disqualified

  I, along with many others read with disgust that a male boxer was competing against women in the Olympics. That was the headlines I saw spreading across my Facebook page like lightening. But soon I was corrected. I was informed that the boxer in question is in actuality a female. Her name is Imane Khelif. I went to the internet for answers about all of this. I was told she suffers from a medical condition called PCOS. Polycystic Overy Syndrome. I admit I had never heard of that. This syndrome causes quite a few issues in women. Among those issues are elevated levels of testosterone and androgen. And that is where the issue with gender "assignment" begins. I deplore the term gender assignment it just irritates me but that's a different subject. Anyway, Imane Khelif was born with all the attributes of a female of the species. Yes, she has all the equipment that every other woman on the planet is born with. So, in my mind she is indeed a female. 

  The issue gets clouded when a different governing body of boxing disqualified her from competing based on her testosterone levels and other unspecified reasons. I can't speak to what that organization had in mind but only speculate. We are all aware of PED issues in sports today. Performance enhancing drugs can indeed increase your body mass, increase strength and endurance. Testosterone is among those drugs. Now if her levels were elevated the thinking could have been that she was in fact injecting that substance. Thing is, from all the reports I was able to read that isn't the case, the cause is that syndrome. Should an athlete be barred for a condition that they have no control of? That's the central question here. 

  Are we now to establish a baseline level, based on the biological gender of an individual, of testosterone and androgen? I'm no doctor but I'm guessing a normal level has already been identified. I certainly hear enough commercials for men suffering from low T. In fact, mine was checked, I'm just fine. The question then becomes, are there actual rules in place that delineate those levels based on that information? If so, do those rules apply if those levels are exceeded by completely natural means. That is to say without any outside interference or injections. In short can a syndrome, disease, or abnormality be a disqualifying factor. Is that fair or discriminatory? After all, it isn't her fault that she has that condition. 

  It's a complex issue. I thought it ridiculous, and still do, that you can simply identify as another gender and that is valid. I have said it often and nothing has changed. You are whatever gender you were born as. Without being graphic we all what the two genders look like. We all know there is a wide range in that appearance, but the basic components remain the same. Yes, there are abnormalities, aberrations and medical maladies that can confuse the issue. Still for me the bottom line is your DNA. You are whatever your DNA specifies. It's true that doesn't have anything to do with your gender "identity" but adopting an identity doesn't change your DNA. As to this person in question I haven't seen anything regarding her X and Y chromosomes. Her birth certificate says she is a female. 

  After reading all of this, doing the research as I am often advised to do, I reached this conclusion. She is female. Seems a little odd to me that I have to spell that out, she is the feminine form of address for females and really shouldn't require clarification. I was a bit peeved to find out how misleading all those headlines were. I even read one from that esteemed paper, The New York Times. The Times proclaiming a man was fighting in the women's division in the Olympics. 

 That is a lie! The Times isn't a paper I often agree with because of their biassed political views. But political views are often nothing more than an opinion. Opinions are neither right or wrong, true or false, they are just opinions. But this is a matter of facts. The facts show that Imane Khelif is a biological woman. So, the Times has reached the same level of credibility as the National Enquirer as far as I'm concerned. None of this is in defense of Imane Khelif, that isn't my purpose or intent. I just feel compelled to tell the truth as I see it. I was wrong in making my posting jumping on the bandwagon of "misinformation' otherwise known as lying. The truth isn't always what we want to hear. That doesn't change a thing, however. Can you be disqualified because of a medical condition that perhaps enhances your abilities? 

  I wrote this to set the record straight. I was wrong, I admit I was wrong. I don't like the taste of it at all, but it is what it is. I should have done my research! I'm just foolish enough to believe what I'm reading sometimes when I should be questioning everything. That is what we have in this information age, deceit and deliberate distortion of the truth. I'm just remembering when a man's word was his bond, and a handshake was a promise. The New York Times printed stories based on actual facts and the Enquirer was all tongue in cheek. Today you can't tell one from the other. I guess that's progress.