Tehran Times is completely untrustworthy in this context, they’re - essentially a propaganda outlet for the islamist theocratic regime in Tehran. Given that they make such an absurd claim and that it hasn’t been independently verified - this is likely false.

See link below regarding Tehran Times:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Times#cite_note-regime-1

Here’s the short version (yes, this is incomplete because even writing this is a small essay. If somebody feels like adding context please do so), to answer your question on the background to their statement & position. The position is fairly common outside Lemmy at least.

History, history, history… (very long story)

2022: Israel was working on normalizing relations with the Arab countries. Things are relatively peaceful in the ME, albeit pretty shit for Arabs in Gaza & WB, not a warzone though. This succeeding would have been a threat to the Iranian network of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, groups in Syria such as the IRGC).

Iran pushes forth October 7 to reignite tensions, training Hamas operatives & such.

Hamas attacks Israel on Oct. 7 kicking off the war - other Iranian proxy groups soon join in. Initially there is no direct conflict between Israel & Iran.

2024 april - IDF strikes the Iranian consulate in Syria to take senior officers in the Hezbollah chain of command and assassinates several others. Iran retaliates with missiles against with strikes against Israel proper.

After that, tit for tat strikes in increasing magnitude and escalations which have culminated in the current situation. No, it was not surprising, this conflict was always fundamentally between Israel & Iran and has been slowly escalating for a long time.

It’s targeting testosterone level, which varies by person and there are cis women with higher levels than some men.

I’m going to stop you right there. Given changes that are slowly permeating both language and legal systems across the world, “man” or “woman” doesn’t really have anything to do with biology anymore, nor are terms like “cis” or “trans” really relevant to biology (more so a persons current legal/presenting gender compared to the one they were assigned at birth). As such they aren’t useful terms when discussing in the context of what biologically is normal with regards to hormone levels.

The terms that do exist and are relevant (at least in English, my other native language doesn’t have separate words for sex and gender which can complicate medical discussions and also makes folks more attached to the biological definition -_-) are male, female and intersex. When looking at a healthy human female they won’t have anywhere near the testosterone levels of a healthy male - it’s a 5x order of magnitude between the upper female and lower male ranges, even when accounting for PCO/S - which isn’t necessarily unhealthy, but just that extra 10-20% outside the normal female range can be enough to start having effects such as growing facial hair in puberty. The gap - along with XY individuals with low testosterone and XX individuals with high testosterone are those who end up developing in an intersex manner, in one way or another (this is already during the fetal stage).

Honestly I feel like we’re getting far from the original conversation here, but it’s part of what makes these topics so inherently difficult. Balancing between how sensitive some people can find the topic on a social level (particularly when having dealt with actual bad actors), the huge risk of misinterpretations/miscommunications and then the medical field dealing with the biological situation that ultimately is the basis of all this. Evaluating these topics is amongst the most difficult ethical dilemmas we have in the field - right up there with human euthanasia and I don’t think there can be a single “right” answer. You’re going to end up with different people being hurt wherever the balance is struck and that really, really sucks.

but if we need to protect women’s “fair” competition strongly for some reason, shouldn’t we also have leagues for all types of people?

I think you’re being sarcastic here, but there is a trend in that direction, with paralympics and such. It all comes down to this. How is the protected class of athletes defined? If a space for female athletes is going to exist at all, there needs to be some definition, which inevitably is going to feel arbitrary to some. The one they’ve gone with excludes males and most intersex individuals - allowing a little wiggle room here for folks with XY who have no male testosterone production which medically speaking makes it into a “woman at birth with low androgens” competition since those people will usually have a female phenotype at birth.

In the case of Imane - it may speculatively (after now reading a little about the circumstances and the “leaked” results) be a case of XY intersex with some kind of androgen dysfunction, either through reduced production via enzyme deficiency or partial insensitivity to testo. Being from a less developed country it’s quite possible that Imane wouldn’t even be aware of such a condition until it came to light due to the testing, and even if it was noticed earlier by Algerian medical professionals it may have been hidden from the patient due to how controversial intersex individuals are in traditionally muslim countries. This was the case for a long time even in the west, some countries even into the 2000’s - “in the best interest of the patient”. Quite tragic really.

You can though - at least to the extent that we in empirical science usually refer to “proving” or “disproving” (or rather, indicate or contraindicate a hypothesis). In this case it’d be studies/metastudies on injuries in different kinds of matchups (which can either show a statistically significant difference or not) or in performance of different athletes.

The case you linked here is regarding football, not boxing, which simply makes it a question of performance rather than also safety (as it is with boxing or other combat sports). The key difference in judgement here is the same reason that there are weight classes - simply wouldn’t be safe (or fair for that matter) to match up a 120kg vs a 60 kg athlete - the latter might literally get killed.

