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.”

    • Flying SquidM
      link
      English
      14 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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

        • Flying SquidM
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          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.

            • Flying SquidM
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                It was not a ‘silly demand’. It was an implied argument:

                Your statement was either a claim that can be substantiated and should be otherwise it is a personal attack for which you should be banned for 3 days in this world you live in where “I feel seen” is considered uncivil.

                But, I think you knew this which is why you, by your own admission, immediately scrambled for an excuse to ban me by examining my history in hopes anything was there so you could press what you think is an ‘I win’ button. Sadly, by abusing your mod powers all you do is hurt Lemmy and the fact you did the exact same thing less than an hour later to someone else you weren’t arguing in good faith with tells me this is a serious problem that I doubt is going to get fixed.

                So, enjoy your own personal 4Chan for however long it lasts but know you lost the argument when you couldn’t resort to anything but an unstubstantiated ad hominem and had to hide behind false authority to cover it up.

                • Flying SquidM
                  link
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  I see you’re continuing to break our rules. Not smart.