Revealing 1984 in 2025

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words. Sometimes 1000 isn’t enough! I wrestled with using that picture because it needs a lot more than 1000 words to explain it.

Since this controversy erupted in Paris I have read posts from people on “both sides.” Most simply adopt the attitude that they are right and then criticize those who disagree. Facts to support their position are few and far between in those posts. It is assumed that those who “really know” will agree with them and those who disagree with them really know nothing.

I have no interest in doing that. If you aren’t prepared to look at this more in depth than a 280 character “X” post, save yourself some time and stop reading. If you are interested, then let’s get started with some background.

The Paris Controversy Begins – Algerian boxer Imane Khelif steps into the ring against Italian Angela Carini in Paris at the 2024 Summer Olympics. 48 seconds into the match Carini quits stating afterwards that never before had she been punched that hard and she was worried for her safety.

The Controversy Erupts – Based upon events over the past several years at every level of women’s sports no one should be surprised that this controversy surfaced in Paris. The issue to many… Khelif’s “qualifications” to fight as a woman. Speculation has ranged from… Is Khelif a transgender man? Was Khelif born with DSD (Differences of Sex Development) like world class runner Caster Semenya (more on Semenya in Part 2)? If so, Khelif’s hormones, genes, and reproductive organs may have been a mix of male and female characteristics at birth. I understand that this is sometimes referred to as intersexuality. If that was the case, Khelif could have been “identified” as either a male or female at birth. If DSD is involved, it is again my understanding that it is very possible and perhaps likely that Khelif’s testosterone levels would have been abnormally high for a female.

More Controversy, More Fuel to the Fire, More Confusion – Imane Khelif has boxed in the women’s division for years including the 2020 Tokyo Olympics which were actually held in 2021. Perhaps to the surprise of some, she has lost 9 boxing matches to other women. However, at the World Boxing Championships held in India in 2023 Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting were disqualified by the organization that oversaw the World Boxing Championships, the International Boxing Association, an organization that I understand was authorized by the IOC to govern women’s boxing. At least they were…

Something I never knew or thought about… It seems that the International Olympic Committee often leaves the standards and guidelines for who can compete in World Championships and the Olympic games to other governing bodies. The IOC provides guidance etc. but ultimately it is another governing body that sets out and enforces the rules for participation. In Part 2 World Aquatics will be discussed, the organization that oversees women’s water sports. Until recently the International Boxing Association (IBA) filled that role with IOC approval.

Knowing that… Speaking to TASS, a Russian News Agency, Umar Kremlev, the IBA president stated that along with Yu-Ting, “Khelif was disqualified from last year’s Women’s World Boxing Championships after undergoing DNA tests.” He added: “Based on the results of the tests, it was proven that they have XY chromosomes. Such athletes were excluded from the competition.” (My emphasis) Citing confidentiality the IBA has not released further details of that testing.

In addition, “The IBA this week confirmed Khelif was also tested at the previous year’s World Championships, adding she had not undergone “a testosterone examination” but was “subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential”.  (My emphasis)

Not rocket science to see that apparently the IOC and the IBA no longer see eye to eye regarding qualifications when it comes to who can participate in women’s boxing, at least when it comes to XY chromosomes. I will save some thoughts about that for Part 2.

To muddy the waters… I found the following at msn.com in an article written by Tom Morgan… “The IOC and IBA have been in all-out war since at least 2019 when the boxing body was suspended over concerns around its finances, governance, ethics, refereeing and judging.” Do we care the IOC and IBA are in some kind of disagreement/dispute? Not really but obviously the IBA used the Paris controversy to take a shot at the IOC.

More important than the IOC/IBA dispute is this… In Mr. Morgan’s article we read… “Yet it is entirely the IOC’s fault that they have given Kremlev (head of the IBA) an opportunity to suddenly pitch himself as one of the good guys. Sport has known since at least 2016 that a gender crisis – either via the inclusion of Differences in Sex Development (DSD) or trans athletes – at the Olympics was only a matter of time.“

I think it is fair to say that for 8 years the IOC knew about the elephant in the room and yet did little, if anything, to address it.

Mark Andrews, Olympic Spokesperson – In trying to diffuse the Paris situation Mr. Andrews told the world that Khelif and Yu-Ting meet Olympic gender standards to compete as women in the boxing competition. Restating the obvious, the IBA and the IOC clearly don’t agree when it comes to determining who can compete in women’s boxing.

In what appeared to be an effort to support and reinforce the Olympic position, Mr. Andrews emphasized that both Khelif and Yu-Ting are identified as women on their passports.

Assuming (always dangerous I know) that Umar Kremlev, the IBA president, was speaking truthfully, and the DNA tests were accurate, boxers Khelif and Yu-Ting have XY chromosomes. The IBA disqualified them for that reason. The IOC has not. It would be helpful to know exactly what the Olympic gender standards are that Mr. Andrews referenced and what organization was given the right by the IOC to set those standards since it apparently is not the IBA. Actually as you will see below, it seems the IOC hasn’t recognized any organization to oversee women’s boxing.

Back to comments by Mr. Andrews regarding passports being “proof.” As a Canadian citizen with a Canadian passport it is my understanding that I have the right to “self identify” as to gender. If I was born a biological male, lived my life as a male but at some point I decided to identify as a female I can apply for a new passport that would identify me as a female. It is also my understanding that there is no stipulation that I would need gender surgery or hormone therapy or any other medical “treatment.” I simply need to self identify as a woman/female. The Canadian government does acknowledge that this does not guarantee that other countries would accept me as a female. Assuming I have my facts correct, my question to Mr. Andrews would be “Is my new passport declaring I am a female really valid proof as to my gender when it comes to determining my eligibility to compete in world championships or the Olympics?”

