Someone told me they saw people on Facebook complaining that the Olympics opening ceremony was too diverse. I was like, did they want to have an Olympics with all other countries banned?? That already exists, and it’s called national championships. Otherwise, a sports competition that includes the entire world is going to include people from the entire world. I don’t understand what they wanted…an Olympics in Paris with only White USA??
I mean, they’re on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.
It’s like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it’s easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you’re doing here. You’re projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn’t think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.
Well said.:-)
Yeah I got a older co worker who behaves in a way that strikes me as very undiagnosed autistic of his generation. He went on a whole rant about how the Olympics should be like a family reunion where you have to mask your less socially acceptable behaviours and cannot just be yourself because you shouldn’t always be yourself around your family for the sake of overall unity…
And yeah… I was just thinking how sad that was. Like bro. We’ve since realized how toxic that is to people and our generation is trying to undo that expectation and damage. The neurotypical flattening of self expression always was a tyranny, you just normalized it.
The neurotypical flattening of self expression always was a tyranny
Dude, you just blew my mind. Thank you.
The neurotypical flattening of self expression always was a tyranny, you just normalized it.
I chef kiss this sentence.
I assume that even a national championship is going to have a lot of POC represented, not just whiteys.
It’s a bit exhausting that everyone is so focused on the people not worth mentioning all the time. Not only we drown in lots of trash from these Facebook people but then others spread it everywhere else too. I hoped it would be a positive post for a change
It’s not too diverse. It’s too woke.
If there wasn’t so many prophylactics in the Olympic Village they would be making a new diverse race of super-humans!
I’m glad they provide them every year though. Lots of young, fit, attractive people means lots of fucking.
I would be curious to know how many pregnancies result from the Olympics every time anyway though. At least some of the people won’t use protection most likely.
I’m pretty sure that gojira performance in the opening ceremony kicked off about half of them this year.
I can’t think of many other times I’ve felt that proud as a metal-head. Holy shit that entire thing rocked. (Can we start killing the king though? It’s always her.) Red-streamers as an arch of blood was, well, fuckin’ metal, not to mention the regicide.
Holy shit, what?!
I snored through all I saw but goji4a had a segment? Aarrr!
I ran down a link and added it
Seen it in progmetal, too. Good ‘show’
Was it part of the ceremony? I was under the impression that he just kind of set up nearby.
I’d guess not a lot.
Generally they’re a set of people used to controlling every aspect of their body and its performance, and they’re on the wrong side of a four year window if they want to go to the games again. I don’t doubt they’re getting it on, but I’d bet they’re also more proactive about birth control.
Yeah I would guess the vast majority of women competing are on birth control. No way would I let something as stupid as an ill timed period and all the hormonal crazy that comes with it potentially affect my performance at an event I’d been training 4 years for.
Hillbillies don’t watch the Olympics.
- No monster trucks
- No bud light
- No tailgaters
- Loud cars missing
- Very few tough-guy sports.
Like, sure, we need to move the fencing to a chariot race, and make jousting and full contact gladiatorial combat a thing. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
Then we’ll get the hicks watching. Just dont call it SCA as that’s a nerd thing.
My old buddy Mike had a rebel flag painted on the front of his house, American and rebel flag flying side by side, a can of Busch Light in his hand at all times, house littered with little hand carved wood spirits, and anything hillbilly that you could imagine.
He watched the Olympics religiously. He wouldn’t miss it for anything.
He wasn’t racist though, he just wasn’t that bright. I mean, he was and he wasn’t. He honestly just liked the imagery I think and he was old. He had civil war stuff laying around too, both sides. Little figurines and things.
Sounds like a poorly thought out attempt to show a love for history. I knew a man that was similar, not the brightest, said terms he shouldn’t have, weirdly non malicious it was just how he was raised, man was born during the depression.
Bring back motorcycle chariot racing as a sport!
Fuck yeah. How many bikes per chariot? Initially I imagined two but now I’m thinking six.
The Olympics are broadcast on regular old antenna tv channels. They definitely watch it.
Here in Latin America we make fun of how many Olympic representatives from European countries are not white, but then their internal policies attack non-white people.
Don’t you think if Latin American countries were more open to diversity, they could win more medals?
Lack of diversity is the last of the problems in latinamerica. They don’t have the money to invest an athletes as the first world have.
