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.”

    • Timii@biglemmowski.win
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 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
        10
        ·
        3 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.

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

          Oh? Explain why you think “male” is specified in the disease then if my definition were not correct?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            You defined ‘female’ purely based on testosterone levels. That’s not my fault if it fits some men.

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

                I literally did. I’m not sure why you’re pretending I didn’t, but okay.

                Again, it’s not my fault that your definition includes some men.

                By the way, can you find any biologist who agrees with that definition? Because I’ve looked and I can’t.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology.

                    That is not a biologist. Please find one. Name. Paper.

                    The exception that proves the rule.

                    That is not how science works. That is a folk idea of rules.

                    Some related reading for you while you search

                    Nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.

                    Now, either show me some evidence that actual biologists agree with you or we’re done.