A record number of athletes openly identifying as LGBTQ+ are competing in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a massive leap during a competition that organizers have pushed to center around inclusion and diversity.
There are 191 athletes publicly saying they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and nonbinary who are participating in the Games, according to Outsports, an organization that compiles a database of openly queer Olympians. The vast majority of the athletes are women.
That number has quashed the previous record of 186 out athletes counted at the COVID-19-delayed Tokyo Olympics held in 2021, and the count is only expected to grow at future Olympics.
“More and more people are coming out,” said Jim Buzinski, co-founder of Outsports. “They realize it’s important to be visible because there’s no other way to get representation.”
Females have larger gametes. Males have smaller gametes. Just because this doesn’t apply to 100% of cases doesn’t make this an accepted definition – everything has exceptions in nature. 98-99% is good enough for a categorization though.
Does this affect how transwomen do in women’s category? Probably 98-99% not (hah), since IOC has declared this all works just fine?
Still it’s still a bit controversial, e.g. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref this study showed one set of cases where hormone treatment removed most differences in transwomen vs women but they remained significantly faster runners.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/ this seems to show that transwomen lose very little of their biological advantage. "Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. "
Who made this the accepted definition? Because you haven’t shown me who came up with it and who agrees with it.
Also “doesn’t apply to 100% of cases” is not a way to scientifically define something, so I doubt it’s accepted. But feel free to prove me wrong since you came up with links that don’t support your claim.
Evolution, as far as we can tell.
I usually approach these things from the point of view of trying to reach truth together, not from the point of view of trying to use sources as hammers to beat down your opponent. Are you different from me in this way?
Sorry, ‘evolution’ is a process and does not come up with definitions. Scientists do.
Since you apparently can’t find any scientists who agree with you, I think it’s safe to say you’re wrong.
I’m not sure what we’re conflicted here about, so let’s clarify: Are you saying that I cannot find any scientists to agree with me on my claim that males have smaller gametes and females have larger gametes? Also: what’s the standard we’re aiming at here? What do I need to find to convince you that I’m right? Do I need to find a live actual scientist that answers this question for me, or do you need a scientific paper or something? I’m guessing that a basic biology book is not enough for you, since this fact definitely is in every one of them.
You said it is “an accepted definition” for both, but that there are exceptions, which is not scientific. Definitions do not have exceptions in science. If the definition is not universal, the definition is thrown out and a new one is found. That’s how science works.
Why would you say that? How do you define “scientific”? Might you be conflating it with some pure form of science, like mathematics or pure logic?
I’m sorry, if you think “exception to the rule” is a thing in science, you really don’t understand science.
That’s like saying there’s an “exception to the rule” of the first law of thermodynamics. There just isn’t because there can’t be. If there was, we would have to redefine that law of thermodynamics.
Would you say that biology is not a science? Is your point that if a theory has exceptions, it needs to be replaced with a better theory?
I’m not absolutely certain as it’s not exactly my main area of study, but I think nature and biology don’t fit 100% well into such thinking.