I think Latin America is dealing a lot more with the societal trauma decades of being an ideological battleground of espionage and toppled governments replaced with puppet dictatorships for the interest of foreign global hegemony.
But if all things were equal among all nations and they didn’t have to worry about decades of socioeconomic trauma, I think nations with really high populations will have a clear advantage because they have a much wider selection of potential athletes to pull from.
Removed by mod
So, correct me if I’m wrong here, you make fun of European countries for giving anyone who lives there and has enough talent the chance to improve themselves to literally a world-class level?
but then their internal policies attack non-white people.
Did you like… miss this part?
Their internal policies attack everyone, including me, regardless of my skin colour. I’m an immigrant too, and face multiple problems just by being the wrong nationality
It’s too easy to blame racism for that which can be explained by overworked officials having to deal with hundreds of thousands of immigrants from every corner of the globe just trying to get ahead
Their internal policies attack everyone, including me, regardless of my skin colour
The American racial dynamics are completely different from european ones. Please don’t try to apply one to the other, it’s a bad take.
I would say that European immigration policies are xenophobic, but it doesn’t have to do with skin color or with racism. Albanians, Romanians, balcan people in general suffered a lot of discrimination (and to some extent still do) as there were huge migratory waves in the '90s, and they are all white, just to make an example.
I would say it partially has to do with race (in the sense of skin tone). Depending on where you are in Europe. In very “white” northern countries, just having brown skin can easily get you lumped in with all other people with brown skin, regardless of ethnicity or place of origin. Reactionaries will call you a filthy immigrant all the same, even if you’re born here. But in southern Italy, the natives are often not easily distinguishable from middle easterners or northern Africa anyways, so discrimination is mostly of national origin, language, and overall cultural identity.
But both will discriminate against eastern Europeans.
I think you do have a point, and I would say it also depends a lot. Even more, this shows how little it makes sense to talk about “in Europe” as if it’s a uniform thing.
Immigration policies are completely different and many countries have also completely different histories. Take France for example and see how their colonial past made them paradoxically more multicultural than other countries, where black people are maybe at 1/2 generations max (with all the consequences).
I would say that now discrimination against Eastern Europe has toned down a lot, which is…about time.
Albanians, Romanians, balcan people in general suffered a lot of discrimination (and to some extent still do) as there were huge migratory waves in the '90s, and they are all white
Are you doing a semantic argument about this, or…? Sure people from the Balkans can be ‘white’, but how the fuck does that mean there’s no racism involved? Because sometimes rich white people also target white minorities? What the fuck is this take?
The American racial dynamics are completely different from european ones.
What? What even is this argument? We’re a global society, people move around constantly.
I would say that European immigration policies are xenophobic, but it doesn’t have to do with skin color or with racism.
What are these takes, honestly? It’s not racist, it’s just about their… being not white? (Or being from a different land)
Are you doing a semantic argument
Yes, if you wish. The difference between xenophobia and racism. If there is no racial motivation and there are extensive demonstrations of discrimination against people of “same race” (you minimize with “sometimes”, but this is not sometimes, balcan migrations were The Migrations until 20 years ago), then what’s the point of calling it racism?
What? What even is this argument? We’re a global society, people move around constantly.
And? This has literally NOTHING to do with what I said. In Europe something like black lives matter (and the reactionary all lives matter) do not exist because the societies are different. There are different minorities, in different amount, with completely different societal issues, history etc. Reading all the world though the lens of american society just doesn’t work.
It’s not racist, it’s just about their… being not white? (Or being from a different land)
If you don’t get the difference between racism and xenophobia, consult a dictionary. They are two words with 2 different meanings. The general discrimination of “other” people has to do with protecting your wealth (or tradition, culture, etc.) and with classism.
Cool so you’re saying my problems as an immigrant don’t matter
No, I’m not. Cool strawman though.
Yanks are fucking weird
I’m an immigrant too, and face multiple problems just by being the wrong nationality
I was a white immigrant to America for a while. I can confirm, based on what I felt and what I saw, that white immigrants have a far, far easier time of it than Asian, African or Latin immigrants. We’re “takin der jerbs”, still, but we somehow don’t make it obvious when we’re walking around and, I dunno, don’t somehow rub our job theft in the noses of the guy would who wouldn’t do it anyway, or something.
I’ll correct you, you’re wrong here.
- That’s such a twisted misinterpretation it tells us all about your warped mind.
- A lot of people compete in the Olympics for a country that isn’t where they actually get their training and opportunities. NBA players for instance, playing for their birth country.
