The great failure in the case of Imane Khelif
The waves in the case of Imane Khelif have calmed down. The caravan of social media attention has long since moved on. Most of the actors have dutifully shown the expected reflexes. If we have learned one thing, it is that the clichés about political camps unfortunately all too often correspond to the truth. The left-liberal mainstream largely unanimously and completely uncritically adopted the identity-political standpoint of the postmodern-Marxist-based LGBTQ+ community. The right-wing alternative opposition with ringleaders such as Julian Reichelt and Elon Musk countered as expected.
by Wätzold Plaum
by Wätzold Plaum
Both sides have failed. The second lesson is that intellectual honesty and a serious pursuit of truth have become scarce in times of reduced complexity verbal battles on X. But reducing complexity is not the fundamental problem. Every ideology, every worldview represents an attempt to gain an overview of the thicket of reality. And that cannot be done without reducing complexity. But every now and then it is necessary to compare preconceived opinions with information that one may not have had in mind from the start. The problem of intersex athletes is by no means trivial and is therefore ideally suited as a litmus test for intellectual seriousness.
At the core of the discussion is the question: "What is gender?" Since this question is socially relevant - for example, we have gender-segregated toilets in public spaces - public debates are essential in controversial cases. However, it is clear that many supposed answers to this question are useless. We cannot simply adopt a gender concept from "science" for the social debate. And this for two reasons. Firstly: "science" does not exist, and biology, psychology, sociology, medicine and gender studies may each have their own concepts of "gender", which by no means necessarily coincide. And secondly: a technocratic shift of the social question of gender to science would bring social debates into science and thus endanger the objectivity of science. This does not mean that we as a society should not listen to the sciences. Science can contribute to the social debate, but it does not decide.
Furthermore, we should be careful not to raise the question of essence in the social debate. What the essence of gender is is ultimately an ideological question. For the believing Christian, it may have been determined by God at conception, for the naturalist it may be genes, for the social constructivist it may be gender identity. So what gender ultimately is is the subject of freedom of belief and conscience. We should be wary of making a decision here from the state side, as this clearly corresponds to a descendant of the totalitarian temptation.
So what should we do? We need a pragmatic concept of gender. The "ideology of the radical center" propagated by the author of this text offers a certain amount of help in this complex situation. It distinguishes four levels in complex social questions: the material, the functional, the intentional and the normative level. In relation to gender, this means in concrete terms: material-physical aspects such as sexual characteristics and genetics, functional aspects such as sex hormones, intentional aspects such as gender identity and social gender role, and on the normative level, legal gender.
It is now relatively clear that a person who clearly corresponds to a gender on all levels can be described without contradiction as a "man" or "woman". If there is ambiguity on even just one level, such a person is formally "nonbinary". It can still make sense to clearly understand such a person as a man or a woman. Let's look at people with Klinefelter syndrome, for example. They have two X and one Y chromosome, and are therefore genetically between male and female. It still makes sense to understand these people as men, because they were usually identified as male at birth. The hormonal deficiency resulting from the genetic deviation from the norm is typically treated with testosterone. Furthermore, fertility (in the male sense) is reduced, but not nonexistent.
Let's now return to the case of Imane Khelif. The argument here is based on the premise that the athlete and her Taiwanese colleague suffer from androgen insensitivity syndrome. Although there is a lot of evidence to support this, definitive proof of this still seems to be pending and should not be the subject of our discussion. The premise follows that the boxer has a female appearance on the outside, but is genetically male. In his YouTube channel (Wätzolds Welt), the author always spoke of a "boxer", which caused displeasure among some of Reichelt's followers. But the two boxers were socialized as women. Therefore, it is considered impolite to address Ms. Khelif as a "man", as this would be an embarrassing label due to a medical maldevelopment of the gender.
However, this does not mean thatthat the boxer is to be regarded as "purely female" in every respect. In terms of boxing, it is not about what Ms. Khelif identifies as or what is written in her passport, but about the material and hormonal level. More precisely, it is about the question of whether her gender ambiguity creates an unfairness for the sport. This question cannot be decided from the perspective of ideology, but is a difficult sports medical issue. However, there is clear evidence that the events in women's boxing at the Olympics have highlighted a serious problem. The two boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting each won a gold medal in their class.
