Transgenderism

No Picture
News Briefs

Boxer with male chromosomes defeats woman boxer in 46-second Olympic fight

August 1, 2024 Catholic News Agency 13
Algeria’s Imane Khelif (in red) punches Italy’s Angela Carini in the women’s 66kg preliminaries round of 16 boxing match during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games at the North Paris Arena in Villepinte on Aug. 1, 2024. / Credit: MOHD RASFAN/AFP via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Aug 1, 2024 / 16:46 pm (CNA).

An Algerian boxer with male chromosomes defeated an Italian woman boxer in an Olympics boxing match on Thursday after landing a devastating punch to the woman’s face in the brief 46-second fight.

The winning boxer — Imane Khelif — has XY chromosomes, according to a 2023 International Boxing Association eligibility test that got the boxer disqualified from the World Championships that year. 

Typically, men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes, but a person born with a sexual development disorder can sometimes have both male and female sexual characteristics, such as someone born with Swyer syndrome having XY chromosomes and female genitalia.

Khelif has never publicly identified as transgender and has not disclosed any sexual development disorders, so the reason for the test result is unclear. Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting, who was also disqualified from the 2023 World Championships for tests showing XY chromosomes, will also compete against women in the 2024 Olympics.

Both Khelif and Lin competed in the 2020 Olympics as well, prior to the release of those tests.

Angela Carini, who lost the fight to Khelif, left the boxing ring in tears and refused to shake Khelif’s hand. While still in the ring, she reportedly yelled “this is unjust,” according to the New York Post.

In a post-fight interview, Carini said she had “never been hit so hard in my life,” according to the Post. According to Yahoo Sports, she apologized to her country after the game for only lasting 46 seconds into the fight. 

“I had entered the ring to fight,” Carini said, according to Yahoo. “I didn’t give up, but a punch hurt too much and so I said enough. I go out with my head held high.”

The article also reported that Carini’s coach, Emanuel Renzini, said postgame that many people discouraged her from competing in the fight, telling her: “Don’t go, don’t go, please. She’s a man. It’s dangerous for you.”

Mary Rice Hasson, the director of the Person and Identity Project at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told CNA that a sexual development disorder “does not make someone ‘not male’” and that “genetics don’t lie.”

“The [International Olympic Committee’s] decision to permit males who self-identify as ‘women’ to participate in women’s sports — particularly a physically brutal sport like boxing — is unconscionable,” Hasson said. “The female Italian boxer stopped the match because she felt her life was in danger, after being pummeled by the male Algerian boxer for less than a minute.”

Hasson said the situation “exposes, on the world stage, the ludicrous nature of the ‘transgender’ charade” and added that “males and females are biologically different, from conception, and sex cannot change.” She said the committee’s “wokeness” violates “the true Olympic spirit of fair competition [and] … degrades and endangers female competitors.”

Former swimmer Riley Gaines — who competed against the biologically male transgender swimmer Lia Thomas in college — said in a post on X that the Olympic fight “is glorified male violence against women.”

“Call me crazy, but it’s almost as if women don’t want to be punched in the face by a male as the world watches and applauds,” Gaines said.

Khelif’s next Olympic match is scheduled for Saturday against Hungarian boxer Luca Anna Hamori. Lin’s first match is scheduled for Friday against Uzbekistani boxer Sitora Turdibekova.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Appeals court rejects Biden administration request to enforce ‘gender identity’ Title IX rules

July 19, 2024 Catholic News Agency 0
The U.S. Department of Education sign hangs over the entrance to the federal building housing the agency’s headquarters on Feb. 9, 2024, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: J. David Ake/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 19, 2024 / 15:22 pm (CNA).

An appellate court rejected a request from President Joe Biden’s administration to enforce a regulation in four states that would broadly prohibit discrimination based on a person’s self-asserted “gender identity.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that prevents the U.S. Department of Education from enforcing any part of the “gender identity” provisions in the Title IX rule for public schools and colleges in Montana, Idaho, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

The lower court’s order will remain in place as all five states continue their lawsuit, which challenges the legality of the regulation.

Courts have blocked the Department of Education from enforcing the regulation in 15 states altogether, while attorneys general in about a dozen other states have also filed lawsuits. The regulation will go into effect on Aug. 1 in jurisdictions where courts have not blocked its enforcement.

The regulation, which the administration promulgated in April, reinterprets Title IX’s prohibition on “sex discrimination” to include a prohibition on “gender identity” discrimination. 

Some lawyers and Republican attorneys general have warned that the rule would jeopardize state laws that restrict girls’ and women’s locker rooms, bathrooms, dormitories, and athletic competitions to only girls and women and could force states to allow access to men who identify as women.

“The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Natalie Thompson, who is representing the Louisiana-based Rapides Parish School Board in the lawsuit, said in a statement. 

“The 5th Circuit now joins the 6th Circuit in holding back the Biden administration’s illegal efforts to rewrite Title IX while this critical lawsuit continues,” she added. “The administration continues to ignore biological reality, science, and common sense.” 

“The Rapides Parish School Board and schools and teachers across the country are right to stand against the administration’s adoption of extreme gender ideology, which would have devastating consequences for students, teachers, administrators, and families.”

After the lower court blocked the Department of Education from enforcing any part of the rule, the department filed an appeal that requested permission to partially enforce the rule while the litigation continues. The department claimed that the prohibition on enforcement was too broad and requested permission to enforce reporting and record-keeping rules, grievance procedures, and a variety of provisions related to “gender identity” discrimination included in the new rule.

In the ruling, the judges wrote that “the answer is no,” adding that the provisions the department wants to enforce are “complex, lengthy, and burdensome” and that the department “has given us little basis to assess the likelihood of success” in the case.

“The implementation and compliance costs would double if the partially implemented rule differs from a final judgment,” the judges wrote. “They would first have to amend their policies, alter their procedures, and train their employees to comply with a partial version of the rule pending appeal, and then they would have to do it all over again to comply with the rule as it stands at the conclusion of the litigation.”

The prohibition on sex discrimination written into the law itself makes no mention of “gender identity.” When Congress added the Title IX sex discrimination provisions into federal law in the 1970s, the intent was to provide girls and women with equal access to education and did not have any reference to transgenderism.

In spite of this, the Biden administration argues that interpreting “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity” discrimination is within the scope of the Department of Education’s regulatory authority. The states opposed to the rule argue that this interpretation is not consistent with the actual text of the law and falls outside of the department’s regulatory authority.

[…]