Olympics and Climate Marxism

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:How else would a woman get XY chromosomes?

Invalid question.

Correct Questions:

QUESTION: How can a man, using his own blood, fool an independent laboratory blood test into rendering a false positive for being female?
ANSWER: He can't.

QUESTION: How can a male newborn fool a delivering doctor/nurse into thinking he's a baby girl?
ANSWER: By having an undeveloped penis.

QUESTION: How can the IOC be convinced to allow a man to compete in women's boxing?
ANSWER: By having an undeveloped penis and a birth certificate confirming that he fooled the delivering doctor/nurse.

But you are putting the cart before the horse. The topic involves the specific men who competed in the Paris Olympic boxing who you contend are actually women. You have no reason to believe either Khelif or Yu-Ting have any XX chromosomes. You have no reason to believe that either is a woman.

On the other hand, any onlooker to either of their gold medal bouts won't have any doubt that they are men. It's obvious. Even if nothing is known about their XY chromosomes, they will be assumed. If one were to only watch their performances throughout the competition, i.e. never even losing even a single round, it would be obvious that they are both men.

It is you who has to be asked how you allowed yourself to be convinced that these men were somehow women, and why you didn't change your stance the moment you learned they had XY chromosomes. Until you clarify, the only possible assumption is that you relish watching men beat the living crap out of women.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You are regurgitating something that you were told to repeat, not something you got from the IBA.

The IBA confirms that the genetics testing in 2023 for both Khelif and Yu-Ting was conducted by an independent lab and was the basis for the disqualification.

The IBA was unequivocal.

Here is what your unequivocal master had to say:

IBA chief executive Chris Roberts said he could not disclose the results of the gender eligibility tests but that the pair's disqualification from the 2023 women's World Championships meant the public could "read between the lines"

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/gender-row-boxers-were-disqualified-world-championships-after-chromosome-test-2024-08-05/

Let me guess, you will now claim Reuters is lying and making up false statements.

Im a BM wrote:
"Climate Marxism"???

This was the ONLY active thread on this website for about a week.

Fun fact: For thousands of years, people had no idea what chromosomes were.

Newborn gender identity was determined by the visible appearance of the external genitalia.

99.9% of the time, visible appearance of newborn genitals correlated perfectly to having either XY or XX chromosomes.

The other less than 0.1% of the time, it did NOT. Sometimes what appeared to be one thing at birth would later mature into something quite different.

It is not purely binary. Development of the phenotype isn't purely controlled by the genotype. Confounding variables such as presence or absence of particular hormones, excess or deficiency of particular constituents in the mother's blood, and other environmental factors can alter developmental pathway.

Even the chromosome part isn't purely binary. Rare folks are born with XXY or XYY.

Trying to set a single variable as determinative based on the false assumption that it is purely binary and set in stone from conception...

Well, it IS binary in more than 99.9% of athletes.

Let's be sure that "Climate Marxism" doesn't allow freaks to compete.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You are regurgitating something that you were told to repeat, not something you got from the IBA.

The IBA confirms that the genetics testing in 2023 for both Khelif and Yu-Ting was conducted by an independent lab and was the basis for the disqualification.

The IBA was unequivocal.

Here is what your unequivocal master had to say:

IBA chief executive Chris Roberts said he could not disclose the results of the gender eligibility tests but that the pair's disqualification from the 2023 women's World Championships meant the public could "read between the lines"

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/gender-row-boxers-were-disqualified-world-championships-after-chromosome-test-2024-08-05/

Let me guess, you will now claim Reuters is lying and making up false statements.

Im a BM wrote: It is not purely binary.

Im a BM wrote: Confounding variables such as presence or absence of particular hormones, excess or deficiency of particular constituents in the mother's blood, and other environmental factors can alter developmental pathway.

Im a BM wrote: Even the chromosome part isn't purely binary.

Im a BM wrote: Rare folks are born with XXY or XYY.

Im a BM wrote: Trying to set a single variable as determinative based on the false assumption that it is purely binary

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Climate Marxism"???

This was the ONLY active thread on this website for about a week.

Fun fact: For thousands of years, people had no idea what chromosomes were.

Newborn gender identity was determined by the visible appearance of the external genitalia.

99.9% of the time, visible appearance of newborn genitals correlated perfectly to having either XY or XX chromosomes.

