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.”

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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. "

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • vga@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Who made this the accepted definition?

          Evolution, as far as we can tell.

          But feel free to prove me wrong since you came up with links that don’t support your claim.

          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?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • vga@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Since you apparently can’t find any scientists who agree with you

              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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • vga@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  but that there are exceptions, which is not scientific

                  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?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Your definition of female:

            “Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity.”

            That includes men with hypogonadism.

            It’s not my fault that the medical term doesn’t agree with your definition.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                You defined ‘female’ purely based on testosterone levels. That’s not my fault if it fits some men.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I literally did. I’m not sure why you’re pretending I didn’t, but okay.

                    Again, it’s not my fault that your definition includes some men.

                    By the way, can you find any biologist who agrees with that definition? Because I’ve looked and I can’t.

      • elfpie@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Are you saying we can’t know if someone is male or female just by looking at them and that there are other options according to the discussion below?

        • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          There are clear visual markers, but in the age of misguided mutilations chromosomes are the clearest indicator we have.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        So you’re not female if you have Swyer Syndrome.

        In Swyer syndrome, individuals have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, which is the pattern typically found in boys and men; however, they have female reproductive structures.

        People with Swyer syndrome have female external genitalia and some female internal reproductive structures. These individuals usually have a uterus and fallopian tubes, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) are not functional. Instead, the gonads are small and underdeveloped and contain little gonadal tissue. These structures are called streak gonads.

        Not a woman, right? Despite not even being able to tell even when you see them naked, right?

        How about XXY people? Men or women? Because they usually look like men, but at least one got pregnant.

            • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              5 months ago

              Your own quote tells me that people with chromosomal abnormalities tend to be sterile, so no. XX makes you a woman. XY makes you a man. Abnormalities are just that, abnormal. Trans people have problems and cutting them up is not the solution.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                That is not how science works. There is not “exception to the rule” in science. That’s not how it works. If you can’t come up with a scientific definition that biologists agree with you on, just admit it. None of you seem to be able to. You think you know the science, but you can’t back it up.

                • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  that’s rich coming from the side that consistently fails to define what a woman is. I gave you a definition that can be used on 99% of the global population.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I can define a woman very easily. You just won’t like it. A woman is a human who expresses the modern gender traits we associate with women.

                    Of course, ‘woman’ and ‘female’ are two very different things.

                    And you still don’t understand how science works.

                    Also, my “side” is the one where you treat people the way you want to be treated.