Imane Khelif, the genetic male expected to win a gold medal tonight after beating a woman in the welterweight final at the Olympics, has dramatically focused attention yet again onto sex differences in sport. She has been allowed to compete as a woman even though they failed an International Boxing Association gender test last year, preventing them from competing as a woman in the Boxing World Championships.
If we still needed it, the success of Khelif is the clearest demonstration yet of gender differences in sport. The evidence for this, of course, has been mounting each year, focused in particular on the unfairness of transgender athletes winning in women’s sporting competitions (although Khelif is not a trans athlete, having been wrongly identified as female at birth due to having a rare condition known as DSD, which stands for disorders in sex development).
Take the case of swimmer Lia Thomas who, by winning the 500-yard freestyle competition, became the first transgender person to win a highly prestigious U.S. College Athletic title. Competing as a man a year or two earlier, however, he had ranked 554th in the U.S. Not a bad uplift on account of transitioning.
While the athletes and their supporters obviously approve of such a dizzying climb, conservative social commentators are aghast. Here’s Allison Pearson in the Telegraph: “Mediocre males can suddenly win prizes that would have been way out of reach had they stayed in their biological sex category.” People like Lia Thomas are “shameless cheats”. Second-placed Ms. Weyant should have won.
As far as I can see, however, no-one is pondering the opposite question. Why is it considered fair that a woman could come first and win accolades in a national sporting competition, when she couldn’t even beat some “mediocre” competitor ranked 554th amongst men?
This is a general question. Why is it fair that Jamaican Elaine Thompson-Herah can win the 100 metres gold medal at the last Olympics, when her time – 10.61 seconds – would not have enabled her to progress through any of the heats, let alone the semi-finals, had she competed against men? How is it fair to the men eliminated, that runners slower than them should continue to international glory simply because they happen to be women?
If you’re a man and ran the 2003 London Marathon in 2 hours 15 minutes, no-one will have noticed you. A woman, however, running the same time created a world record and got international fame, as well as honours from Her Majesty the Queen. We all remember Paula Radcliffe. The men who ran as fast or faster than her are forgotten.
Why is this fair? More importantly, why is this even allowed? In all other areas of our lives, we are compelled – on pain of punishment – not to treat men and women differently. And the aspirational metric for showing whether or not we are doing so is equal numbers of men and women in coveted positions.
The Fawcett Society’s Sex and Power Index catalogues “the progress towards equal representation for women in top jobs across the U.K.” In 2022, women made up only 8% of the CEOs of FTSE 100 companies, it complains. Overall, less than one third of the 5,000 top jobs in the U.K. are taken by women, meaning that there are 1,000 missing women. It’s all because of sexism, the experts say, and society needs to change.
Why the contrast with sports, where we are only able to achieve equality by not treating men and women equally? In England (with parallel legislation elsewhere) it’s all because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Section 44 says that in “any sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature” the strictures against sex discrimination do not apply, so men can be discriminated against – let’s be clear, that’s what it amounts to – by allowing less able women to win awards that they couldn’t have achieved if they had competed against men.
Why did the 1975 Act allow this? Because men and women are different. The Sex Discrimination Act recognises that the “physical strength, stamina or physique of the average woman puts her at a disadvantage to the average man”. Sec 195(3) of the Equality Act 2010 incorporates the same language and sentiments.
It was bloody obvious in the case of the poor female boxers that have had to compete against Imane Khelif. It’s always clear when genetic males compete in women’s sports.
It’s important to note that all the evidence concerning transgender people competing in women’s sports has revealed that the perceived unfairness isn’t just because of “physical strength, stamina or physique”. Most important of all is testosterone – as made clear by World Athletics, which under previous rules allowed transgender women to be admitted to women’s sports once they had reduced their blood testosterone level for a period of 12 months.
But testosterone in men not only leads to huge differences in physical strength; it also accounts for psychological differences too. Testosterone drives status-enhancing behaviours in males. It makes men more tolerant of risk-taking. It is a “fuel for dominance”, as one social psychologist put it.
It goes without saying that these differences in testosterone levels between men and women are likely to lead to large sexual differences in the race for sporting dominance. But the same is true of competition in other areas. Testosterone equally favours men and disadvantages women in the race to become a CEO of a FTSE-100 company, say, or Prime Minister, as it does in the race to win in an athletics competition.