The other less than 0.1% of the time, it did NOT. Sometimes what appeared to be one thing at birth would later mature into something quite different.

It is not purely binary. Development of the phenotype isn't purely controlled by the genotype. Confounding variables such as presence or absence of particular hormones, excess or deficiency of particular constituents in the mother's blood, and other environmental factors can alter developmental pathway.

Even the chromosome part isn't purely binary. Rare folks are born with XXY or XYY.

Trying to set a single variable as determinative based on the false assumption that it is purely binary and set in stone from conception...

Well, it IS binary in more than 99.9% of athletes.

Let's be sure that "Climate Marxism" doesn't allow freaks to compete.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You are regurgitating something that you were told to repeat, not something you got from the IBA.

The IBA confirms that the genetics testing in 2023 for both Khelif and Yu-Ting was conducted by an independent lab and was the basis for the disqualification.

The IBA was unequivocal.

Here is what your unequivocal master had to say:

IBA chief executive Chris Roberts said he could not disclose the results of the gender eligibility tests but that the pair's disqualification from the 2023 women's World Championships meant the public could "read between the lines"

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/gender-row-boxers-were-disqualified-world-championships-after-chromosome-test-2024-08-05/

Let me guess, you will now claim Reuters is lying and making up false statements.

Good times. I haven't been able to find much about women whose blood tests revealed XY chromosomes, as appears to be the case here.

It's definitely an interesting story. And for it to happen twice at the 2024 Olympics, in healthy individuals, IMO that disqualifies this as some kind of extremely rare disorder.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Climate Marxism"???

This was the ONLY active thread on this website for about a week.

Fun fact: For thousands of years, people had no idea what chromosomes were.

Newborn gender identity was determined by the visible appearance of the external genitalia.

99.9% of the time, visible appearance of newborn genitals correlated perfectly to having either XY or XX chromosomes.

The other less than 0.1% of the time, it did NOT. Sometimes what appeared to be one thing at birth would later mature into something quite different.

It is not purely binary. Development of the phenotype isn't purely controlled by the genotype. Confounding variables such as presence or absence of particular hormones, excess or deficiency of particular constituents in the mother's blood, and other environmental factors can alter developmental pathway.

Even the chromosome part isn't purely binary. Rare folks are born with XXY or XYY.

Trying to set a single variable as determinative based on the false assumption that it is purely binary and set in stone from conception...

Well, it IS binary in more than 99.9% of athletes.

Let's be sure that "Climate Marxism" doesn't allow freaks to compete.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You are regurgitating something that you were told to repeat, not something you got from the IBA.

The IBA confirms that the genetics testing in 2023 for both Khelif and Yu-Ting was conducted by an independent lab and was the basis for the disqualification.

The IBA was unequivocal.

Here is what your unequivocal master had to say:

IBA chief executive Chris Roberts said he could not disclose the results of the gender eligibility tests but that the pair's disqualification from the 2023 women's World Championships meant the public could "read between the lines"

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/gender-row-boxers-were-disqualified-world-championships-after-chromosome-test-2024-08-05/

Let me guess, you will now claim Reuters is lying and making up false statements.

Good times. I haven't been able to find much about women whose blood tests revealed XY chromosomes, as appears to be the case here.

It's definitely an interesting story. And for it to happen twice at the 2024 Olympics, in healthy individuals, IMO that disqualifies this as some kind of extremely rare disorder.

Honestly, I haven't looked at any specific details about the athletes in question, nor opened any links to the story.

But I spent a few hours with a medical journal once - an issue that was dedicated specifically to hermaphrodites and related genitalia development phenomenon.

There were plenty of cases where the individual had XY chromosomes and what appeared as female external genitalia. Photos included. I could see how the doctor made the designation for the birth certificate.

For example, testicles remain undescended and the scrotum looks a lot more like female labia. Un undeveloped penis can look a lot like a clitoris.

It is pretty rare for people in ANY country to have their newborn's DNA analyzed in order to identify gender on a birth certificate.

But my real point was that for about a week, this was the ONLY thread where anyone posted anything.

The thread title suggests some kind of connection to climate.

I guess there is nothing else related to climate being discussed at climate-debate.com

"Climate Marxism"? WTF?

