The $10M question—before 2003, when the two men who had cut off their gonads asked the IOC to compete in the female category, why didn't those "experts" just say no?
Another great article Sarah! YIKES! I guess I hadn't thought that there were Dr. Mengele-ish men on a world governing body medical committee pushing these horrific ideas. And that they had enough power to get the entire body of the IOC to buy into these disturbing ideas. I'm glad we are back on a path to sanity. But buyers beware: if it can happen once, it can happen again.
A powerful statement Sarah, thank you and thank you for expressing what so many of us realize, that this travesty is only part of the huge assault on women that was building at the time and the IOC enabled because of the enormous profile of the Olympics. When we still have high school associations in large states like California and Washington that continue to discriminate against girls and women and shame and penalize them for speaking out about the injustice, lies and total lack of scientific foundation of letting males into female sports the battle continues.
Especially the “in my gut” and “Their focus was, always and singularly, on the desires of men. “
“Myron never mentioned women in our conversation, and it’s clear that the 2003 Stockholm Committee never considered women, half the population, as “having rights.” I sort of knew that, in my gut—that’s the only way they could have come to the decision they did—but for Myron to flat out admit it, and angrily defend it, was shocking. I keep using that word; I can’t think of something stronger. Their focus was, always and singularly, on the desires of men. “
The horrible reality we’re seeing clearly. A belief by those on the left and right although they’d likely deny it but if I’ve learned anything from this journey of life through human interactions, trans, ideologies, religion, politics, astrology, unicorns, family etc is that people are willingly/willfully blinded by so much. Humans are weird and unstable critters.
"That they didn’t, that instead they honored those unwell men’s demands, fully aware that this would harm all women, is really hard to comprehend." They did it because it would harm women. I was 11 when Title IX became law, and being a precocious feminist, I followed the hatred in the papers. What I didn't learn until fairly recently was that the NCAA tried for a decade to overturn Title IX as part of their zero-sum way of looking at life vis-a-vis men and women. They haven't gone away but have shifted tactics, and "trans" is the tactic. Thank you for the time you spend on exposing the misogyny.
This has given me a new perspective on why this happened. If he treated children with DSDs, especially 5-ARD, what was the treatment? Was his goal to turn these boys into girls, because a man can't be a man without a penis? Did he spend his career telling parents he could turn their boys into girls by removing their testicles and giving them estrogen? If that is what he did, to deny male transsexuals the ability to compete in women's sports because they're not women means he would have to grapple with the fact that he lied to parents and children, put children through unnecessary surgeries and medical treatment, in the belief that he could turn boys into girls. He can't admit that Semenya isn't female because that would mean he butchered little boys for a lie.
A handful of extremely powerful men, loyal to, beholden to, dedicated to a small group of other men made decisions with zero regard for women. And maybe with conscious disregard for women. Disgusting. And then a sizable group of others down the line did nothing. Said nothing. Watched the female category cease to have meaning. Watched women lose to men.
A handful of powerful misogynists is sickening. A widespread organizational culture that participated in the harm is a whole other level of demoralization.
I still think that many elite men can't imagine why a man would choose to 'be a woman'. That it's distasteful and disgusting and that they must be so if they would cut their most sacred genitals off. I think there's an element of that. Women totally understand why a woman would choose this but for men, to choose lower status, is baffling and a little revolting I think.
Hanlon's Razor is "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." It's strange how we always expect, and maybe in some weird ways hope, for malice when it comes to explaining things like IOC approval for men in women's sports. I think if it was part of some evil intentional plot towards malevolent means, we could at least explain in some sort of logical—if not rational—way. Bret Weinstein has a great quote along these lines: "Hitler was a monster, but he wasn't a madman."
And yet, I feel like more often than not, Hanlon gets the last laugh: it's incompetence, or ignorance, not malice. Or, as seems to be in this case, something in between and maudlin, like chauvinism or prejudice.
We expected a cabal of evil genius, but find a handful of full-of-themselves jerks.
Regardless, great reporting, my sympathies for having to endure that (better you than me!!).
The patriarchy was never mentioned, but the 2003 IOC board was likely mostly men. I couldn't find a list of members from that year, but it's not a stretch to assume it was majority male. Gelen and his influence as an "expert" was the focus of the Substack. She named a name and the board, not an amorphous patriarchy, unlike the incessant "it's the feminist's fault" I constantly hear. Even with Me-Too, the entirety of male hood wasn't attacked and people were named. Women even made fun of the woman that trashed the comedian for a one-night stand that, by her own description, was clearly not an assault. "In the eyes of feminists." Please don't blame "The FEMINISTS." We're not a hive mind. Sarah wrote about a very specific IOC board from a specific year and named a member. Btw, thank you for not supporting the trans cult!
