Mick Hartley

Oliver Brown at the Telegraph on the Imane Khelif Olympic debacle:

It is a monumental dereliction, to which the only natural response is anger. The IOC has caused havoc with its ridiculous 2021 framework on “fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination”, stating that “athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with the self-determined gender identity”. In 2024, it decided to test this fallacy in boxing, the most lethal Olympic sport. Except boxers do not compete with their feelings, but with their fists. In its desperation to advertise supposedly progressive credentials, it placed women in mortal danger. Could there be a greater betrayal?

Those who cheered this on in Paris, who painted anybody doubting Khelif’s claims to be a woman as a bigot, should take some time to reflect. And that includes many journalists. On Sky Sports News on Friday, an Olympics reporter, reacting to news that World Boxing would compel Khelif to undergo further sex testing to compete in the female category again, said flatly: “There were no tests. There were no test results.” And yet there were. We knew of their existence in Paris nine months ago, and now we have seen them with our own eyes.

In a curious way, there is some comfort in this. When people accuse anybody disagreeing with them on this subject of “hate”, it is a sure sign that they have lost the plot. And those insisting that Khelif’s mental health matters more than the physical well-being of women have emphatically lost any moral argument. Think of it this way: in men’s sport, people devote inordinate amounts of time to railing against the tiniest example of unfairness, to decrying the entire VAR system if Erling Haaland’s toe happens to be offside. How can the same judges make their peace with women being denied the right to safety, the most basic fairness of all? “Non è giusto”, Carini kept saying to her corner in Paris after the Khelif bout, weeping that she had never been punched so hard in her life. “It’s not fair.” Let that plaintive cry stand as a monument to the IOC’s everlasting shame.

See also, Jo Bartosch at Spiked:

The sight of a man battering his way to a women’s Olympic title was stomach-turning enough. Yet the conduct of those who enabled it was, in many ways, worse. Human-rights organisations and sports NGOs didn’t just look the other way – they also actively smeared anyone who asked questions. Amnesty International’s Stephen Cockburn claimed Khelif and Yu-ting were being ‘hounded by hatred’, framing public concern as ‘toxic, sexist and racist’. Minky Worden of Human Rights Watch dismissed sex testing as ‘abusive’ and ‘unscientific’. Meanwhile, with a characteristic lack of irony, GLAAD issued a ‘fact check’ decrying all criticism of Khelif as ‘transphobia and misinformation’. None offered a word of concern for the women in the ring.

The media, of course, played their part. From the BBC to the Associated Press, most outlets dutifully referred to Khelif as ‘she’, presenting him as a victim of conservative backlash or of a sinister Kremlin plot. Predictably, the Guardian went one further, publishing a spectacularly unhinged piece that framed concerns about Khelif punching women as the rantings of tradwives and MAGA trolls.

Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy came from boxing pundit Steve Bunce. Last year, he said of Khelif on the BBC, ‘Despite what you’ve read in the newspapers, she has always been a she’, while condemning the IBA’s sex testing. Yet this week, he attempted a feint. He claimed he supports reliable sex tests while dismissing criticism of Khelif as a ‘witch hunt’ based on his appearance. It’s fair to say, he was bested on social media.

To be clear, Khelif is not claiming to be trans. He is simply a man with a genetic disorder. Yet last year, a legion of commentators and organisations were sure he was a woman and convinced he had been persecuted. Just as with the debates around trans participation in sport, the people who assume they know best decided women’s right to fair competition doesn’t matter.

The IOC and those complicit commentators and journalists could have listened to the women who took the punches. They could have followed the IBA’s lead. They could have used their eyes. But there was more social currency in defending the indefensible. For some supposedly kind and enlightened people, it seems that a man punching a woman in the face is a sign of progress. Their contempt for women’s sport and safety is shameful.

It's curious that those most determined to ignore the evidence, and cheer on the sight of men beating up women for sport, are those who think of themselves as progressive and kind. Well, that's where we are…