Spongy Iris wrote: I haven't been able to find much about women whose blood tests revealed XY chromosomes,

Im a BM wrote: But I spent a few hours with a medical journal once - an issue that was dedicated specifically to hermaphrodites and related genitalia development phenomenon.

There were plenty of cases where the individual had XY chromosomes and what appeared as female external genitalia.

Im a BM wrote: It is pretty rare for people in ANY country to have their newborn's DNA analyzed in order to identify gender on a birth certificate.

Im a BM wrote: But my real point was

Im a BM wrote: ... that for about a week, this was the ONLY thread where anyone posted anything.

Im a BM wrote: The thread title suggests some kind of connection to climate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I haven't been able to find much about women whose blood tests revealed XY chromosomes,

... because those would be men. Women don't have XY chromosomes.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Im a BM wrote:
They got them the same way I got my own XY chromosomes.

My mother gave me one of her "X"s.

My father gave me his one and only "Y".

If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Or the kind of conspiracy theories that are so attractive to certain personalities.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
They got them the same way I got my own XY chromosomes.

My mother gave me one of her "X"s.

My father gave me his one and only "Y".

If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Or the kind of conspiracy theories that are so attractive to certain personalities.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Khelif's team mates suggested there was a change.

https://youtu.be/CNweikbZyrE?si=QsafhEsn8ri_GONY

Im a BM wrote:
Sorry, but I don't trust links posted on this website.

Such a genetic transformation defies anything I was ever taught could occur.

If it was just based on a BLOOD test, here is a real world possibility.

A genetically XX woman receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible male donor.

The male lineage bone marrow cells produce XY chromosome blood cells.

I doubt that this explains the athlete's controversy, but it IS reality based.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
They got them the same way I got my own XY chromosomes.

My mother gave me one of her "X"s.

My father gave me his one and only "Y".

If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Or the kind of conspiracy theories that are so attractive to certain personalities.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

These 2 boxers were born women, and it was not later discovered they were men. If they had discovered that, I seriously doubt they would be motivated to box in the Olympics as women.

So it seems they have XY chromosomes.

We need to know how this happened before concluding these are men, because the facts say they are women.

They were not born women.

lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Khelif's team mates suggested there was a change.

https://youtu.be/CNweikbZyrE?si=QsafhEsn8ri_GONY

Nwamerue then claimed that she was approached by teammates of Khelif's and that the newly crowned gold medalist had been "biologically altered" by her environment.

"[Khelif's] teammates came to me and told me 'Imane is not a man,'" Nwamerue said.

She is a woman and just lives high in the mountains with her relatives and parents and so there may be a change in her testosterone or chromosomes

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Sorry, but I don't trust links posted on this website.

Such a genetic transformation defies anything I was ever taught could occur.

If it was just based on a BLOOD test, here is a real world possibility.

A genetically XX woman receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible male donor.

The male lineage bone marrow cells produce XY chromosome blood cells.

I doubt that this explains the athlete's controversy, but it IS reality based.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
They got them the same way I got my own XY chromosomes.

My mother gave me one of her "X"s.

My father gave me his one and only "Y".

If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Or the kind of conspiracy theories that are so attractive to certain personalities.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Khelif's team mates suggested there was a change.

https://youtu.be/CNweikbZyrE?si=QsafhEsn8ri_GONY

Here is the quote from one of Imane Khelif's former sparring partners, Joana Nwamerue.

Nwamerue then claimed that she was approached by teammates of Khelif's and that the newly crowned gold medalist had been "biologically altered" by her environment.

"[Khelif's] teammates came to me and told me 'Imane is not a man,'" Nwamerue said.

She is a woman and just lives high in the mountains with her relatives and parents and so there may be a change in her testosterone or chromosomes

What do you think such a lifestyle might lack?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Sorry, but I don't trust links posted on this website.

Such a genetic transformation defies anything I was ever taught could occur.

If it was just based on a BLOOD test, here is a real world possibility.

A genetically XX woman receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible male donor.

The male lineage bone marrow cells produce XY chromosome blood cells.

I doubt that this explains the athlete's controversy, but it IS reality based.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
They got them the same way I got my own XY chromosomes.

My mother gave me one of her "X"s.

My father gave me his one and only "Y".

If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Or the kind of conspiracy theories that are so attractive to certain personalities.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
When they announce "it's a boy" upon birth, it is because they see a penis.