Imagine if sport had not been excluded from the Sex Discrimination Act. There would be commissions of enquiry set up into lack of female representation at the highest level in sport. Is it due to sexism? Stereotyping? The patriarchy? Government ministers would urge our Olympic teams to include at least one woman in each discipline – and no-one would be allowed to object that this meant better men were overlooked. And the Fawcett Society would be furiously publishing screeds about the absence of women winning boxing matches, 100m races and tennis matches at the Paris Olympics. It would look forward to the day when this unconscionable ‘discrimination’ would be eliminated and men and women would be able compete on equal terms in every sport, with 50% of the winners being female.
No one would be able to say – or they’d be ostracised if they dared – that perhaps, just perhaps, the lack of women competing at the top level in sport was that they were simply unable to compete with men on equal terms.
So thank goodness that we are allowed to recognise sex differences in sport. It spares us an enormous amount of grief.
But must that grief continue in so many other areas of our lives? Why can’t we be allowed to say it: there are fewer women CEOs or senior politicians or leading clergy or chess grandmasters because men and women are different. Not because of discrimination. Not because of sexism. Not because of the patriarchy. Simply because women are not physically up to it. We don’t say it because we can’t. But, secretly, many of us know it’s true.
Going back to the original legal wording, one possibility occurs to me. Both the 1975 and 2010 Acts have the same wording – the exemption that allows sex discrimination is for any “sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature”.
But “other activities of a competitive nature” surely include the race to become a CEO of a FTSE 100 company or a Prime Minister, or, indeed, any other high status positions. Could there not be a carve-out for those areas, too?
The trans debate has brought this into sharp focus. It really is hopeless for women to try to compete on equal terms in any sport against biological men. The cases of Imane Khelif, Lia Thomas, Austin Killips and all the others mean that no-one can hide from that now. But the outcry over how unfair this is may have opened up the possibility that this could also be as self-evident in other areas of life too. Like becoming a CEO or Prime Minister. There, I’ve said it now. But I have a good job so, of course, I’d never dare attach my name to this article.
Stop Press: Imane Khelif did indeed win a gold medal.
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.
I agree with the author, especially as she says that if an able-bodied athlete is not permitted to compete in the para-Olympics due to having an obvious unfair advantage, the same should apply to anyone with a Y sex chromosome being excluded from women’s events. Hence why it’s imperative to move away from what is written on somebody’s passport ( what the IOC are doing ) and commence with sex testing via a cheek swab. It’s the fairest way.
Here is an interview article of the former athletics coach for Canada talking about when three biological men, including caster Semenya, all got medals at the 2016 Olympics in the 800m, and the athlete he was coaching came in 4th, robbed of her gold medal. It also shows the pressure coaches and athletes are put under, with threats to stay silent on the issue, which does give some indication as to why athletes cannot ”just refuse to compete”. They’ve an awful lot to lose if they do so;
”Athletics Canada’s former head coach has come forward to reveal that he was threatened by the Canadian Olympic Committee lawyers after expressing discontent with the results of the women’s 800m at the 2016 Olympic Games. The competition saw three biological males take the top spots, displacing the female Canadian bid to fourth place.
Peter Eriksson, the record-making former head coach for the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic program, spoke to Reduxx about what happened at the 2016 session in Rio, and the consequences he faced if he spoke out on behalf of Canadian athlete Melissa Bishop. Bishop placed fourth after three males competed in the female division.
“I was the first one to see Melissa after the race and what do you even say in that scenario? ‘You’re the best woman in the race?’ You don’t get a medal for that,” Eriksson says. “This was such an injustice I wanted to speak out, and then I got a call from the Canadian Olympic Committee’s lawyer saying that if I opened my mouth, I would be banned for life in sport.”
Eriksson explained that, at the time, World Athletics claimed there was a lack of evidence on the advantage possessed by DSD athletes, but that there had been no confusion on the ground about what Semenya and the others were.
