Sex and Gender Identity in Skiing

The International Ski Federation (FIS) has decided to test the gender of women participating in competitions. According to its president, Johan Eliasch, “this policy is the cornerstone of our commitment to protect women’s sport, and we are convinced that there is only one fair and transparent way to do that: by relying on science and biological facts.”

I’m eagerly waiting to see whether this statement sparks protests among so-called woke people, who are often heard claiming that humans have a vast number of different genders. Eliasch’s comment, however, seems to rest on the assumption that there are only two: male and female, determined by genes.

On the other hand—in my understanding—the overwhelming majority of people do recognize that while there may be numerous gender identities experienced by individuals, sex is ultimately a fact tied to reproduction. Those who are capable of fathering children are men, and those who are capable of giving birth are women. Everyone else represents exceptions to this rule, not distinct sexes.

As for the issue itself, it should simply be said that the FIS decision is exactly right for women’s sports, since hardly any reasonable spectator would want to see the same kind of farce on the ski tracks as was witnessed in the boxing rings at the Paris Olympics, where male violence against women was legalized and broadcast live on TV.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women

The International Boxing Association (IBA) demands that Imane Khelif be stripped of the Olympic medal she won in Paris in 2024 in the women’s over 60 kg category. I wrote about this individual at the time, stating that it is unethical to allow a man to compete in a women’s division.

The boxing association now bases its demand on information indicating that Khelif has both X and Y chromosomes in their karyotype—meaning that, genetically, Khelif is male. In my view, allowing such a person to compete in women’s boxing is no different from a man committing domestic violence against his wife—except that in this case, it has the approval of the International Olympic Committee.

In fact, I find it quite puzzling that neither feminists nor their organizations have spoken out much about this issue. Nor have the woke and DEI-enlightened public figures, who are usually very particular about ensuring their views on gender matters are broadly acknowledged in society.

In this regard, an interesting exception is the Finnish trans woman and former high jumper, Jade Nyström, who has clearly stated that trans women should have no right to compete in women’s sports. Her view is easy to agree with—and it also raises the question of whether the so-called woke crowd is, for some reason, unable to see that even the rights of sexual minorities can go too far—and even justify violence against women.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports
Everyone has the right

UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court has ruled that not all women's rights can be granted unless one is biologically female. Such a right includes, for example, the use of women's restrooms, which are no longer accessible in the island nation to men with a feminine gender identity.

The court’s decision is, of course, appropriate and reasonable, and I have no objection to it whatsoever. What I do find strange, however, is that such self-evident matters need to be clarified in court. 

Then again, we all remember last year’s Olympics, where a person — at least partially biologically male — won in two women’s boxing divisions. Would it be wrong if the right of these winners to compete in the women's division were challenged in court, even retrospectively?

Time will tell how the UK’s decision will affect women’s rights in other countries. Will they also follow clear common sense, or is there still some corner of the world where women’s status is willingly undermined to appease the demands of people with differing sexual identities?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?
Everyone has the right

Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

In the United States, one of Donald Trump’s goals is to ban trans women from women’s sports. The issue is real, as demonstrated by last summer’s boxing matches at the Paris Olympics, where men won two women’s Olympic gold medals.

In this context, it was interesting to notice that a Finnish trans woman and former national-level high jumper, Jade Nyström, has taken a stand on the matter. And it has nothing to do with DEI or wokeness.

Nyström stated, “I fully support the idea that, in my opinion, biological men who are trans women should not compete in women’s categories... There’s a very clear advantage they gain. Hormone therapy alone does not change the entire person, especially if they’ve gone through puberty in their biological sex. It’s not fair to switch competition categories at that stage. This is not about discrimination or taking away rights – it’s more about realism.”

He also expressed a wish: “At the very least, I hope this moves in a direction where the sports of biological women are not ruined. This is not about discriminating against or taking rights away from trans women; it’s more about thinking rationally... I’m not going to switch to the women’s category because I think it would be unfair, and it wouldn’t feel right for me personally.”

It would be wonderful if the perspective of this Finnish athlete gained worldwide recognition. And if its inherent wisdom were understood by international sports leaders, including those at the International Olympic Committee.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Homosexual Rape Underscores the Need for Change in Immigration Policy
Everyone has the right
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?

Did You Know That 1952 Was a Turning Point in World Eras?

My dear reader surely knows that dinosaurs disappeared from Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period, after which the Cenozoic and subsequently the Quaternary period began. The last epoch of the Quaternary is the Holocene, which is officially ongoing in our time.

However, many researchers would like to name a new geological era for the time dominated by humanity. This era has been proposed to be called the Anthropocene. There has been some disagreement about when exactly this era began, although it is generally thought to represent the time when the cumulative impact of human activity began to significantly affect Earth's systems.

The problem lies specifically in the fact that the spatial and temporal variations of human impact are quite significant. That is why it was interesting to read an article by the Japanese researcher Michinobu Kuwae and colleagues, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, in which they compiled data on human impacts from 137 locations around the world over the past 7,700 years.

The researchers identified three periods during which human influence increased significantly. The first period occurred between 1855 and 1890, when significant changes related to the Industrial Revolution took place, such as increases in soil lead concentrations and shifts in the nutrient balances of lakes.