Women are just men who lack a Y chromosome.

The embryo, male or female, begins with the exact same set of parts.

In the female, XX, only ONE of the two "X" chromosomes is "turned on".

She has no "Y" chromosome that does anything.

In the male, its one "X" chromosome is also turned on.

The male's "X" chromosome does everything that the female's "X" chromosome does.

Without a "Y" chromosome also turned on, boys would be girls.

Male and female embryos both have Mullerian ducts and Wolfian ducts (probably spelled wrong cause I'm not going to look it up right now).

Under the influence of the "X" chromosome, the Mullerian duct becomes fallopian tubes, etc. The Wolfian duct remains vestigal.

Under the overriding influence of the "Y" chromosome, the Mullerian duct remains vestigal, and the Wolfian duct becomes vas deferens, prostate, etc.

More than 99% of the time, the results upon birth are predictable.

I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Climate change is self evident this year, if you are willing to believe your own lying eyes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
lol, I suppose folks don't usually say, It's a woman! when a baby girl is born.

But you know what I mean. They were born girls.

This doesn't answer how these ladies got XY chromosomes.

Since it happened twice in quite a small sample of people, it's really not that freakish is it?

Khelif's team mates suggested there was a change.

https://youtu.be/CNweikbZyrE?si=QsafhEsn8ri_GONY

Here is the quote from one of Imane Khelif's former sparring partners, Joana Nwamerue.

Nwamerue then claimed that she was approached by teammates of Khelif's and that the newly crowned gold medalist had been "biologically altered" by her environment.

"[Khelif's] teammates came to me and told me 'Imane is not a man,'" Nwamerue said.

She is a woman and just lives high in the mountains with her relatives and parents and so there may be a change in her testosterone or chromosomes

What do you think such a lifestyle might lack?

Who am I to judge what someone's "lifestyle might lack?"

My interest would be far more aroused if somebody said that a PREVIOUS DNA test had shown XX at some time of her life, and now it says XY.

Otherwise, conjecture among acquaintances provides very little evidence for anything more than a nothingburger.

I misinterpreted your post as suggesting someone had published that her DNA was KNOWN to have changed from XX to XY.

I am more puzzled than ever how this discussion was drawn out more than a week over so many different posts.

I guess it was the only news in town about climate change.

"Climate Marxism".

And we are all a little dumber now...

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Im a BM wrote: Such a genetic transformation defies anything I was ever taught could occur.

Im a BM wrote: If it was just based on a BLOOD test, here is a real world possibility.

Im a BM wrote: If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

Im a BM wrote: I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

Im a BM wrote: I am more puzzled than ever how this discussion was drawn out more than a week over so many different posts.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Such a genetic transformation defies anything I was ever taught could occur.

Yet such an XX -> XY chromosome transformation is what Spongy Iris is asserting has transpired, and it has transpired because the two athletes in question sufficiently "avoided orgasms" to bring about the transformation.

Im a BM wrote: If it was just based on a BLOOD test, here is a real world possibility.

The atheletes in question had no such surgeries or transplants. Both were born male, with XY chromosomes, but unfortunately with 5-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency which caused their genetalia to not develop, and so they were misgendered at birth. Spongy Iris declares this as having been born female because that's what the mistaken doctor/nurse/midwife wrote on the birth certificate.

When the two misgendered boys were taken home from the hospital, they were raised as girls, which not only caused them to undergo insufferable confusion around puberty, people such as Spongy Iris declare that "they always identified as 'female'."

I don't know if you followed the Olympic boxing, but these men beat the shit out of their female opponents, never losing even a single round. Even the reigning women's welterweight world champion couldn't manage to win even a single round. Khelif smacked Italy's Angela Carini around so hard that she flat out quit after 46 seconds.

Spongy Iris takes a sick pleasure in watching trained male boxers domestically abuse women who have no hope of fighting back.

Im a BM wrote: If you are suggesting that a baby is born with XX chromosomes, and they somehow transform later in life to XY chromosomes, this is the stuff of science fiction.

This is what Spongy Iris is suggesting

Im a BM wrote: I don't think we should exclude people as "freaks" because they are outside the norm.

We should not play pretend that a male with an abnormality is somehow a female, just to make him feel better about a birth defect.