“Everybody knew Caster Semenya, for example, was a male. Everybody was aware of it, but I think that World Athletics didn’t want to do anything,” Eriksson says. “This is now also documented in court records. [He] has very high testosterone and is XY. A few years earlier [he] had tried to lower [his] testosterone and began to perform poorly, so [he] stopped.”
https://reduxx.info/an-injustice-former-canadian-olympic-head-coach-speaks-out-against-results-of-2016-olympics-calls-for-sex-segregated-sport/
Here is the race in question;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psxr58zKi6g&ab_channel=Olympics
I’ve followed several of these cases with some interest Mogs. The clincher for me was that after most of the furore regarding Caster Semenya had died down, he fathered two children with his wife, despite having undescended male parts. Inside, he was a sperm-producing man. Unfortunate as it might be personally for Khelif in being allegedly raised as a female, all the biological evidence confirms he’s a bloke, quite aside from his build and appearance (a la Semenya). The craven pusillanimity of the IOC in pandering to political correctness over womens’ safety is nothing short of disgusting
Yes, indeed. Sharron Davies is over in Paris now working on the Olympics and she’s talking to these female competitors. It’s not just the boxing that’s been infiltrated by XY chromosome-owners ( what the heck do you call them? DSD people?? ), it’s, criminally, the other contact sports. What does that say about the Olympic committee and what they think of women? Terrible;
”I have spent time this week with many female combat sports women. There are other males in different womens fighting sports here at the Olympics. It is negligence & pure insanity. A dereliction of duty of care to female athletes health. The IOC HAVE been told over & over again.”
https://x.com/sharrond62/status/1819677130034213164
It was never a trans issue. Nobody reliably ever claimed it was a trans issue. Most of that obfuscation appeared to come from the TRAs, attempting to queer the pitch, and then paint their opponents as being the confused parties.
It is unfortunate for these athletes, but there are no grounds for allowing them to compete against women.
*reliable
I just wanted to say that I really found this scientific medical information fascinating. I had no idea of the physical manifestations of a developmental chromosome misstep in this way – so thanks for a really interesting article.
Good article; thanks
The Hashimi “sisters” from Afghanistan look extremely suspect in the women’s cycling road race. Broad shoulders, little hips and waists, significantly taller than the competition and are currently working together to reel in a breakaway. These Olympics are a joke.
Thank you Isabella!
The Olympic Movement does seem to be tying itself in a huge knot on what should otherwise be a very simple issue. According to them they’re an organisation seeking “to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating young people through sport practiced in accordance with Olympism and its values.”
What are these ‘values’ exactly? Well they include, among other things, “respect for international conventions on protecting human rights” and specifically the “rejection of discrimination of any kind.”
This is all very virtuous but for decades sport’s intended reach includes vulnerable sub-populations which in most places continues to include women. Thus, the Olympic Movement intends to “encourage the regular practice of sport by all people in society, regardless of sex, age, social background or economic status,” and holds out “gender equality a top priority.” Its “two main aims” with respect to gender equality “are to make access to sport in general and the Olympic Games easier for female athletes, and to increase the number of women in sports administration and management.”
This huge, and ever increasing, knot can easily be undone by defining what they mean by ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘female’ and ‘woman’. If there’s ever a need for a sex taxonomy update it’s now. The irony here being women were once excluded from sports based on sex, only to come almost full circle to be excluded again!
The Olympic Movement is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It is impossible to encourage, prioritise and grow woman’s sport while at the same time erasing biological reality and replacing it with gender identity. Sex discrimination should always be met with skepticism and challenged, but in sport it is an absolute that’s required for women to compete. In this instance, discrimination is lawful, sensible and required to achieve the Olympic Movement’s goals.
To conclude, due the Olympic Movement’s desires to elevate women (rightly so), and the inherent physiological differences between the sexes, this goal cannot be met without continuing to separate the sexes using lawful and sensible discriminatory practices against biological men, men with DSDs and trans women.
https://olympics.com/ioc/theme-gender-equality
“…..includes vulnerable sub-populations which in most places continues to include women.”
Ooh steady on or you’ll trigger the wrath of the resident misogynists, with their tedious pathological obsession with blaming everything on feminism and/or women on general.
Apparently if women call out the unfair treatment experienced in sports we’re accused of claiming “victim hood” or told “it’s your own fault!” Go figure!
Thank the gods for the decent men sticking their heads above the parapet and calling out the injustice though. I see the sacrifices and the hard work that goes into playing sports at a high level for ALL sportspeople but there can be no doubt that what’s going on currently is negatively impacting females alone. If people want to make disparaging remarks when this reality is acknowledged then it just highlights how unhealthy their attitude is towards females and trivialising what girls and women are enduring in wider society or coming up against in a sports environment.