Performance wise, the most “fair” might be to sort athletes into leagues based on testosterone levels. It’s already known that higher testosterone levels tend to correlate with higher performance, so rather than imposing an arbitrary limit where only the athletes in the “sweet spot” just below the limit get to excel, grade them into brackets based on that. Women’s sports were established in the first place to give women a fair chance at competing, since male vs female competitions in the vast majority of cases end up very one sided.

Thing is, my time is limited. I don’t have time to look into every single thing. No, this isn’t some empiric process on my part. It comes down to judgement.

On the one hand there is a well established organization (and several others actually, I did do a cursory internet search) backed by an army medical professionals, which will get sued into oblivion by these athletes if they are egregiously wrong. What they’re saying also happens to check out with my own knowledge on the topic and news that has circulated (both in regular papers and on occasion medical news).

On the other hand, there are a bunch of random internet strangers who, without citing any external sources say that the well established organization is wrong and lying.

So, which one would you be inclined to believe?

Again, feel free to drop in some material that you think disproves this, I would love to have a look!

No, it’s not “just World Boxing’s statement”. Have a look at the author. If you take issue with the validity of the claims maybe try and contact him, he’s a medical professional with literal decades of experience in this exact field.

Do you actually think safety is the real concern here?

…yes, in fact combat sports are usually more safety conscious given that they constantly have to deal with the issue. One slip up and zip, someone’s dead.

Some countries permit people to have the gender on their birth certificate changed after transition, which unfortunately renders your suggestion moot. Also from the wording in the article I think the testing will be applied to male athletes also.

Testing for chromosomes in this day and age is also quite simple and rather cheap. The main issue really is how privacy is handled. Personally I wouldn’t want to have to be subjected to a gene test for a job.

I’m not particularly familiar with the politics of sports, nor am I particularly interested - as such I won’t comment on what their goals are. I am, however, very familiar with human biology and healthcare. 5 yrs of secondary + tertiary education familiar in addition to several years of work experience. You’ll unfortunately have to take my word for that. I don’t intend to dox myself with documentation.

With my outlook on the topic, it doesn’t seem like a “crusade of bullshit and misinformation”. Headline news, physiology and most importantly “data and medical evidence from an extensive range of sources and consulted widely with other sports and experts across the world” - as they claim. I don’t have time to personally look into that (sucks to have a life amirite) but am inclined to trust that they care for the athletes and have done due diligence. If you (or anyone else for that matter!) has material that disputes the validity of their work do feel free to link it in a reply. I and others I’m sure would be interested in reading such material.

Thanks.

…from the article

… to ensure the safety of all participants and deliver a competitive level playing field for men and women.

…which has examined data and medical evidence from an extensive range of sources and consulted widely with other sports and experts across the world.

This decision reflects concerns over the safety and wellbeing of all boxers, including Imane Khelif, and aims to protect the mental and physical health of all participants…

…and another citation for good measure.

At least from what I’ve read previously, these rules changes are primarily related to incidents where female athletes have been severely injured when competing against mtf athletes - but it’s long been a contentious issue. As is often the case, when rules are changed/implemented they end up being broad and catching others in the crossfire.

It’s unfortunate that it’s ended up being necessary. However, there are many professions where people can’t work due to genetics or health (eyesight, cardiac issues etc.) and athletics in general is already a field highly affected by genetics. C’est la vie…

Generally because the differences in male and female biology mean that ftm athletes are coming in at a disadvantage and only risk end up being hurt themselves by male athletes who generally have them at a disadvantage. Mtf athletes however, due to the aspects of male physiology that remain, have a higher likelihood of having an advantage over female athletes and also posing a danger to the other athletes. This is generally why most womens categories were introduced in the first place (female physical disadvantage).

Especially in martial arts and combat sports like boxing, which are already inherently dangerous, the physical safety of the athletes and protecting them must come above more ephemeral goals such as inclusion in my view.

As it stands with current day medical technology, there are limits to how close a transitioning individual can be changed to resemble the opposing gender.

Given how deep the differences are physiologically between the sexes with things such as lyonization I’m not entirely sure that it will ever be possible to fully transition a person outside of weird and ethically questionable future tech such as vat-growing a genetically modified clone and somehow transferring the consciousness of the person.

I agree - and it’s also a language problem. Many of the words that nowadays are core parts of the left wing message can easily be portrayed as hostile to them due to their historic genesis and literary meaning~

A simple vocabulary update would help a huge amount, simply switching to more gender neutral terms that carry a sufficiently equivalent meaning. Feminism -> Gender Equality; toxic masculinity -> misogyny + internalized sexism; patriarchy -> oligarchy + egalitarianism etc.

This has become a huge weakness that can be (and frequently is) exploited to portray it as hostile towards these groups.