- Nobody said anything about taking anything for free, but that’s most commonly practiced by the wealthiest people in each country.
I understand that the Olympics is very diverse and that’s fantastic. But for people who think diversity isn’t our strength, would watching the Olympics really challenge that idea for them? In other words, would they actually think that the Olympics being diverse makes the Olympics “stronger”?
I think this tweet is missing the fact that these people would prefer the Olympics if it wasn’t diverse, and it would be better in their eyes if it wasn’t. In their eyes, its strength doesn’t come from diversity.
I can see someone making some dumbass argument like “oh yeah if diversity is our strength why are all the runners black?” or something like that. Racists aren’t squirming in their seats while watching the Olympics like this tweet suggests, even if I wish they were.
Hitler was pretty fucking pissed off when Jesse Owens won gold. Racists haven’t really changed since then.
That’s a good point. Though I’d say at least part of that was nationalism. I think today’s racists are a bit more desensitized to Olympic diversity since it has been the norm for so long (which it hadn’t been back then). The people I know that think like this understand that some people are better at some things and that naturally breeds diversity, but they’ll use that as an excuse. For example they let it reinforce an “all brawn no brains” stereotype of certain ethnicities. Whereas I think Hitler wanted to believe or push the idea of complete superiority in all aspects of one race.
But it’s not just that one example, they will find any amount of reasons and excuses to accept the current reality while also accepting their anti-diverse beliefs. And they’ll believe there is no contradiction. At least, a lot of them will.
America became an Olympic powerhouse largely because of its diversity. People of all colors and creeds show up wearing the stars and stripes and bring home medals.
Even during times of overt racism, diversity was a message we carried to the Olympics.
When Hitler said it was distasteful to have black people and Jews at the Olympics, the US nearly boycotted the 1936 games. But instead we sent Jesse Owens over to win 4 gold medals.
Interesting fact: Hitler was asked to treat all winners the same, so after Owens won the 100m Hitler stopped congratulating any winners for the rest of the Games.
… Yeah especially when the medal list is dominated by countries like China and Japan.
No, because we already have to have diverse skillsets just to keep the world turning and average corporations moving. If they can’t look at their own bloc and see the diversity needed, they can’t scale that scope to the world. Diversity isn’t just a strength, its a necessity.
What a privileged abilist take. Calling a bunch of perfectly healthy people with amazing bodies diverse. /s
In Australia our Para-olympic athletes get almost as much press and support. Its actually really great to see.
:)
Just broadcast the Olympics into space, as a warning to any hostile aliens out there
Task failed successfully. Among the first things broadcast to space was Hitler’s speech opening the '36 olympics
In the same way that Woke, DEI, CRT, PC, and so on are just a drop in replacement for the n-word (and sometimes gay slurs), this is just a very stupid fearful person saying they didn’t like seeing black people on TV. There is no further analysis going on.
They have no interest or even awareness of the skill on display. you could replace it with anything else and as long as they could complain about it with their coworkers they would barely even notice.
It’s an evolutionary model that I think requires complex numbers.
IDK I watch only the Eskimo-Indian Olympics, it’s far more interesting than the regular.
Fencing? Phew, how about seal skinning?
Hey! Just so you know “eskimo” is actually a slur used to refer the Inuit people (https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2017/11/commentary--edmonton-eskimos-is-a-racial-slur-and-its-time-to-stop-using-it.html).
-
Thank you, I didn’t know that. I knew there was some shady history about that, but wasn’t sure enough.
-
The games are the real thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Eskimo_Indian_Olympics and I don’t think they’d change their name
-
Except the vast majority of people who use “diversity is our strength” as a slogan are focused on superficial “diversity”, while ironically still demanding all remain in ideological lockstep; no diversity of that kind tolerated within the ‘in-group’, that’s for sure, lol.
There’s much more true, pragmatically ‘useful’ diversity in, for example, a group of ten white males whose values and views cross the political etc. spectrums, than in a group of ten people of all different races, half male half female, who all have the exact same political views and values as each other.
The Olympics is about ‘blindly’ rewarding the best of the best, regardless of those superficial characteristics, so the “diversity is our strength” ideologues don’t get to ‘claim’ it, its premise directly contradicts those people’s values–they’d rather a job position be filled by someone who meets a sex or race quota, than simply hiring whoever is best for the job, etc.
