The Yahoo article explicitly said that athlete had XY chromosomes. See my above comment for the exact quote.
They may have been wrong, and you can certainly cite other tests saying this athlete has XX chromosomes. But the article from Yahoo clearly states they do have XY chromosomes
And you can say it doesn’t matter, and I’m happy to believe it doesn’t matter, then The next thing is the Olympics should get rid of sexualized sports leagues and just have one league for each sport.
Read your article again
“Khelif’s thoroughly dominant showing on Thursday will only inflame the debate over whether she and Chinese Tapei’s Lin Yu‑ting should be allowed to compete at the Paris Olympics. Last year, at the World Boxing Championships in New Delhi, Khelif was disqualified hours before her gold-medal bout as a result of International Boxing Association rules that prevent athletes with XY chromosomes from competing in women’s events. The IBA disqualified Yu-Ting before her bronze medal bout for the same reason.”
It says they used a rule doesn’t say she has xy chromosomes. In your same article the IBA that claimed they were disqualified after they won was also stripped as a governing body of boxing since they have had tons of scandals and corruption
“The International Olympic Committee has since stripped the IBA of its status as the global governing body for boxing because of long-running governance issues and a series of judging scandals. That leaves boxing in Paris under the umbrella of the IOC’s Paris 2024 Boxing unit, which has more relaxed rules than the IBA and has chosen to disregard the results of Khelif’s and Yu-Ting’s gender eligibility tests last year”
Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.
The Yahoo article explicitly said that athlete had XY chromosomes. See my above comment for the exact quote.
They may have been wrong, and you can certainly cite other tests saying this athlete has XX chromosomes. But the article from Yahoo clearly states they do have XY chromosomes
And you can say it doesn’t matter, and I’m happy to believe it doesn’t matter, then The next thing is the Olympics should get rid of sexualized sports leagues and just have one league for each sport.
Read your article again “Khelif’s thoroughly dominant showing on Thursday will only inflame the debate over whether she and Chinese Tapei’s Lin Yu‑ting should be allowed to compete at the Paris Olympics. Last year, at the World Boxing Championships in New Delhi, Khelif was disqualified hours before her gold-medal bout as a result of International Boxing Association rules that prevent athletes with XY chromosomes from competing in women’s events. The IBA disqualified Yu-Ting before her bronze medal bout for the same reason.”
It says they used a rule doesn’t say she has xy chromosomes. In your same article the IBA that claimed they were disqualified after they won was also stripped as a governing body of boxing since they have had tons of scandals and corruption
“The International Olympic Committee has since stripped the IBA of its status as the global governing body for boxing because of long-running governance issues and a series of judging scandals. That leaves boxing in Paris under the umbrella of the IOC’s Paris 2024 Boxing unit, which has more relaxed rules than the IBA and has chosen to disregard the results of Khelif’s and Yu-Ting’s gender eligibility tests last year”
Clearly our interpretation of English is very different.
Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete.
This directly states that A has D.
No direct source claims A has d. All direct sourced is Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete
Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
I’m no languageist but I’d call that indirectly.
Good point.
It is discreet logic, with a few steps. But none of those steps require assumptions.
I should correct the above statement by saying it is slightly indirect. But not ambiguous.
You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
There’s no innocent or guilt here.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.