Enemies of glory have no honor : risa

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 52 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I bet she drinks prune juice

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago

A warrior's drink.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

Prune juice is fire and no one can convince me otherwise

[–] moody@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I would drink that stuff if it didn't make me poop so bad. It's delicious.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is what makes it a warrior's drink! If you cannot conquer your bowels, how can you hope to conquer your enemies?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

By conquering my enemies bowels!

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

When we were kids, my mom bought it to help her poop, figuring we kids wouldn't want a weird pooping drink. She realized her err as we drank it all, and complained kids aren't supposed to like prune juice.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She got to legally punch some of those losers in the face (in the ring); I would imagine that was also satisfying.

Hey Rowling, go a few rounds with her.

[–] gueybana@hexbear.net 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude, she punched a so called boxer and they started crying because they got punched in the face hard in the getting punched in the face hard sport.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine trying to explain this to an alien. Two people get into the dedicated punching people in the face arena, where they then go through the ritual by which they agree that they are prepared to punch each other in the face. One punches the other in the face, who then gets upset.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

All I can think is that reactionaries could have had a field day with this and used this as evidence that women shouldn't be boxing, but racism > misogyny

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 year ago

o7

[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I bet she'd be a kickass klingon actually.

[–] SpookyGenderCommunist@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yo, that's rad as fuck! Does anyone have a source for that quote?

[–] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

The original French quote appears to be from here. Stories link to another tweet (since privated) as the source of the translation, which quotes the first tweet, but it only differs from the embedded Google Translate result by a single word ("tasty" vs. "satisfying"). Here's a video of the press conference with more context and a similar translation of that quote.

[+] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world -13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where there is an apple, there is a banana. There is no apple there, friends. She is just a really good boxer.

[–] lady_maria@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's actually a myth. People of any gender can have an Adam's apple, but they're generally more common/pronounced in AMAB people

[+] doingthestuff@lemmy.world -44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Has there been released test data regarding whether or not there was a y chromosome? That seems to be the question that I have heard, and last that I heard it wasn't resolved. I know this isn't a popular opinion on lemmy, but I can understand the question.

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We're talking about a cis woman who was born in Algeria, where gender reassignment is not a recognised practice. She is not trans, regardless of what chromosomes she has.

This weird obsession with female athletes who have too much testosterone or a Y chromosome being in some way at an unfair advantage is also absurd. Male athletes who are genetic freaks are just recognised as extraordinary for their height, wingspan or lung capacity. The same should go for women

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 49 points 1 year ago

I, for one, think that everyone better at sports than me should be banned from competition.

[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay I promise I'm not a eugenicist but I am kinda interested in the genetics and physiology of top athletes. At the highest level that last 1% of advantage from just genetic luck is pretty interesting to me. Obviously it doesn't diminish from what the athletes have accomplished but I do think it's interesting. Like we're all just piloting meat based mech suits and the underlying base stats fluctuate between models and even individual units. I think that's pretty cool to think about and also worth acknowledging on top of the hard work an athlete puts into perfecting their chosen sport.

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's totally fine to be interested in these things. Where it gets murky is when people say things like: women with too much testosterone are too good and should take drugs to block their natural testosterone levels. Just because someone is at that 1% advantage level doesn't mean we should stop them from competing. If anything we should let them cook so we can see what the upper limits of human potential could be

[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but it's not like it's unheard of to group different people im different divisions according to their abilities. Like most sports have women's and men's divisions, which as we are finding out, is at best kinda not a perfect way to divide people as it leaves quite a bit up for interpretation and at worst entirely arbitrary. But that's not the only examples, younger people tend to be organized by age which is unfortunate for those going into puberty later and busted for those going in earlier.

I think re-evaluating what constitutes a separate division and how people are organised into them is a totally fair thing to do and approaching that from a standpoint of the potential biological and physiological advantages a person might have, is in my opinion a valid way of doing so, though probably not how I would go about it.

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Okay but then would you put Michael Phelps in his own category for having:

The torso of a 6'8 man and the legs of a 6'0 man, giving him a disproportionately large chest and less leg drag in the water
A wingspan that's longer than his own height (his arms stretch to 6'7!), something so freakish and concerning that he thought he might have a disease at one point in his life
Double-jointed elbows, chest and feet that are basically flippers because of how much he can bend them

Or do you just accept that some people are extraordinary and that a Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps or [insert female athlete with unusual physical characteristics] can come along once a generation and dominate a sport because they were born to do so?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But in this case, we're not talking about '1%'. Generally, women can go to 35% muscle mass while men can go to 45%. I can imagine it's a world of difference between fighting someone who has 1% more more muscle than yourself, or 25%.

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said anything about women fighting men??

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well that's an important part of the discussion: it's not as binary as you want to present it

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except the people who are opposed to Imane Khalief are not engaged in a good faith argument about gender not being binary and what a woman even is. They're trying to impose a binary by saying a woman has to conform to our standards.

Look at how they've targeted female rugby players and boxers who have 'less feminine' features in their conception by accusing them of secretly being trans women. It's all about appearances because these women dared to be strong while having strong facial bone definition

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I think it's great that you want to oppose these people, but I think it's wrong to start using bad faith arguments ourselves to do it

[–] Piatro@programming.dev 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also chromosome tests aren't a foolproof indication of sex anyway. People can have one set or another while still having the properties associated with the other sex, so it doesn't really work as a definitive measure. The question is reasonable until you examine it and it's motives.

The question subtly suggests that if she had a Y chromosome then she has some biological advantage and therefore doesn't deserve the medal she earned. Does she actually have an advantage from the Y chromosome? Are we going to ensure through DNA testing that all competitors are going to be exactly equal by genetics? If so, we're going to have 8 clones of Usain Bolt competing for the 100m sprint. Michael Phelps arguably had a biological advantage by having hyper flexible shoulders, are we disqualifying those biological advantages? Of course not, so what do they actually mean when asking those questions about the chromosome? They don't have meaningful answers to the questions I raise, they just want to add fuel to the fires of the culture war for their own political means.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

That's just because these questions are disingenious at best. The real questions you should ask is why there are different men and women competitions on all levels (answer: to not deny half of the population to meaningfully compete) and where those people that don't clearly fall into this binary division should enter.

[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a woman who has given birth

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

But the CHROMOSOMES MASON. WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 19 points 1 year ago

The short answer is that no such test has ever been produced, and the boxing association that claimed they had done one never revealed the precise results, or even which lab had supposedly done the test, and has since been decertified for corruption.

Risa