clitoris. High vs low androgens. Low vs high estrogens. Et cetera.

On average, someone who has some traits that look more like the first than the second in these pairs will also likely have other traits that look more like the first than the second in these pairs. Traits that are correlated in this way are considered primary and secondary sex characteristics, and we call one of the correlation classes "male sex characteristics" and the other "female sex characteristics."

But, while it can be useful to refer to individual sex characteristics by their correlation class name (as in, male hormones, female genitalia, et cetera) it does not make sense to refer to an individual human person as male/female. Because all human beings come with a mix of primary and secondary sex characteristics. I would argue that the vast majority of people do not have every single one of their primary and secondary sex characteristics present as clearly solidly in the same correlation class, especially since the correlation is much weaker when it comes to many secondary sex characteristics. That doesn't mean the majority of people are intersex, although "just what mixtures of traits count as intersex?" is a question that doesn't have a clear cut answer. I will not pretend to have an answer for it.

The point is, though, that presence of SRY gene is not any more valid of an idea of "biological male" than using any other single sex characteristic. I'm not sure exactly what percentage of people have an SRY gene but suppose it's 49.8%. I could come up with a testosterone threshold that cuts the population at 49.8%. I could come up with a height threshold that cuts the population at 49.8%. I could come up with a variety of tests on a variety of sex characteristics that cut the population at 49.8%. Or any other percent. And they would not produce the same partition of the population. There would always be some people who land on one side of some tests and the other side of others. And none of them would be a good test of "biological male" because no single sex characteristic defines the "male" correlation class. It is defined by its rough correlation of characteristics.

People have to stop writing headlines (or anything else) with the nouns "biological male" and "biological female" in them as if those mean something. Those literally don't mean anything.

this is transmisogyny and intermisogyny.

fucking horrifying. not only is this incredibly discriminatory to trans women, when studies show that trans women do NOT have an unfair advantage over cis women [link], but it's incredibly invasive and will harm trans and intersex women in forcing them to have unwanted testing to determine if they're "real" females. not to mention the countless WOC, intersex or perisex, who were hypermasculinized and put under WAY more scrutiny of "unfair advantage" than their white peers?

The first athlete of these Winter Olympics to be sent home has been disqualified not for a drug scandal but for a scandal of governance that will have ramifications far beyond the Games.

Ukrainian skeleton star Vladyslav Heraskevych, who has family currently fighting on the front line and worked for a charity delivering relief when Russia first invaded, has been banned from competition after refusing to back down over his choice of helmet. The 27-year-old, a serious medal contender who set the quickest time in a training session on Wednesday, has been wearing a hand-painted helmet depicting Ukrainian athletes who have been killed in the Russian war.

A devastated Heraskevych said he was feeling “emptiness” after his disqualification, while his father and coach, Mykhailo, was also distraught and was comforted after the news. “Yesterday was amazing at training,” Heraskevych said. “I could be among the medallists in this event but because of some interpretation of the rules which I don’t agree with I am not able to compete. Remembrance is not a violation of the rules.”

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said the decision contradicted the “spirit of the games”.

“Sport shouldn't mean amnesia, the Olympic movement should help stop wars, not play into the hands of aggressors," he wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday, adding that the helmet was “a reminder of Russian aggression. No rule has been broken”.

Those rules are labyrinthine; the IOC pointed to rule 40, which says athletes must agree to be bound by the Olympic Charter, and “shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values”. At other points, it cited rule 50.2, which states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

The rules, designed by the IOC Athletes’ Commission, cover a “non-exhaustive list” of actions that could constitute protests, including political messages on signs or armbands, and “gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling”.

But to equate Heraskevych’s helmet commemorating war dead to “political propaganda” is obscene.

Heraskevych said on Wednesday: “I will not betray these athletes. These athletes sacrificed their lives, and because of this sacrifice, I am able to be here, so I will not betray them.” The helmet is a personal gesture of remembrance, hardly a political campaign or controversial slogan. It is a plea for Ukraine to not be forgotten in the face of the IOC pendulum swinging back towards Russia.

President Zelenskyy said after the ban. “This is certainly not about the principles of Olympism, which are founded on fairness and the support of peace... We are proud of Vladyslav and of what he did. Having courage is worth more than any medal.”

The bottom line is: an athlete has been thrown out of the Games because the IOC cannot handle anything that disturbs their fantasy of an apolitical world. Russians are allowed to compete, after a vetting process which has already seen serious questions raised, while a Ukrainian is sent home over an act of remembrance. How can that not be taking a political stance?

The whole debacle is just another chapter in the IOC’s long and utterly deluded insistence that sport and politics can be separated.

Already at these Games alone, there have been countless examples of how intertwined they are: US vice president JD Vance’s feting, and booing, at the opening ceremony, as the IOC desperately tries to build ties with this capricious US administration and ordinary viewers make clear their disapproval of the government’s policies.

There was the list of countries read out at the ceremony itself, including “Chinese Taipei”, rather than Taiwan, in deference to China.

Even before the Games started, the IOC began making overtures to Russia, testing the waters before fully welcoming the country back, in the face of widespread opposition.

And now this debate over Heraskevych’s helmet, with the IOC continuing to tie itself in knots in a bid to untangle the complex web of sport and politics.

The fact of the matter is this: sport is becoming more and more entwined with politics, from Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s closeness to the Trump regime, to Saudi Arabia polishing its image by pumping money into sport, to Vladimir Putin claiming Russian-born Elena Rybakina’s Wimbledon title in 2022 as a propaganda victory. It is a total farce to suggest they can ever be fully separated.