More from Mr. Andrews… Regarding Khelif and Yu-Ting… “They’ve been competing in boxing for a very long time. They’ve achieved all the eligibility requirements in terms of sex and age. We’re following the rules in place in Tokyo.” This is where I wonder if the IOC has authorized any organization to actually govern women’s boxing. When it comes to an issue that has increasingly polarized women’s sports over several years, the IOC chose to use the rules that were in place in Tokyo in 2021. I find it hard to believe that in the last 3 years nothing has changed, no new studies, no new information has surfaced that might require adjusting participation rules in women’s sports. Actually as you will see, rules have been updated, just not IOC rules. Considering the fact that we read in Mr. Morgan’s article that anyone involved in women’s sports either knew or should have known since 2016 that this issue was not going away and had to be addressed, it might be fair to conclude that this seems to show a massive failure of leadership at virtually every level.

One does not have to be a deep thinker to realize that until organizing bodies within women’s sports tackle the elephant in the room, nothing will ever be settled and controversies like the one in Paris will continue. Probably also fair to say that no matter what is decided, there are going to be some very unhappy people who are really going to dislike the decision. I believe that every sports organization that is involved in women’s sports is going to have to come up with a definition of “woman/female” or rely on one from another reliable source that is as precise and unambiguous as possible if they want to avoid controversies like this in the future and that applies not only to major events like the Olympics but all the way down to colleges, high schools and even local associations and school boards that run athletic programs for young girls. (In part 2 I discuss why this is important at those lower levels.)

THE ELEPHANT… If we use the Miriam Webster dictionary, the primary (first one listed) definition of a woman is “an adult female person.” I think most of us can agree on the meaning of the word adult, but we need to take a look at the primary definition of female. It states “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”

Wikipedia (not my favourite source by a long shot) sums it up this way…” A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a woman is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). Typically, women are the female sex and inherit a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent, and fertile women are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause.” )

The definitions have been accepted as the standard across the globe for almost all of human history (please no need to email me to tell me that the discovery of X and Y chromosomes only occurred around 1900 thanks to the work of Nettie Stevens). I have already acknowledged that it isn’t always that simple, due to intersexuality etc. What some need to acknowledge is that physical/biological factors are definitely involved even when intersexuality is part of the equation and you cannot leave out physical/biological factors when it comes to who participates in women’s sports.

To be fair… Returning to the Miriam Webster dictionary … we find a secondary definition of a woman. It reads…

“an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

In terms of human history this secondary definition has very recent beginnings and I think that it is important to note that this secondary definition does NOT require any physical/biological components, not even one.

This website/blog was partly established to discuss George Orwell’s book, 1984, becoming a reality in 2024. You may not think this subject has anything to do with that but… In Orwell’s 1984 the term doublethink is an important theme. On the CliffsNotes website doublethink is defined as “the act of holding, simultaneously, two opposite, individually exclusive ideas or opinions and believing in both simultaneously and absolutely. Doublethink requires using logic against logic or suspending disbelief in the contradiction.”

In defining the word woman, the primary definition is based on physical/biological qualities whereas the secondary definition has nothing whatsoever to do with physical/biological qualities. Today some people want both definitions of a woman to be true and accepted and then applied to things like women’s sports. A person does not fit the primary definition but does fit the secondary one. Therefore that person should be allowed to participate in women’s sports… that seems to be the “logic.”

At the risk of being labelled misogynistic or transphobic, I would suggest that trying to see both definitions of woman as true is an example of doublethink. If the primary definition is true exactly as it reads then the secondary definition simply cannot be true. Trying to hold both definitions as true in the end renders them both null and void. They become meaningless…. Actually, let me that is wrong! Only one becomes meaningless!

Think about it. If what I have referred to as the secondary definition of a woman is true do you need the primary definition? Any person living as and identifying as a “woman” would be a “woman” regardless of their physical or biological characteristics. Having 2 “X” chromosomes, female genitalia, and so on would be immaterial. The individual is a woman, not because of biology, but simply because she is living as and identifying as a woman, although if you trash the primary definition I am not sure what living and identifying as women would mean. Regardless, the primary definition would be rendered unnecessary. It could be discarded.

The Fly in the Ointment… If you do believe that the secondary definition is true, you may have a problem so let’s restate the definition…”an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

The Pesky Fly… What does it mean to live and identify as a “female?” In theory you are going to have to define female without using ANY physical or biological characteristics. Are you living and identifying as a person who is of the “female sex and inherits a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent, and fertile women are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause” although none of that would be your physical reality? What does that mean? Let’s say we replaced female with woman. So anyone who lives and identifies as a woman is a woman. The problem is how are you going to define woman the very thing you claim to be living as, be it FEMALE or WOMAN!

I am not trying to be an ass here but it seems that you end up with what is called circular reasoning, i.e. A person is a woman because that person is living as and identifying as a woman… okay what is a woman? It’s a person living as and identifying as a woman.. but what is a woman… and around and around we go! The word woman never gets defined. How would anyone know you are living and identifying as a woman or female if you can’t provide a definition of either word?

Think about it… What is the difference between a man and a woman, a male and female? Some might answer by using masculine and feminine characteristics but that doesn’t work. Masculine vs. feminine and male vs. female (man vs. woman) are completely different discussions. If there is no objective difference between male and female, man and woman… If you cannot explain the difference when it comes to the meaning of these words, then these words become meaningless. If they are meaningless then terms like men’s or women’s sports also become meaningless.

If you are still interested, let’s move on to part 2 where we will discuss some aspects in women’s sports that are certainly controversial but those in charge need to address.