Hamas has consistently struggled to articulate an achievable long-term strategy for alleviating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

The author operates under the fundamentally flawed assumption that the terrorist hamas leadership cares about the well-being of the Gazan Arab population. They don’t - and either never have, or haven’t for a very long time. The primary interest of the political leadership, who live in other countries - far removed from the suffering of the people they supposedly lead, is to line their own pockets.

However, the fact that much of hamas upper echelons on the ground in Gaza was wiped out when hostilities resumed does imply that they misjudged the situation.

It was only a matter of time when it became clear they couldn’t agree on the terms for phase 2 of the ceasefire and phase 1 came to an end.

Yeah I actually listened through (almost) the entire 50 minute thing during breakfast - and all things considered the atmosphere was mostly okay up until the last moments. Things were starting to wrap up, journalists asking questions, and then Vance jumped in with an entirely different attitude - and after that Trump completely changed his tone also.

So tragic to see how Z was doing his utmost to be friendly or at least respectful even when T made clearly incorrect statements or when some of the journalists asked insulting questions. He literally thanked him (and the american people) multiple times during the press conference, and then V jumps in, runs him over and turns the entire thing upside down.

I’m honestly not sure where I stand myself on this. It’s a difficult issue and I’m not sure there can be “only one correct answer”.

as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples

Who decides what is harmful or provocative?

A priest may find that the colander makes a mockery of religion, others might see a hijab as a symbol of oppression of women and others still may find that a certain slogan remind them of past trauma?

How do you strike a balance between dress code and preferences?

Should the state be free from religions, or free for all religions?

Does it even make sense to have the same rules in every country?

I myself am certainly biased in this context, given that I trust in science, evolution and the empiric process. Furthermore, I myself have been permanently negatively affected by religion, and all the ones I’ve encountered so far have been anti-scientific to a certain extent, regressive and denounce my own personal views. Does it not make sense then that I am anti-religious?

If I had to quickly codify my stance at this moment, I would say that I’m fine with freedom of religion to the extent that it intersects with the other personal liberties (Freedom of thought, expression, personal autonomy) that I think everyone should have the right to. However, I don’t think religion should give anyone preferential treatment in any context - religious organizations and religious folk should be subjected to the same regulations as a person of another (or no) belief or organization.

For instance, that might include exemptions from dress codes. In this case I would be against it unless the dress code would be equivalently relaxed for everyone, which I certainly wouldn’t support in some contexts. Some examples from healthcare for instance (since I’ve experience in the field) - it is imperative that what you wear is hygienic for the safety of the patient, and some of your duties might go against the personal beliefs of some people (abortion for instance). That doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from those duties or regulations because of your personal convictions. Suck it up, or go find another job.

From what I’ve read on the topic, this take seems misguided at best or outright wrong at worst. Historically, secularism in France has been a primarily liberal/socialist/anti-monarchist pursuit.

French secularism has its origin in the French revolution, half a century before Algeria came under French control. Religious institutions were viewed as a part of the aristocratic establishment and the concept of laïcité was introduced under the revolutionary era and entrenched (along with concepts such as freedoms of thought, expression & conscience) during the Napoleonic era. Further progress in this direction was not made by imperialists, but rather revolutionaries after bloody conflict (the French commune for instance) and generally steps were taken to repeal them when conservative/monarchist governments dominated.

To start off, you could write entire essays delving into this topic. Everything I’ve written in my reply is very condensed, so if you feel something lacks nuance, it’s probably to keep it brief rather than because I thought it is “THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER”. Here goes.

Religious freedom has two key parts: freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Which of these holds prominence is different depending on the secular country you’re in, and usually has a lot to do with the historic path that the nation and dominant culture took to become secular.

In France organized religion had an authoritarian position in society, dominating it for more than a millenium. It took literal centuries of bloodshed and more than one revolution to put an end to that dominance. That is the origin of those laws. The lessons behind their making were learned at the cost of many lives, and personally I don’t think that such laws should be ripped up without proper consideration.

Religion, particularly the organized kind is designed to spread and exert power over people and societies. Furthermore, unlike many other things such as ethnicity, sex or disabilities, it is a strongly held personal belief, which is a choice. Yes, there is some nuance there, but it is mostly based on convictions and antiquated traditions, much like the old republican laws themselves perhaps.

A question follows, should a person based on an arbitrary strong personal conviction be granted special treatment?

If yes… then I argue that this should not be limited to “religious” beliefs. The only thing that makes those particular sets of beliefs special, after all, is tradition and mass adoption, much like our own cultures. So, lets consider some other minority beliefs. Should a furry who “needs” to wear wolf ears be allowed to wear that? A sikh their turban? A pastafarian their mandated colander? What if someone strongly believes that they can’t go outside without wearing a CocaCola branded cap (mmm delicious ad revenue)?