Another great article Sarah! YIKES! I guess I hadn't thought that there were Dr. Mengele-ish men on a world governing body medical committee pushing these horrific ideas. And that they had enough power to get the entire body of the IOC to buy into these disturbing ideas. I'm glad we are back on a path to sanity. But buyers beware: if it can happen once, it can happen again.
A powerful statement Sarah, thank you and thank you for expressing what so many of us realize, that this travesty is only part of the huge assault on women that was building at the time and the IOC enabled because of the enormous profile of the Olympics. When we still have high school associations in large states like California and Washington that continue to discriminate against girls and women and shame and penalize them for speaking out about the injustice, lies and total lack of scientific foundation of letting males into female sports the battle continues.
This⬇️ yup.
Especially the “in my gut” and “Their focus was, always and singularly, on the desires of men. “
“Myron never mentioned women in our conversation, and it’s clear that the 2003 Stockholm Committee never considered women, half the population, as “having rights.” I sort of knew that, in my gut—that’s the only way they could have come to the decision they did—but for Myron to flat out admit it, and angrily defend it, was shocking. I keep using that word; I can’t think of something stronger. Their focus was, always and singularly, on the desires of men. “
The horrible reality we’re seeing clearly. A belief by those on the left and right although they’d likely deny it but if I’ve learned anything from this journey of life through human interactions, trans, ideologies, religion, politics, astrology, unicorns, family etc is that people are willingly/willfully blinded by so much. Humans are weird and unstable critters.
"That they didn’t, that instead they honored those unwell men’s demands, fully aware that this would harm all women, is really hard to comprehend." They did it because it would harm women. I was 11 when Title IX became law, and being a precocious feminist, I followed the hatred in the papers. What I didn't learn until fairly recently was that the NCAA tried for a decade to overturn Title IX as part of their zero-sum way of looking at life vis-a-vis men and women. They haven't gone away but have shifted tactics, and "trans" is the tactic. Thank you for the time you spend on exposing the misogyny.
This has given me a new perspective on why this happened. If he treated children with DSDs, especially 5-ARD, what was the treatment? Was his goal to turn these boys into girls, because a man can't be a man without a penis? Did he spend his career telling parents he could turn their boys into girls by removing their testicles and giving them estrogen? If that is what he did, to deny male transsexuals the ability to compete in women's sports because they're not women means he would have to grapple with the fact that he lied to parents and children, put children through unnecessary surgeries and medical treatment, in the belief that he could turn boys into girls. He can't admit that Semenya isn't female because that would mean he butchered little boys for a lie.
Excellent questions. Perhaps another John Money.
A handful of extremely powerful men, loyal to, beholden to, dedicated to a small group of other men made decisions with zero regard for women. And maybe with conscious disregard for women. Disgusting. And then a sizable group of others down the line did nothing. Said nothing. Watched the female category cease to have meaning. Watched women lose to men.
A handful of powerful misogynists is sickening. A widespread organizational culture that participated in the harm is a whole other level of demoralization.
I still think that many elite men can't imagine why a man would choose to 'be a woman'. That it's distasteful and disgusting and that they must be so if they would cut their most sacred genitals off. I think there's an element of that. Women totally understand why a woman would choose this but for men, to choose lower status, is baffling and a little revolting I think.
My thoughts exactly!
Hanlon's Razor is "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." It's strange how we always expect, and maybe in some weird ways hope, for malice when it comes to explaining things like IOC approval for men in women's sports. I think if it was part of some evil intentional plot towards malevolent means, we could at least explain in some sort of logical—if not rational—way. Bret Weinstein has a great quote along these lines: "Hitler was a monster, but he wasn't a madman."
And yet, I feel like more often than not, Hanlon gets the last laugh: it's incompetence, or ignorance, not malice. Or, as seems to be in this case, something in between and maudlin, like chauvinism or prejudice.
We expected a cabal of evil genius, but find a handful of full-of-themselves jerks.
Regardless, great reporting, my sympathies for having to endure that (better you than me!!).
Amazing!
Please don't blame the patriarchy for the transgender insanity.
Whatever faults we may have had (in the eyes of feminists), supporting transgenderism wasn't one of them.
The patriarchy was never mentioned, but the 2003 IOC board was likely mostly men. I couldn't find a list of members from that year, but it's not a stretch to assume it was majority male. Gelen and his influence as an "expert" was the focus of the Substack. She named a name and the board, not an amorphous patriarchy, unlike the incessant "it's the feminist's fault" I constantly hear. Even with Me-Too, the entirety of male hood wasn't attacked and people were named. Women even made fun of the woman that trashed the comedian for a one-night stand that, by her own description, was clearly not an assault. "In the eyes of feminists." Please don't blame "The FEMINISTS." We're not a hive mind. Sarah wrote about a very specific IOC board from a specific year and named a member. Btw, thank you for not supporting the trans cult!