If I’m understanding correctly the argument against her competing hinges upon a genetic test that the article provides no information for.
The evidence that she’s a woman seems overwhelming. But the article doesn’t provide the necessary information for an reader to understand and defeat the objection. We’re not to reason for ourselves. Instead, we’re to rely on ad hominem: The objection itself doesn’t matter because it came from Russia. The article also ignores fallacy fallacy: There’s also a very small possibility that Russia has reached the “good” conclusion for entirely “bad” reasons.
I know three things:
- She’s almost certainly a biological woman.
- She won.
- The author thinks you’re stupid.
There is no info, because it was just Russian misinformation from a former boxing org. boss. She was disqualified after beating a Russian. There is nothing more to this story, just the “West” again show its weakness and vulnerability for Russian news manipulation.
Arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If I made an absurd claim, such as: “Donald Trump was not born in the United States, he was born in Kenya.” Without any evidence supporting my claim, It doesn’t matter if a bunch of idiots jump on board agreeing with me. There is no moral imperative for Donald Trump to provide his birth certificate (good evidence) in order to dismiss my made up nonsense claims.
The austrian commentator (who was working for an austrian boxing committee before) on her semifinals fight said about that boxing org: “i’ve has seen quite a lot in my time, but they were the most corrupt org i ever saw” (he said “korrupter haufen”, which is derogatory for a corrupt group of people)
The article is pretty well done and shows exactly why this discussion is moot. There’s simply no merit to the accusation, plain and simple.
If an accusation comes from Russia and only from Russia, it’s part of their misinformation warfare. That’s not ad-hominem, that’s paying some fucking attention.
Afaik the IOC did all the standard testing on her and didn’t find any issues (no doping, normal testosterone levels, etc). Idk if they did a genetic sex test - I’d imagine that isn’t standard. Is that correct? Regardless of the Russian-run boxing federation’s intentions, I’d still trust the IOC’s findings over theirs.
Plus, even if she was XXY or something, does that actually have any impact on athletic performance? I’d imagine not
Edi: yep. Looks like it is widely believed that having a y chromosome is unfair, but the science doesn’t necessarily back that up.
“improved understanding about genetic factors that lead to selection in sport should offer reassurance that female athletes with hyperandrogenism do not possess any physical attribute relevant to athletic performance that is neither attainable, nor present in other women.”
It just bugs me the wording “wrongly questioned” - it’s never wrong to question, you just have to be prepared to accept answers.
Prove to me that you’re not a rapist right now. I’m just asking questions, but you better come back with proof fast before I start spreading the word.
Come on, this is a complete fallacious argument… Being a rapist is connected to actions, which can’t be proven that didn’t happen. This is completely different from measurable and observable properties like “being blonde” or “having certain chromosomes”. You can 100% disagree on having to prove anything, but your example is completely wrong.