Im a BM wrote: I am more puzzled than ever how this discussion was drawn out more than a week over so many different posts.

This thread should have ended quickly with general consensus about the horrible tragedy that occurred in the Olympic boxing competition in Paris by the IOC allowing these two men to compete as women and totally obliterate women who rightfully had the XX chromosomes to legitimately be competing.

However, Spongy Iris more or less turned it into a running sermon that these men are actually women who should rightfully be beating the shit out of women, ... so it dragged on.

Spongy Iris wrote: More of your fantasy medical diagnosis that betrays the facts reported, and posits absurd motives.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: More of your fantasy medical diagnosis that betrays the facts reported, and posits absurd motives.

Your king is tipped.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

I did spell it out for you. DICK.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

I did spell it out for you. DICK.

Approximately 1 in 30 million men are born without a penis. Assuming a world population of 8 billion, there are probably about 260ish men on the planet with this condition, more than the total number of boxers in the 2024 Olympics.

If missing body parts makes someone a female then keep cheering for your heroes. You have a sick obsession.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

I did spell it out for you. DICK.

Approximately 1 in 30 million men are born without a penis. Assuming a world population of 8 billion, there are probably about 260ish men on the planet with this condition, more than the total number of boxers in the 2024 Olympics.

If missing body parts makes someone a female then keep cheering for your heroes. You have a sick obsession.

Missing body parts does not change a gender.

Not even if you mutilate yourself.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

I did spell it out for you. DICK.

Approximately 1 in 30 million men are born without a penis. Assuming a world population of 8 billion, there are probably about 260ish men on the planet with this condition, more than the total number of boxers in the 2024 Olympics.

If missing body parts makes someone a female then keep cheering for your heroes. You have a sick obsession.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have read every post in this thread. It has been quite entertaining!

@Spongy, I have a couple questions...

1) In your opinion, should there be a division in sports between men and women?

2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what should be the criteria for disqualifying any human from competing in the women's division?

Not trying to trap you into saying anything specific. You know my opinion is that these are both dudes, but the XY chromosomes are not enough to convince you. I am genuinely curious what you think should be the dividing line (if any) between men and women in sporting events.

I don't agree that men should box women for sport.

You totally evaded question #2.

In your opinion, what feature or property defines a contestant as a man and therefore ineligible to compete in women's division sporting events?

Do I really need to spell it out for you, dick?

Yes! That is exactly what I am requesting, but you continue to evade.
If you don't define a male as one having XY chromosomes, then what is your criteria for disqualifying someone from competing against a female?

I did spell it out for you. DICK.

Approximately 1 in 30 million men are born without a penis. Assuming a world population of 8 billion, there are probably about 260ish men on the planet with this condition, more than the total number of boxers in the 2024 Olympics.

If missing body parts makes someone a female then keep cheering for your heroes. You have a sick obsession.

Missing body parts does not change a gender.

Not even if you mutilate yourself.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There certainly aren't any body parts missing in these women boxers. Try to stay on topic instead of playing random syntax games.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There certainly aren't any body parts missing in these women boxers. Try to stay on topic instead of playing random syntax games.

Male is not female. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR SYNTAX GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There certainly aren't any body parts missing in these women boxers. Try to stay on topic instead of playing random syntax games.

Male is not female. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR SYNTAX GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

What astounding insight.

Look I can play too.

Red is not white.

Yellow is not black.

Now can we get back on the topic of how these boxers are women? How do you think these women got XY chromosomes?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There certainly aren't any body parts missing in these women boxers. Try to stay on topic instead of playing random syntax games.

Male is not female. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR SYNTAX GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

What astounding insight.

Look I can play too.

Red is not white.

Yellow is not black.

Now can we get back on the topic of how these boxers are women? How do you think these women got XY chromosomes?

Syntax games won't work. You'll have to do better.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There certainly aren't any body parts missing in these women boxers. Try to stay on topic instead of playing random syntax games.

Male is not female. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR SYNTAX GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

What astounding insight.

Look I can play too.

Red is not white.

Yellow is not black.

Now can we get back on the topic of how these boxers are women? How do you think these women got XY chromosomes?

Syntax games won't work. You'll have to do better.

Khelif and Yu-Ting

Rule in the ring

They don't masturbate

True Climate Debate