A genetically male boxer (XY chromosomes, male-typical levels of testosterone, but not anatomically male) competing as a woman in the Olympics despite failing a gender test won today against an Italian woman, who conceded in just 46 seconds as she cried out “this is unjust“. The Mail has more.
The fight took 46 seconds and [the victor’s] Italian opponent threw her helmet onto the floor as the fight was abandoned.
She refused the handshake, fell to the canvas sobbing as the emotional Italian broke down in tears after just two punches.
Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, 25, fought Italy’s Angela Carini, 25 despite being banned from a major boxing contest before the Olympics.
After the match was stopped, the referee raised Khelif’s hand in the air. But a visibly furious Carini yanked her hand away from the fight official before exiting the ring without shaking her opponent’s hand.
Ignoring the Algerian, the Italian fighter then dropped to her knees and burst into tears as she said she had never felt such strong blows in a contest before.
Speaking after the match, the heartbroken Italian said: “I have always honoured my country with loyalty. This time I didn’t succeed because I couldn’t fight anymore. So I put an end to the match.'”
She said she did not walk away from the fight as a protest against her opponent’s inclusion, but that was a decision for the Olympics to consider.
She was taken away for medical assessment to examine the seriousness of her facial injuries which included a bruised nose.
Carini’s coach in the mix zone after the fight later said: “I don’t know if her nose is broken. I have to speak with the girl. But many people in Italy tried to call and tell her: ‘Don’t go please: it’s a man, it’s dangerous for you.'”
Worth reading in full.
Sharron Davies, Liz Truss and J.K. Rowling have waded into the controversy:
GB swimming hero Davies has now lashed out at the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for allowing the fight, raging: “This is shocking. The IOC are a bloody disgrace. In effect legalising beating up females. This must stop!!! What the hell’s the matter with them?”
She was joined by former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who wrote on X: “When will this madness stop? Men cannot become women. Why is the British Government not objecting to this?”
While Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling branded the contest “insanity”. In a post yesterday, the gender-critical author wrote: “What will it take to end this insanity? A female boxer left with life-altering injuries? A female boxer killed?”
Posting a video of the fight today, Rowling added: “Watch this (whole thread), then explain why you’re OK with a man beating a woman in public for your entertainment. This isn’t sport. From the bullying cheat in red all the way up to the organisers who allowed this to happen, this is men revelling in their power over women.”
In the Spectator, Debbie Hayton says “the International Olympic Committee (IOC) needs to find some far better answers to the transgender question if it is to restore its credibility in eyes of those who care about women’s sport”.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So far I like the cut of Milei’s jib. A breath of fresh air and common sense.
Billing the head of JSO would certainly be appreciated. A pay up or porridge deal should do the trick.
I strongly disagree.
“Security” is an imposition by the state. Its the state that wants to deploy police officers to provide “security” so it should foot the bill itself.
Although, of course, the state has no income. It’s income cones from shaking down the public.
It didn’t take Milei long to act like a hypocrite.
You are total granite Stewart always totally consistent.
JSO can protest and I would not charge them for security, but I would certainly charge them or jail them for damaging art works, buildings etc.—- Damaging things is not legitimate protest. ———I would expect no leniency if I had a JUST START OIL T short on and threw paint at my bank window, and I don’t think I would get any.
Its that thing that the left don’t do terribly well. Consequences for their actions…
I strongly disagree.
“Security” is an imposition by the state. Its the state that wants to deploy police officers to provide “security” so it should foot the bill itself.
That’s not really true. In 2017, there was a G20 meeting in Hamburg. These are traditionally also gathering points of the (so-called) anticapitalist/ anarchist hard left who’ll stage ‘protests’ against them. The city was essentially stripped of police in order to ensure the safety of all the meeting politicians. Because of this, the protestors went rioting in several city districts, smashing up and looting shops, torching cars etc.
Milei’s argument still doesn’t hold water, though: The largest parts of these costs will have been paying all the security-related government employees who would have needed to be paid come rain or shine, ie, regardless of the demonstration. And the actual numbers deployed were chosen by the government for some reason only known to it. People have freedom of assembly, however, should they actually assemble, fines in the order of thenthousands of dollars will be issued to people not guilty of any criminal conduct effectively means There’s no freedom of assembly.
I tend to agree
My starting point would be that the right to peaceful public mass protest is sacrosanct and charging people for it isn’t appropriate. If people are engaging in deliberate obstruction then they should be moved on or arrested. The greyer area is when the obstruction is a natural result of a lot of people being in the same place at the same time. I think it’s reasonable to encourage protestors to choose where they go in order to minimise inconvenience to others without losing the impact of the protest but I don’t feel that coercion is warranted
I like the idea of charging JSO for any damage done, then passing that on to donors. Never happen though
What a Christmas gift, that headline really did make me laugh out loud
Good for Milei, if I’m not mistaken a similar principle applies to football matches and pop concerts, so why not.
If you truly believe in what you’re protesting, you’ll be happy to foot the bill, in the knowledge that you will be safe while protesting and as a taxpayer you will not get further burdened.
Merry Christmas everyone, have a good one.
Yep, we are on the same page Jane.
Have a lovely Christmas
There’s a very real danger that this could end up being the thin end of the wedge. Once a government charges protesters blocking roads during a protest it’s a very small step to charging other protests for the policing costs involved and before we know it protest is the preserve of the well off.
The best solution would be to massively increase the fines given to people who have been found guilty of breaking the law during a protest to help cover the cost of dealing with their law breaking rather than simply charging groups who organise a protest.
“massively increase the fines given to people who have been found guilty of breaking the law”
I largely agree with your comments but the problem is that the legal system is now largely corrupted. JSO routinely break the law with their pathetic vandalism and deliberate road closures. Bill the tw#t funding this crap and things might change. If he doesn’t pay send him down.
Looking forward to the day when Extinction Rebellion are charged for the disruptions they cause. 10,000 motorists on the M25 x £10.42 an hour…. A few days of that will soon drain ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ the George Soros funded twats of funds.
Damn right.
“a heavy deployment of police, paramilitary officers and anti-riot forces, cost 60 million pesos, or about £57,500, at the official exchange rate.”
We should employ Argentinian police. At those prices we could fly them over here to deal with protests and riots and fly them back and it’d still cost less than using ours.
Yes that’s 1,043 pesos to the pound if my calculator is correct.
They will also strip protestors of Welfare. That’s going to hurt.
No. Just those protesters who block streets – if I understood that correctly.
Mind you that also means they expect to be able to identify these people.
—
Have a peaceful Christmas everyone.
In order to do this they must be closely surveilling the event and have the technology to trace the protesters they have identified. Its easy to applaud the concept of charging the protesters but the mechanics involved in that process are part of the apparatus of the surveillance state which, I think, most here would be against.
Correct. Trudeau tried it against the Canadian trucker protest during Covid. Not just cutting off welfare payments but freezing their bank accounts. I don’t think many on here would have supported that action.