The IOC are a shambles and come across as dreadfully unprofessional, prioritising all things woke over fairness and safety of the female athletes. I don’t think I watched any of the previous Olympics so I can’t compare it to what’s occurring presently in Paris. Was it as bad as this?
Anyway, great post.
The statement “We cannot blame individuals like Imane Khelif” sits awkwardly with the statement “It’s important to consider the fact that Imane Khelif entered the Olympics likely knowing that they are a natal male (XY).” Perhaps Khelif doesn’t understand that he has considerable physical advantages over XX women – and perhaps he does. The pre-fight swab idea is a good one, but swab or not, you just need to look at this individual to know that he shouldn’t be in a ring with a woman. This isn’t prejudice – it’s common sense – a rare commodity, I’m told. Apparently Khelif has been boxing since he was 13; maybe he looked more like a girl back then – a lot of boys do at 13. But, er… they change; and just the fact – sorry, I’m making various assumptions here – that a girlish boy of 13/14/15 starts to find that he’s not up to being in the ring with 100% male fighters, doesn’t mean he should start thinking about having a crack at the ladies instead. As I say, this is a slightly mischievous assumption – but how else to explain how a sane person can look at Khelif now and say yes, that’s a wonderful, beautiful woman who has the perfect right to break other women’s noses? It’s beyond me. (As an argument, it reminds of conversations I’ve had with gay friends who tell me that they’d have loved to adopt a child but didn’t feel they had the ‘right’ to insist on doing so, no matter what less conservative people told them; they accepted that people often make sacrifices, that all things are not given to all people in this life, and that if the possible or likely outcome of not making those sacrifices might include harm to others, they should maybe exercise some restraint in their actions. Big of them, I’d say, and said at the time.)
The ability to discern in Imane Khelif a woman fighting a fair fight with another woman is an ability enjoyed only by leftist utopianists, who see things that don’t exist other than in their dreams. That dream-world is a problem that makes things difficult in most areas of life, but nowhere quite as starkly as in the boxing ring. Leftists are cruel – they gloss over much suffering in their pursuit of ideology; what was the look on Khelif’s face during and after this ‘fight’? Well, I’m afraid I saw only self-satisfied condescension – a hint of scorn perhaps – contrasting somewhat with the look on Angela Carini’s face after only 46 seconds of a revolting spectacle.
By the way, while the author’s conclusions make sense to me, I don’t understand the capitulation to this absurd habit of using grammatically confusing pronouns – especially since there is an overt understanding that the person under scrutiny is in fact male (“This means that Imane Khelif is biologically [natal] male.”) Subsequent language used by the author can be confusing as a result: “We cannot blame individuals like Imane Khelif. They were misclassified at birth” – Does this refer to Khelif only, or to others like him? Does such a detail matter? It certainly might.
Being churlish for a moment, on the question of confusion, the article would be easier to follow if it were better written; this one is one of the worst I’ve seen in the DS pages. Sorry, it just is. (eg, “This way there would be no confusion about who should be allowed to compete against each other” = This way there would be no confusion about who should be allowed to compete against whom“? Sorry, reigning in pedantic instincts…).
Finally, here’s someone who would love to get me in the ring (although I wouldn’t fancy her chances): https://x.com/IrishWomens/status/1819372791050686556 – Who knows what goes through the mind of a lady rugby player…
The ability to discern in Imane Khelif a woman fighting a fair fight with another woman is an ability enjoyed only by leftist utopianists, who see things that don’t exist other than in their dreams.
What makes you think the people behind this believe in their own cover stories? Khelif has doubtlessly been put in his place by people who knew perfectly well what they were doing. That’s part of the plan to demonstrate to us how powerless we are wrt to accepting this nonsense.
I make no reference to the people “behind this”; I mean only that the tendency to see things that don’t exist is a tendency of the Left in general. A pretty straightforward reflection on the general nature of Leftist ‘thinking’ (for want of a better word). You may well be right about the “plan to demonstrate” etc – I don’t have a strong view on that.
Thank you very much for this clear explanation of the medical basis for this situation. All we get from the IOC and media is just dream land rhetoric.