I don’t believe you.
It’s an extremely obvious truth. Whenever that ideological group either praises the existence of diversity or criticizes the lack of it, they’re always talking about something superficial, like race or sex. I defy you to find me a single example of someone using that phrase, who is defining “diversity” as a variety in ideological/political/value differences. You know, something that actually makes people different in a meaningful way.
Difference in origin, sex, and culture lead to differences in experience and views. An all-male group trying to make decisions that affect women is going to do a worse job compared to a mixed sex group because they lack insight into issues facing women. Same for race.
There are situations in which diversity of sex or race can lead to worse decision-making than a seemingly more homogeneous group that has diverse political and ideological views, as you say, but favoring the former isn’t a bad way to increase effectiveness. The alternative is likely an intrusive and difficult investigation to determine individual opinions and experience.
I feel like your argument doesn’t fully disprove OP’s claim.
OP mentioned specifically race and gender as “superficial” categories. You say that origin, sex and culture lead to different views. I agree with you, but I would say that origin and culture are specifically profound differences. I would also say that indeed people from different race and genders, but same origin, culture (and class status, I would add) can offer way less diversity than people from same race and gender but different origin, culture and class status.
The fact is, given history of our society, there is quite a good correlation between people having different race and gender and people having different origin, culture and class status. It is not guaranteed, but it’s a decent proxy, so I would say that until society is different, it’s still going to be the preferred option to have diversity via such proxy. In abstract though I agree with OP, if one day gender equality is finally achieved and society bridged the gap left by colonialism, racial exploitation etc., categories such as race and gender are not going to be providing diversity.
Completely different matter is what you mentioned about having to take decisions that affect other categories of people. Here I fully agree with you, but I guess it’s a separate discussion and one that should be focused on the categories of people who are going to be impacted (which is not listed to gender and race, obviously. Say rural people, disable people, etc.).
Thanks for the reply.
I didn’t intend to fully disprove their claim so much as point out that diversity of appearance is being used as a proxy for diversity of experience and views. Unless I’m missing something, I think you essentially re-stated and elaborated on what I was driving at.
A white family growing up in New England are much more likely to differ in perspectives/values/beliefs from a white family growing up in Appalachia, than from the black family that lives down the block from them.
Instead of acting like the superficial differences automatically result in the differences that constitute actual diversity, why not seek the actual diversity directly?
The answer is: because they’re NOT seeking that kind of diversity, they want and obviously enforce ideological conformity in the ‘in-group’, and to create the outward appearance of diversity by mixing up the incidence of the superficial traits.
Yes, of course many people are virtue signaling. But measuring true diversity of opinion and experience is difficult and time consuming, so people use race and sex as a proxy because it often does lead to diversity of opinion and experience.
Red lights don’t reflect the true state of an intersection, but when the light is red it is a bad idea to drive. Similarly, a group of men and women of several races may have all been raised in the same neighborhood, but it’s unlikely.
In other words, ‘true diversity takes more work to ascertain, so let’s use racist/sexist/etc. stereotypes as a half-assed shortcut that perpetuates those stereotypes as a nice little toxic side effect’.
Yeah, that’s not okay.
Red lights don’t reflect the true state of an intersection, but when the light is red it is a bad idea to drive.
I don’t know if you realize just how horrid this analogy is. A red light is a feature that is deliberately designed to signify the state of the intersection, it exists explicitly for this purpose. To think of things like race and sex in this way is actually grotesque.
I disagree both with your characterization of my position as well as your assertion that it is “grotesque”.
Skin color and sex can be used as indicators for hidden, hard to ascertain traits. It may be racist to assume that the indicator perfectly predicts those traits, or that skin color and sex predict hidden traits when they do not, or to assume that sex and race cause the traits to occur when they don’t. But it’s not racist or sexist to make assumptions based on race or sex if there is a real correlation.
Sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in blacks than in whites. It’s not racist to suggest that blacks should be tested at higher rates than other communities.
Women experience more sexual assault than men do, and the vast majority of the perpetrators are men. It’s not sexist to assume that a woman who is assaulted was likely assaulted by a man.
If we created some sort of viral genetically engineered cure for SCD tomorrow, race would stop being a predictor of that particular trait. If we found a way to bring male sexual assault down to the same rate as female sexual assault, continuing to assume the sex of a predator would be incorrect.
And obviously, in legal or scientific contexts, we need hard evidence of the underlying traits themselves rather than assumptions based on sex or race.