That is surprising, but is not yet decisive. The real point is that both athletes won their fights with such clarity that this is a clear indication that this is a serious case of unsportsmanlike conduct. Neither athlete had to give up a single point on their way to the gold medal, meaning they did not lose a single round. No other gold medal winner in women's boxing has had such a successful record. Now Taiwan and Algeria are not exactly known for being absolutely dominant superpowers in boxing. Of course, theoretically it is possible that this data set arose "by chance". But it is more plausible to assume that in both cases the intersexuality of the athletes gave them an advantage that contradicts the spirit of sporting fairness. Why does this sport have a finely tuned system of weight classes if intersex athletes can march through to victory in a way that in no way corresponds to the expected level of performance in a global competition?
How could the problem be solved? First of all: the needs of a small minority of intersex athletes must not be sacrificed to the interests of the large majority of non-intersex athletes. After all, as a society we do not see any deficit in the fact that men who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome will probably never be among the world's top weightlifters. In order to enable intersex women to take part in sporting competitions, various solutions are conceivable. A separate sports class, for example, or a system of handicaps. In the latter case, intersex women with a positive or negative weight handicap could take part in women's or men's boxing. An Imane Khelif, for example, would then have to prove herself in a weight class above her body weight. The handicap rules would have to be designed in such a way that there is no over- or under-representation of the successes of intersex women in the long term.
Now, we are not claiming that these suggestions are the last word in wisdom. However, the crucial thing is to note that a discussion about the topic of "intersexuality" in women's sport is urgently needed. On the one hand, because it is of course about fairness. On the other hand, because this example shows us how degenerate the culture of debate in the West is. The IOC can hide behind vulgar socialist ideology to legitimize its own inaction. And the Greens, for example, have provided ideological support for this on Instagram, completely concealing the fact that both boxers had been disqualified by the World Boxing Federation due to gender tests. This means that a laborious confrontation with reality is replaced by ideological simplification. The apparent denial of reality is what we should really be concerned about. In any case, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting cannot be blamed for taking part in the competitions within the framework of the IOC's rules.
09/09/24
Wätzold Plaum is a trained physicist with a doctorate in mathematics and a second in philosophy. In 2012, the political non-fiction book "The Wiki Revolution. The Crash and Restart of Western Democracy" was published, and in 2022, the "Manifesto of the Radical Center" was published, a positive accentuation of political centrism. He runs the YouTube channel "Wätzolds Welt" and works as a musician.
Wätzold Plaum; c/o autorenglück.de
At the core of the discussion is the question: "What is gender?" Since this question is socially relevant - for example, we have gender-segregated toilets in public spaces - public debates are essential in controversial cases. However, it is clear that many supposed answers to this question are useless. We cannot simply adopt a gender concept from "science" for the social debate. And this for two reasons. Firstly: "science" does not exist, and biology, psychology, sociology, medicine and gender studies may each have their own concepts of "gender", which by no means necessarily coincide. And secondly: a technocratic shift of the social question of gender to science would bring social debates into science and thus endanger the objectivity of science. This does not mean that we as a society should not listen to the sciences. Science can contribute to the social debate, but it does not decide.
Furthermore, we should be careful not to raise the question of essence in the social debate. What the essence of gender is is ultimately an ideological question. For the believing Christian, it may have been determined by God at conception, for the naturalist it may be genes, for the social constructivist it may be gender identity. So what gender ultimately is is the subject of freedom of belief and conscience. We should be wary of making a decision here from the state side, as this clearly corresponds to a descendant of the totalitarian temptation.
So what should we do? We need a pragmatic concept of gender. The "ideology of the radical center" propagated by the author of this text offers a certain amount of help in this complex situation. It distinguishes four levels in complex social questions: the material, the functional, the intentional and the normative level. In relation to gender, this means in concrete terms: material-physical aspects such as sexual characteristics and genetics, functional aspects such as sex hormones, intentional aspects such as gender identity and social gender role, and on the normative level, legal gender.
