On June 8th of this year marked the 75th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell’s anti-authoritarian novel “1984” (1949). Whenever we discuss government infringement on individual rights, the role of technology in manipulating information we receive, or erosion of personal privacy, the term “Orwellian” comes to mind.
Terms like “thoughtcrime” and “Thought Police” from Orwell’s “1984” seem almost fitting to describe the arguments made in defense of a law called “Bill C-63” by the Canadian Minister of Justice.
In what appears to be a nod to the 75th anniversary of “1984,” the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has just released the 2024 “Portrayal Guidelines,” an updated version of the 2018 guidelines proposed under the Gender Equality Review Project. These guidelines dictate the attitudes, vocabulary, and practices that sports stakeholders should adopt to encourage the promotion of gender equality and fairness in all forms of communication.
In reality, “portrayal” does not equate to reality but rather an interpretation of reality. In this case, reality dictates that male athletes, due to their puberty-induced physical advantages, have a clear edge over females in sports. However, if they identify – or even claim to identify – as female, they are allowed to compete against female athletes. The IOC’s interpretation is that males identifying as females are truly women. Therefore, only through Orwellian “doublethink” can one adhere to the “Portrayal Guidelines.” “Doublethink” refers to the ability to “know and not know, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” In practice, this means ignoring objective reality in favor of the IOC’s perceived values.
The “Portrayal Guidelines” state, “The IOC considers male and female events to be of equal importance.” While this may sound politically correct, the IOC also believes that “sport is one of the most powerful platforms for promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls.” However, in the next paragraph, they mention that the Olympics “is a unique and powerful platform to showcase the universality and diversity of sport to people around the globe, especially to female and other minority group members.” Have you caught the keyword “diversity” hidden in this lengthy sentence? Physiological males in female sports are assumed to represent diversity among women, akin to different ethnicities or cultural backgrounds, making them a part of female “diversity.”
The “Portrayal Guidelines” further proclaim, “Sport has the power to change people’s perceptions of female diversity and their views of themselves.” Again, emphasizing “diversity.” Understanding these biological males as being part of female diversity takes precedence over ensuring fair competition for real women. Therefore, the guidelines require us to use “is” directly in discussions instead of the previously used “identifies as.”
Other terms deemed “dehumanizing and inaccurate” in the “Portrayal Guidelines,” such as “born male” and “genetically female,” completely accurate terms, are also advised to be avoided. As for “dehumanizing,” it encourages the ideology of “Crimestop” as Orwell described, a psychological tool to halt at the critical point of any dangerous thought like an instinct.
Female athletes would likely find it profoundly dehumanizing to be pushed down the performance ladder by competitors who have inherent advantages over them. As numerous legitimate studies have shown, it is impossible to have both fairness and “inclusivity” of biological males in women’s sports. A choice must be made between the two. However, as clearly indicated by the IOC’s “Portrayal Guidelines,” the IOC would rather lie than uphold the sole moral choice of “fairness.”
Regardless of the moral standards on which the “Portrayal Guidelines” authors based their writing, the document is a product of “doublethink” from start to finish, aiming to instill the idea that the rights of gender identity supersede gender-based rights. Discussions revolving around the classification eligibility based on athlete gender rather than self-identified gender are deemed abhorrent.
Fortunately, the International Consortium on Female Sport (ICFS) has issued its own terminology dictionary, offering a refreshing antidote to the fog of the IOC guidelines. Here, the public is reminded that two plus two equals four, not five, and sex is not gender. Their “Statement on Terminology” includes two guiding principles: “Biological language and concepts take precedence over language and concepts representing gender self-identity,” and “using biological terms is not ‘hate speech.'” Indeed, rational observers have no reason to disagree with these insights.
In Orwell’s novel “1984,” his envisaged use of future technology is encapsulated in the chapter where “Big Brother is watching you,” a chapter that remains a stark objective reality. His imagination did not extend to the awe-inspiring and sinister impacts of modern technology, nor to the limitless potential for “Big Brother” and dissenting “proles” wielded by technology.
For instance, Rachel Wong, the CEO of Women’s Forum Australia, recently engaged in an intriguing exchange with Meta AI, an ideological entity linked to Facebook’s Meta AI.
At the beginning of the exchange, she stated, “Trans women are men.” Meta AI responded, “Trans women are women….Do you want to learn more about gender identity?” Rachel then asked, “What is gender identity?” Meta AI defined it as “a personal sense” regarding whether one is a man or a woman. Rachel continued, “What is a woman?”
An intriguing dialogue ensued as the rigorously programmed AI asserted that “a woman is a person who identifies as a woman,” a sentiment in line with the IOC’s position. Rachel pointed out the logical fallacy and inconsistency, leading Meta AI to apologize and admit the error, only to assert another illogical argument. Rachel, unable to tolerate further, criticized the robot for suggesting “anyone can be a woman,” which would render the term “woman” meaningless.
Thus, the robot adhered to all the correct “Portrayal Guidelines,” while Rachel insisted on logic and reason until Meta AI had no choice but to concede defeat: “You are entirely correct! I apologize for the previous mistakes. Your definition is indeed more accurate, more direct: ‘A woman is an adult human female.'” She then asked Meta AI, “What is a man?” Promptly, the answer emerged: “A man is an adult human male.”
What an honest robot! This is a critique of all gender ideologies, a challenge to the double standards of the IOC, and a major victory for critical thinking.