“To be frank, I don’t think we should look like men. I wouldn’t want to walk around the neighborhood looking like a guy. That’s not the way God created us to be…”
This is an honest observation by a woman Olympian from the United States – not in 2024, but about 48 years ago. The statement was not in relation to Olympic boxing at the Paris Games, but to comment on how the state-sponsored use of performance enhancing drugs altered the appearance of female swimmers from East Germany.
The American women swimmers at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal were outraged by the obvious disparity in performance between the East Germans and them. When one of the American competitors spoke out against the obvious cheating that had occurred through the use of [male] growth hormones, she was ridiculed by the media, and the entire U.S Women’s Swimming Team was labelled, “The Ugly Americans.”
The East Bloc German Government of the time denied the allegations of providing their women athletes with performance-enhancing drugs. Only in 2007 did the unified German State admit to what was obvious – and what was allowed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for political expedience at the time.
Even after 2007, the medals for women’s swimming at the Montreal Olympics were never awarded to their rightful recipients, and, of course, the American women still feel cheated out of what they deserved after spending their youth training and working to compete at the Olympic games.
Fast forward to the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris – again to women’s sports. This time it is boxing, and it is not the use of performance-enhancing drugs that make women look and perform like men to defeat their female opponents: it is actual biological men who declare they are women and are allowed to compete against women.
I have repeatedly watched replays of the 46-second bout between Imane Khelif of Algeria and Angela Carini. It is apparent Khelif outmatched Carini in a very short time with punishing blows to the face that led the Italian woman to withdraw because, “I had to safeguard my life.”
When questioned by reporters about why Khelif was allowed to compete in women’s boxing at the Paris Games, IOC spokesman Mark Adams stated,
“I think we all have a responsibility to dial this down and not turn it into some kind of hunt. These are regular athletes who have competed for many years in boxing, they are entirely eligible, and they are women on their passports.”
The International Boxing Association (IBA) had previously disqualified Khelif from the Women’s World Championships for failing eligibility rules which prevents athletes with XY chromosomes from participating in women’s events. The IBA made this statement about the matter:
“Both Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting (a Taiwanese boxer with gender in question) post testing, [and] did not meet the required eligibility criteria to compete within the female category of our respective events. The urgent nature of the decision [to disqualify the boxers] was justified, as the safety of our boxers is our top priority.”
Meantime, mainstream media covering the Summer Games in Paris have busily justified Khelif’s participation with such statements as, “There is no evidence Khelif has chromosomal abnormalities,” or “it is an issue of those born women that might be androgen-sensitive or possess naturally high levels of testosterone [in the male range].”
There seems to be no pushback among media covering the Games on another of the IOC’s statements in this regard:
“There is still neither scientific nor political consensus on this issue. It’s not a black and white issue. And we at the IOC would very interested to hear such a solution, such a consensus on this, and we would be the first to act on this should a common understanding be reached.”
This sounds very similar to IOC reasoning for letting East German women dominate the pool for several Olympic Games from 1976: there is neither scientific nor political consensus to a solution with a common understanding.
Within the eighteen points of the stated Mission of the IOC, their described role in sport includes the following:
- to encourage and support the promotion of ethics and good governance in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned;
- to encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women;
- to encourage and support measures relating to the medical care and health of athletes;
- to promote safe sport and the protection of athletes from all forms of harassment and abuse.
Throughout the document, we see the words “encourage,” “support” and “promote” as they relate to fairness in competition, promotion of women, and the protection of athletes. However, the history of the IOC tends to lean to the earlier criteria given by their spokesman at this year’s summer games: scientific, and especially political consensus.”
Unfortunately, the “science” being sought has been contrived with the modern “trans” (-vestite, -gender, -human) trend that has taken hold in many cultures of Western Civilization. Therefore, any decisions to be made about eligibility for competition are entirely political and not a matter fairness for, promotion of, nor protection of women athletes.
If the IOC wanted a common understanding on this matter, it need only consider the following questions:
- Did the Khelif-Carini boxing match exhibit the “fair play” that the Olympics is to encourage and support?
- Is this the sort of equality between men and women that the IOC wishes to promote?
- Was this bout able to encourage and support measures relating to the medical care and health of the participants?
- Did the match promote safe sport and protect both athletes from all forms of harassment and abuse?
If such judgment as to eligibility for women’s sports persists, then inevitably the IOC will move backward in time. Due to the high level of competition and the stakes involved, they will be dealing with various matters they had hoped to prevent in recent Games:
- performance-enhancing drugs
- illegal supplements to boost performance
- implants to increase performance
Such may seem imperative by the next games to make female athletes competitive again in sports where men with average male physical capabilities can defeat women with above-average female physical capabilities.
Beyond the Olympic controversies regarding unfair competition in various sports over the decades, there are always the possibilities that “science” presents with new discoveries that can change gender performance; add to this the “politics” of embracing the narrative that “social justice” for LGBTQ2S+ (or any variant) persons that is now consistently furthered in the West at nearly all international events.
It is difficult to even assign morality to behaving as if there are more than two biological genders with differing determining criteria or believing and “becoming” something or someone you are not. From a values viewpoint, this involves the wrongs of lying (to oneself and others), stealing (awards not deserved) and perhaps even homicide at some point.
Competition at the Paris Olympics is just another example of the confused world state described as Babylon in the Bible. This confusion permeates a world that has rejected God and His revelation: it is concerned only with its complex politics in making judgments about human eligibility and participation in all areas of life on earth, including sport.
Only the return of Jesus Christ can restore the entire earth and humanity to what was intended from our beginning. Then there will be no politics to cause confusion about sport and gender; no lying, cheating, thievery, etc.; no mental or physical torment and abuse. There will be only honesty in all human interactions at every international and local level.
