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.”

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most cis sportswomen have naturally elevated “masculine” hormones. Trans women see many physical changes (like fat redistribution and changes in muscle n fat mass) after commencing hormone therapy. Therefore, the “advantage” that they have over cis women is negligible. It is in fact comparable to the advantage that some cis women have over other cis women (the hormone thing that I mentioned in my first sentence).

      But no, being assholes towards trans people is cool, and there clearly aren’t other issues to worry about. /s

      • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        4 months ago

        There is an undeniable trend of mtf athletes breaking female records. Trying to hide from that does noone any good.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Trans athletes have been accepted in the Olympics since 2004, yet not a single one has so much as qualified for a games since then, despite having such a “big advantage”

          And globally the only trans person to ever get a professional title was a div 1 swimmer in the US.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Ah okay, my information is clearly out of date, but I think my point still stands as she came 7th

              • excral@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                No, not at all. There was also Quinn who won a Gold medal at the same Olympics. And Laurel Hubbard won silver at the World Championships and gold twice at the Commonwealth Games but was 43 years old by the time of the Tokyo Olympics.

                Additionally, you have to consider that the current rules regarding trans athletes are only in place since 2015. Before it was required to undergo sexual reassignment surgery and have your gender legally changed. And even after the changes, many trans athletes couldn’t compete at the Olympics because the governing bodies of their sport are more restrictive. So even if trans athletes have a “big advantage”, there are plenty ways to explain their lack of presence at the Olympics.

      • vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Females have larger gametes. Males have smaller gametes. Just because this doesn’t apply to 100% of cases doesn’t make this an accepted definition – everything has exceptions in nature. 98-99% is good enough for a categorization though.

        Does this affect how transwomen do in women’s category? Probably 98-99% not (hah), since IOC has declared this all works just fine?

        Still it’s still a bit controversial, e.g. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref this study showed one set of cases where hormone treatment removed most differences in transwomen vs women but they remained significantly faster runners.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/ this seems to show that transwomen lose very little of their biological advantage. "Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. "

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Who made this the accepted definition? Because you haven’t shown me who came up with it and who agrees with it.

          Also “doesn’t apply to 100% of cases” is not a way to scientifically define something, so I doubt it’s accepted. But feel free to prove me wrong since you came up with links that don’t support your claim.

          • Timii@biglemmowski.win
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            4 months ago

            Don’t be obtuse. It’s considered a malady in males, hence the full term “Male hypogonadism”.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Your definition of female:

              “Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity.”

              That includes men with hypogonadism.

              It’s not my fault that the medical term doesn’t agree with your definition.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So you’re not female if you have Swyer Syndrome.

          In Swyer syndrome, individuals have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, which is the pattern typically found in boys and men; however, they have female reproductive structures.

          People with Swyer syndrome have female external genitalia and some female internal reproductive structures. These individuals usually have a uterus and fallopian tubes, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) are not functional. Instead, the gonads are small and underdeveloped and contain little gonadal tissue. These structures are called streak gonads.

          Not a woman, right? Despite not even being able to tell even when you see them naked, right?

          How about XXY people? Men or women? Because they usually look like men, but at least one got pregnant.

              • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                Your own quote tells me that people with chromosomal abnormalities tend to be sterile, so no. XX makes you a woman. XY makes you a man. Abnormalities are just that, abnormal. Trans people have problems and cutting them up is not the solution.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That is not how science works. There is not “exception to the rule” in science. That’s not how it works. If you can’t come up with a scientific definition that biologists agree with you on, just admit it. None of you seem to be able to. You think you know the science, but you can’t back it up.