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.”
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.
The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology. The exception that proves the rule.
Show me a scientist that doesn’t agree. Good luck when blood test paperwork literally declares the range for males.
That is not a biologist. Please find one. Name. Paper.
That is not how science works. That is a folk idea of rules.
Nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.
Now, either show me some evidence that actual biologists agree with you or we’re done.
“Testosterone is the primary male hormone responsible for regulating sex differentiation, producing male sex characteristics, spermatogenesis, and fertility”
“Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm)”
Edit: So basically every biologist on the planet that understands basic mammalian anatomy.
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.
Yes, vague nonsensical statements are going to work. The abstract says nothing along the lines of what you appear to suggest it is.
You are the one not here in good faith. You’ve yet to substantiate a claim, and are obviously only here to defend your agenda, and not the science
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.
A claim. Substantiate it.
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.
Removed by mod