A record number of athletes openly identifying as LGBTQ+ are competing in the 2024 Paris Olympics. Activist groups see it as a massive leap for inclusion during a competition that organizers have pushed to center around inclusion and diversity.

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.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    84·
    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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        5 months ago

        The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology.

        That is not a biologist. Please find one. Name. Paper.

        The exception that proves the rule.

        That is not how science works. That is a folk idea of rules.

        Some related reading for you while you search

        Nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.

        Now, either show me some evidence that actual biologists agree with you or we’re done.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            5 months ago

            I read your second link first since it had the word ‘defined’ in it and I saw that you didn’t read past that sentence, because you would know a bit more if you did. You are not here in good faith.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                5 months ago

                What did I suggest it is? Because you’re the one making the claim here, not me. All I said was that you did not read it further.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    22·
                    5 months ago

                    No, I have no reason to play the “prove I’m not here in good faith” game. You clearly did not read the whole paper, you read one sentence and thought it supported your point. I’ll leave it up to everyone else to read the paper and judge for themselves.

                    Also, I do not give in to silly demands. If you had requested I substantiate it, maybe this would have ended differently.

                    Edit: Also, looking into your history, I see you’ve been breaking a few of our community rules.