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
    -3
    edit-2
    4 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 SquidM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 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
        -7
        edit-2
        4 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 SquidM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 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
            -4
            edit-2
            4 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 SquidM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              44 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
                -3
                edit-2
                4 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 SquidM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  34 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.

                  • @vga@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -3
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    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.