Assumptions of this sort can be racist or sexist when the person making them is motivated to come to a particular conclusion, but making assumptions is not inherently bigoted.
In the original scenario, the assumption is that a group of people of various sexes and races have had different life experiences. There are relatively few downsides to this assumption. If you’re wrong, then you’ve mistakenly formed a group that is slightly less “diverse” than you hoped for. The upside is that you don’t need a full biography from everyone involved in the group in order to promote diversity of experience and opinions.
To be clear, I find most manufactured diversity to be asinine, and I think that it can certainly be taken too far. That doesn’t mean that the actual assumption is incorrect.
I use the phrase diversity is strength all the time, and I don’t give a shit what color someone is. My team can be identical skin tones but I want people with different perspectives and backgrounds which leads to them having different subconscious filters. My field is information analysis and if you have the same subconscious filter as me you’re useless to me, I might as well ask myself what I think. I need people who are different than me to bounce ideas off of, none of us have the whole picture. It’s extra noticeable in my field but applies everywhere else as well.
-
Differences like race/sex being only “superficial” and therefore unimportant is a disingenuous strawman. These attributes are also associated with substantial differences in experience, epistemologies, and even ideologies (white feminists can differ in ideology from black and Asian feminists), all of which can productively contribute to more and better solutions than if those diversities were not present.
-
Ideological diversity while certainly beneficial, can also hamper collaboration. Especially when one ideology dehumanized or embodies an existential threat to other members of the team. Some shared ideology around shared humanity and collaboration is needed right. Relatedly, a single ideology amongst one group can also be a point of productive focus. For example anti-abortion movements or abolishing slavery.
-
The makeup of the best team for the best jobs depends on the project as well, whether it’s a political science textbook, a cross-cultural advertising campaign, or a piece of universal design. A team with some diversity along ideological, cultural, gendered lines while also sharing commonalities can be better equipped to tackle a range of problems by mitigating glaring gaps
-
I don’t know why you’re drawing this line between ideology, race, and gender. Shit is intersectional.
Here is your example. We have whole institutions dedicated to diversity of ideology. It’s called Academia. Diversity of ideology is the OG diversity. It’s the vanilla default status quo of diversity.
These attributes are also associated with substantial differences in experience, epistemologies, and even ideologies
Nothing is stopping one from seeking these differences directly, and it’s literally bigoted and prejudicial to say “I know this person is going to have a different perspective because their skin is this color/they are this sex”. You’re literally advocating for stereotyping people according to those immutable characteristics. Disgusting.
Ideological diversity while certainly beneficial, can also hamper collaboration.
I thought diversity was strength. Guess it’s instead “diversity specifically of the types I define is strength, provided it’s my unique definition of strength (read: intellectual homogeneity)”.
I don’t know why you’re drawing this line between ideology, race, and gender. Shit is intersectional.
More thinly-veiled bigotry, essentially saying that race and gender determine ideology. Gross.
You’re literally advocating for stereotyping people according to those immutable characteristics. Disgusting.
Nice try, but no. That’s really not what I was saying. The conversation is about how environmental context (culture, history, positionality) influences experiences and how individuals with different experiences can contribute uniquely.
I thought diversity was strength. Guess it’s instead “diversity specifically of the types I define is strength, provided it’s my unique definition of strength (read: intellectual homogeneity)”.
Diversity has its strengths and weaknesses depending on context. For example ethno nationalism can lead to powerful states of a kind, but as an ideology it is inherently oppressive and dehumanizing, so I’d argue it’s ethically wrong. Being a particular race or gender is never ethically wrong, but ideologies certainly can be.
More thinly-veiled bigotry, essentially saying that race and gender determine ideology. Gross.
Again, deliberately misinterpreting the statement. Nobody is talking about race/sex being deterministic of ideology and your little trap conflating social groups and individual identity is transparent and silly.
You fail troll.
-
It’s just sports lovers watching sports, don’t overthink it.
As I said to someone else- Hitler was not happy about Jesse Owens winning gold and racists are racists.
deleted by creator
Yes, they are, and unlike Germany our racists didn’t volunteer to get killed enmass on the Eastern Front. They just got old and bitter, and passed it on to their children as best they could.
I think it’s also rather important in the context of racial history to quote Jesse Owens directly on the matter of national leaders.
“Hitler didn’t snub me- it was [Roosevelt] who snubbed me.”