Between 1909 and 1944, changes were observed in pollen compositions, increases in black carbon concentrations, and widespread changes in stable isotopes. The third shift identified by the researchers occurred between 1948 and 1953, which saw a significant increase in organic pollutants and microplastics, as well as the emergence of plutonium and modern carbon-14 from nuclear explosions.

According to the researchers, the period between 1948 and 1953 represents the most significant global increase in human impact, leading to rapid changes in natural systems and important geochemical indicators. Therefore, they propose that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be placed in 1952.

I myself support this year, as many other significant events happened then beyond those mentioned in the study. I am, of course, referring to the fact that the Helsinki Olympics were held that year, and Finnish beauty, Armi Kuusela, was crowned Miss Universe.

Additionally, the beginning of the Anthropocene in 1952 is strongly supported by the fact that it was the year when Finland made its final war reparations payment to the Soviet Union, and Coca-Cola began to be imported and sold in the country. Unfortunately, Finland's first jet fighter was introduced only the following year, but it was still on January 22nd, so let's count that too as a sign of the beginning of a new era in world history.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Historical Merging of Human Groups
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
Human curiosity altered an orbit of an asteroid

Everyone has the right

Yesterday's sports news was about an Algerian boxer’s victory over an Italian female boxer. This became news because the Algerian was found to be a man during the 2023 Women's World Championships.

For any reasonable person, it's obviously unethical to allow a man to box against a woman—it's more akin to permitting assault rather than competitive sport. Such a thing should not be allowed under any circumstances.

Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which had allowed the Algerian to compete against women, also commented on the matter. According to the IOC, "all athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations, as well as all applicable medical regulations set by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit."

Up to this point, this sounds good, but then comes the bombshell: the IOC's message continues, "as with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport." Yes—dear readers—you read that correctly, the Algerian's presumed gender is based on passport information.

On the other hand, the text later mentions that according to protocols available on the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) website, "this decision"—that is, the Algerian’s suspension—"was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established and reflected in the IBA Regulations. The minutes also say that the IBA should 'establish a clear procedure on gender testing.'"

In other words, the IOC emphasized that its own decision to allow the Algerian to compete in the women's category was not based on proper gender testing. Instead, it was based solely on the suspicion that the Algerian's suspension from the World Championships was without substantial grounds.

Therefore, it is at least ironic to read—still from the same statement—that the IOC "the IOC is committed to protecting the human rights of all athletes participating in the Olympic Games as per the Olympic Charter, the IOC Code of Ethics and the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights. The IOC is saddened by the abuse that the two athletes are currently receiving."

Based on this statement, the IOC seems—quite seriously—to consider it appropriate to allow the beating of women by an individual—possibly a man—whose gender is under serious suspicion. And to defer the investigation to some future time, by which point this individual—possibly a man—may have already assaulted up to five women with the support and consent of the IOC.

Finally, it must be said that as a result of the analysis I’ve written above, the woke-sounding opening sentence of the international statement seems downright grotesque and sexist. It states that "every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination."

I wonder what the Italian woman beaten by the Algerian thinks about this—and especially about her own rights?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
Women full of testosterone
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections

Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?

The world seems to have gone completely crazy. I mean, in women's boxing at the Paris Olympics, there are two men: Imane Khelif and Lin Tu-Ting.

The International Boxing Association (IBA) held the World Championships of the sport in New Delhi, India, in March 2023. During the competition, Algerian Imane Khelif and Taiwan's Lin Yu-Ting were disqualified based on gender tests, but they are once again participating in the mistreatment of women.

Behind this, of course, is the international DEI movement, which has sought to blur the differences between biological sexes and mistakenly believed that hormone treatments for men would make them equal to women in sports like boxing. This is not the case, as boys' bodies develop in adolescence in ways that do not disappear even with hormone treatments.

Hopefully, Khelif and Yu-Ting will be sidelined from the Olympics or moved to the proper category, the men's division. This would by no means be chauvinism or against equality, but rather the protection of women and the defense of equality among people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Impact of Diversity in Films
Women full of testosterone

Discrimination against women?

Which one should be excluded from the Olympics?

In the Olympic football match between France and Mali, the tension between Palestinians and Israelis emerged. According to a report by The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle, it was mainly about pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the reactions of Israelis to them. However, direct violence was avoided.

The report mentioned - once again - that "due to the Gaza war, some countries participating in the games have demanded the exclusion of Israel from the Olympic movement. This has not happened, which has raised the security threat towards the games."

This demand is peculiar because the current events in Gaza were triggered by an exceptionally brutal terrorist attack carried out by Palestinians, during which a large number of hostages were taken. And Israel's actions are specifically a response to this.

Thus, the first step towards calming the situation in Gaza should come from the Palestinians, more specifically their terrorist organization Hamas. In practice, this would mean the release of all hostages and the return of the bodies of any individuals who may have died in their hands.

From this perspective, everyone can of course draw their own conclusions about which party should be excluded from the games if such action were to be taken. Israel, which has gone to war as a result of terrorism, or - likewise participating in the games - Palestine, which has not clearly distanced itself from Hamas, but whose administration has even sought reconciliation with it?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
According to the Israeli army, Hamas cannot be defeated
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation