... of the disqualification of *female* athletes who were doping with T. Those female athletes - dopers, ofc - were subsequently disqualified and their medals redistributed. This is the latest one. ...
... There's a battle for the 800m this summer, featuring Femke Bol, Audrey Werro, and Keely Hodgkinson, aiming to take down the (doped) WR of Kratochvilova. It's difficult not to think of that competition as just corrupt AF for *decades* ...
... What does this say to women who are just *good at running two laps?* "We'll give your medal to a doper. No? OK, We'll give your medal to someone male. At lesat they're not a doper!"
... Best wishes to Femke, Audrey, and Keely, duking it out and - I hope - cleaning up the record books.
But let's never forget the terrible role of the IOC in all this - albeit, thankfully, now under new management.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For Lausannologists (IOC watchers, that is) Margali Martowicz has just left her post as Head of Human Rights at the IOC. Martowicz was, with Madeleine Pape, the author of the terrible 'Framework Document' of 2021, replaced (that is, junked) by the new, fair, policy ...
... announced earlier this year. It's not for me to judge her overall commitment to human rights. But Martowicz did serious damage to woman's rights to fair sport. It would not surprise me if Martowicz resigned when the new policy was brought in ...
... and has been striking a deal/working out her notice since then.
Still, it reinforces my (still speculative and outsider) view: the IOC has put this to bed.
There's no going back.
There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, especially in academic circles ...
Important!
The International Olympic Committee has published a series of FAQs abut the new eligibility policy for female Olympic sport.
I haven't gone through it all yet, but it's good to see moves to correct all the misinformation being circulated. olympics.com/ioc/athletes/m…
Right, I've read through these properly and they are *excellent*. Someone, (or some people) in Lausanne has got a real grip on this. They are thoroughly immersed in the evidence, and argument, and, most importantly, they can write in a clear and definitive way. ...
... the difference between this document and the complete mess of the 'Framework Document' of 2021 is clear. I'm particularly pleased to see two features: a proper account of 'category fairness' and an important distinction between ...
Thanks to @HagFeminist for tipping me off to something that I hadn't noticed before: that the influential body in Norway, the Biotechnology Council, has said that Norwegian athletes should be able to get the SRY screen in Norway, and the law should be changed accordingly.
... this was back in February. This seems to me entirely reasonable. I can see the general point of a law preventing the use of genetic testing for non-medical purposes - to prevent the exploitative use of testing in employment decisions, for example. ...
... but I don't think this carries over to sex testing for sport eligibility. So I think the Norwegian change of view makes sense. It isn't law, yet.
The reason this is significant is because many of the legal academics on the other side make a Very Big Deal ...
The claim that this policy (which is not a ban) is discriminatory is either trivial, or both false and racist.
It's trivial in the sense that, of course the policy is discriminatory. It discriminates, rightly and fairly, against males in female sport. ...
... Discrimination, in this sense, is a neutral term, meaning that one group is treated differently from another group. And often that is right. People who have passed their driving test are treated differently to people who have not when it comes to ...
... the legal right to drive on the public highway.
But I think @TheCanaryuk is making a different, and false claim. That claim is, plausibly, racist, and I'm a bit sick of pseudo-leftists engaging in it. I think its time to push back ...
OK, try this one:
Suppose that, to counter an obesity epidemic, the government introduces a new policy. Every citizen has to turn up, once a month, to the town hall. You have to strip down to your underwear, and stand on the scales. You are photographed, and your weight ...
.. is read out to your fellow citizens in the queue which snakes through the hall. Failure to turn up is punishable by a hefty fine, and eventually disenfranchisement after three strikes. ...
... This would be a terrible idea. Coercive, shaming intrusive and illiberal. ...
Q. Why is SRY (or any other sort of sex) screening required for women's sport and not for male sport?
A. Because it's unfair for males to compete in female sport. It's not unfair for females to compete in male sport. It might be a bit tricky, unsafe, and a bit pointless...
... This is the asymmetrical thing that I've been banging on about for years. Women's sport is of equal value to men's sport, because women are of equal value to men. The women's 800m record (Go Keely!!) is of equal value to the male record.
... In order to value, honour, recognise, the female record we need to know that it is set by someone who is actually female. Hence the need for SRY screening. We have no such need for men. But ...