It is now relatively clear that a person who clearly corresponds to a gender on all levels can be described without contradiction as a "man" or "woman". If there is ambiguity on even just one level, such a person is formally "nonbinary". It can still make sense to clearly understand such a person as a man or a woman. Let's look at people with Klinefelter syndrome, for example. They have two X and one Y chromosome, and are therefore genetically between male and female. It still makes sense to understand these people as men, because they were usually identified as male at birth. The hormonal deficiency resulting from the genetic deviation from the norm is typically treated with testosterone. Furthermore, fertility (in the male sense) is reduced, but not nonexistent.
Let's now return to the case of Imane Khelif. The argument here is based on the premise that the athlete and her Taiwanese colleague suffer from androgen insensitivity syndrome. Although there is a lot of evidence to support this, definitive proof of this still seems to be pending and should not be the subject of our discussion. The premise follows that the boxer has a female appearance on the outside, but is genetically male. In his YouTube channel (Wätzolds Welt), the author always spoke of a "boxer", which caused displeasure among some of Reichelt's followers. But the two boxers were socialized as women. Therefore, it is considered impolite to address Ms. Khelif as a "man", as this would be an embarrassing label due to a medical maldevelopment of the gender.
However, this does not mean thatthat the boxer is to be regarded as "purely female" in every respect. In terms of boxing, it is not about what Ms. Khelif identifies as or what is written in her passport, but about the material and hormonal level. More precisely, it is about the question of whether her gender ambiguity creates an unfairness for the sport. This question cannot be decided from the perspective of ideology, but is a difficult sports medical issue. However, there is clear evidence that the events in women's boxing at the Olympics have highlighted a serious problem. The two boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting each won a gold medal in their class.
That is surprising, but is not yet decisive. The real point is that both athletes won their fights with such clarity that this is a clear indication that this is a serious case of unsportsmanlike conduct. Neither athlete had to give up a single point on their way to the gold medal, meaning they did not lose a single round. No other gold medal winner in women's boxing has had such a successful record. Now Taiwan and Algeria are not exactly known for being absolutely dominant superpowers in boxing. Of course, theoretically it is possible that this data set arose "by chance". But it is more plausible to assume that in both cases the intersexuality of the athletes gave them an advantage that contradicts the spirit of sporting fairness. Why does this sport have a finely tuned system of weight classes if intersex athletes can march through to victory in a way that in no way corresponds to the expected level of performance in a global competition?
How could the problem be solved? First of all: the needs of a small minority of intersex athletes must not be sacrificed to the interests of the large majority of non-intersex athletes. After all, as a society we do not see any deficit in the fact that men who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome will probably never be among the world's top weightlifters. In order to enable intersex women to take part in sporting competitions, various solutions are conceivable. A separate sports class, for example, or a system of handicaps. In the latter case, intersex women with a positive or negative weight handicap could take part in women's or men's boxing. An Imane Khelif, for example, would then have to prove herself in a weight class above her body weight. The handicap rules would have to be designed in such a way that there is no over- or under-representation of the successes of intersex women in the long term.
Now, we are not claiming that these suggestions are the last word in wisdom. However, the crucial thing is to note that a discussion about the topic of "intersexuality" in women's sport is urgently needed. On the one hand, because it is of course about fairness. On the other hand, because this example shows us how degenerate the culture of debate in the West is. The IOC can hide behind vulgar socialist ideology to legitimize its own inaction. And the Greens, for example, have provided ideological support for this on Instagram, completely concealing the fact that both boxers had been disqualified by the World Boxing Federation due to gender tests. This means that a laborious confrontation with reality is replaced by ideological simplification. The apparent denial of reality is what we should really be concerned about. In any case, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting cannot be blamed for taking part in the competitions within the framework of the IOC's rules.
09/09/24
Wätzold Plaum is a trained physicist with a doctorate in mathematics and a second in philosophy. In 2012, the political non-fiction book "The Wiki Revolution. The Crash and Restart of Western Democracy" was published, and in 2022, the "Manifesto of the Radical Center" was published, a positive accentuation of political centrism. He runs the YouTube channel "Wätzolds Welt" and works as a musician.
Wätzold Plaum; c/o autorenglück.de
Write a comment