And all the other 18 African-Americans who earned golf medals, Roosevelt did not congratulate a single one, but did offer congratulations to the white athletes.
Of course, that context might simply have been Jesse not realizing that Hitler’s “congratulatory” wave to him, a Nazi salute, after some of his victories probably meant something far different to Jesse than it meant to Hitler, but it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t need to compare modern American racists’ Olympic reactions to Hitler’s.
We have, and have had always had, plenty of our own to compare.
China.
…is a country in the Eastern half of Asia?
…is what the expensive dining set is made out of?
…is Cockney rhyming slang for a friend?
Help me out here.
its probably related to trump in some way.
Diversity is their strength.
do you think china is full of 1.3 billion clones
Do you?
I still have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
Removed by mod
Isn’t she not trans, but has a naturally elevated level of testosterone?
Her opponent never claimed she was punched harder than she’d ever been punched before, so the story is a lie anyway.
If it was a complete fabrication, it wouldn’t have made headlines across so many news outlets. “Lie” is a strong word.
None of them specifically bring up being transgender; but a previous boxing association banned her for having too much testosterone. I am curious if that means the testosterone was either natural (meaning we can’t effectively test gender for the sport, and competing by sex is pointless) or if it was a simple case of doping, injecting it manually. Neither feels like a fun conclusion.
EDIT: I’ll walk myself back on this a bit. Someone else pointed out to me that this other boxing association is Russian-owned. Given their track record for unsportsmanlike exclusion, I think that lends suspicion to their “testosterone test”.
Competing by sex is pretty pointless.
It is true that the average male human has some physical advantages on the average female human.
Otoh the variability amongst people of the same sex is wider than that average difference. This effect is reinforced in professional sports because it tends to attract outliers.
And then for trans athletes, most of that difference gets smoothed by a well adjusted HRT applied fpr a few years.
We have divided a bunch of sports into “open class” and “women only” (some sports use “men only” and “women only”) because the difference between men and women is large enough that
-
Women would be unable to compete at a professional level otherwise
-
A lot of sports would be directly dangerous for women (see: contact sports without weight classes)
Nobody argues that it’s pointless to have weight classes. How is that different from having classes based on (a proxy for) levels of testosterone?
One of the best male 1500m runners today, Jacob Ingebritsen, beat the current women’s WR by almost 4 seconds when he was 15 years old. Women can be amazing athletes, and watching women compete at the top level is amazing. That’s why we need a class where they can compete, just like we need weight classes in many sports.
-
Oh no, trans women have totally ruined Olympic women’s boxing forever. And it used to be your favorite sport too!
Edit: By the way, I just looked up the story. At no point did she claim she was hit harder than she was ever punched before. I have no idea why you’re telling such a lie (okay, maybe I do know why).
https://apnews.com/article/olympics-2024-boxing-gender-4b6eb881cce9c34484d30c68ad979127
It sounds like she got the boxing equivalent of the twisties in gymnastics if anything. She certainly doesn’t suggest it is because her opponent is trans.
Not lying. Paraphrasing at worst. “I have never felt a punch like this” https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boxer-never-felt-punch-like-this-as-she-quits-fight-against-opponent-who-failed-gender-eligibility-test/ar-BB1r18Zm
“I have never felt a punch like this” could easily have meant that she has been able to take pain before but wasn’t able to this time. Presumably this is being translated from Italian.
And, again, she doesn’t make it about her opponent being trans- if she is trans. So why are you making it about that?
Also, maybe you should wait until after people win medals before you start screeching about trans women in sports.
This is diversity. Diversity you apparently are not a fan of since you are trying to change the subject. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.
Here is the actual video with the super brief interview.
She didn’t really say anything although she starts with “I am nobody, I am not a referee, to judge this match…” And she didn’t salute the adversary on the ring, for what is worth.
All the “never been hit so hard” quotes seem to be paraphrased by paraphrases on Italian articles (who use quotes for sentences which are not quotes…).
In the video when she removes mouth guard she seems to say something like “very bad” but I dunno…
Edit: I have just found another interview, where she says that she stopped due to strong pain to the nose. The interview is also visible in this article. The same article reiterates that there is no substance to the claim the adversary is trans, and the current belief is simply the she has some intersex characteristics.
Who is to say that woman isn’t a huge raging transphobe and tries to turn this into a thing to attack trans with?
Sure seems that way.
