BoxRec

"WBC Agrees With Everlast Campaign to Remove The Word “Female” From All Championship Belts"

Simply honoring these women would be more than enough. Well, maybe for anyone else, but not for Everlast. The company has recently launched a campaign to have the word “female” removed from the WBC and WBO sanctioning bodies.

The goal is simple. Forget about genders and just acknowledge women as champions. So far, the WBC has agreed.

“The WBC joins @Everlast campaign in the quest for gender equality,” said the WBC via their Instagram page. “The World Boxing Council has always distinguished itself as a pioneer in regulating boxing and fighting for human rights throughout the entire range of the sports world.”

“For this very reason we adhere to the struggle of women around the world in the search for equity, as well as the various campaigns that have been launched to end discrimination and abuse, and we join the Everlast brand campaign, “ #changethebelt “making the decision to immediately modify our emblematic belt by removing the word “Female” and thus maintain the status of champion regardless of gender; call Champion a Champion.”

With the WBC already onboard with the current change, the ball is now in the court of the WBO.

Thoughts?

If the word “female” is allegedly synonymous with gender inequality and abuse, then does this mean that only allowing bouts exclusively involving “cisgender women” is a form of sexual discrimination?

If gender no longer exists in the sport of boxing, then does this mean that it is socially and morally acceptable to allow a biologically assigned female at birth, such as Claressa Shields, fight Canelo at 160lbs?

Does anyone know any “cisgender women” (that are active participants in the sport of boxing) passionately clamouring for this change of terminology?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 13:58 If the word “female” is allegedly synonymous with gender inequality and abuse, then does this mean that only allowing bouts exclusively involving “cisgender women” is a form of sexual discrimination?

If gender no longer exists in the sport of boxing, then does this mean that it is socially and morally acceptable to allow a biologically assigned female at birth, such as Claressa Shields, fight Canelo at 160lbs?

Does anyone know any “cisgender women” (that are active participants in the sport of boxing) passionately clamouring for this change of terminology?

I think it's more the label. You don't see Canelo as the Men's Middleweight Champion, he's just called the Middleweight Champion. This in no way devalues the men's belt, it only stops devalue the female belt. It would've been equally as fair to add 'Men's' to the beginning of the men's titles also but this is the route they went down.

Someone tell me how outraged I should be

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 14:48 Someone tell me how outraged I should be

It depends how inferior you feel on a scale between confident and "Enlightened".

joshj909 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 14:47

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 13:58 If the word “female” is allegedly synonymous with gender inequality and abuse, then does this mean that only allowing bouts exclusively involving “cisgender women” is a form of sexual discrimination?

If gender no longer exists in the sport of boxing, then does this mean that it is socially and morally acceptable to allow a biologically assigned female at birth, such as Claressa Shields, fight Canelo at 160lbs?

Does anyone know any “cisgender women” (that are active participants in the sport of boxing) passionately clamouring for this change of terminology?

I think it's more the label. You don't see Canelo as the Men's Middleweight Champion, he's just called the Middleweight Champion. This in no way devalues the men's belt, it only stops devalue the female belt. It would've been equally as fair to add 'Men's' to the beginning of the men's titles also but this is the route they went down.

Do you consider the word “female” as being derogatory?

They have to distinguish the sexes somehow.

And the WBC website does contain pages using male and female terminology.

The WBC also applies different rules for women as opposed to men, such as the duration of rounds.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 15:10

joshj909 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 14:47

I think it's more the label. You don't see Canelo as the Men's Middleweight Champion, he's just called the Middleweight Champion. This in no way devalues the men's belt, it only stops devalue the female belt. It would've been equally as fair to add 'Men's' to the beginning of the men's titles also but this is the route they went down.

Do you consider the word “female” as being derogatory?

They have to distinguish the sexes somehow.

And the WBC website does contain links using male and female terminology.

The WBC also applies different rules for women as opposed to men, such as the duration of rounds.

It's not about it being derogatory, it's about singling out their championship to justify it, as i mentioned above. If they changed the men's middleweight belt to be officially called the "men's middleweight champion", would you still be a victim of this great travesty?

joshj909 wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 15:25

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 15:10
Do you consider the word “female” as being derogatory?

They have to distinguish the sexes somehow.

And the WBC website does contain links using male and female terminology.

The WBC also applies different rules for women as opposed to men, such as the duration of rounds.

It's not about it being derogatory, it's about singling out their championship to justify it, as i mentioned above. If they changed the men's middleweight belt to be officially called the "men's middleweight champion", would you still be a victim of this great travesty?

Straw man nonsense.

I now want to see Canelo vs Shields

An absolutely idiotic move.

Aha... so why should one care?

Hasn’t this happened with football too? Pretty sure I was reading the football section of some rag only to get confused and then realise it was about women.

It’ll just serve to confuse and annoy people. There is nothing ‘equal’ about people’s interest for men and women’s sports in the main

The women’s belt needs to be called the women’s champion because, while great athletes, they are only the champion of other women....the men’s middleweight, welterweight, or light weight champion is the champion of every living soul at 160, 147, or 135, so no need for any extra definer.

So replace "Female" with "Not Male." It's all nonsense.

Ireland won a game in the last couple weeks and I thought fukin he'll I never miss an Irish game and lovely at least we won. Turned out they were reporting the Irish woman's team as the Irish team. That was a bit annoying. I've been caught out a few times for similar football related headlines. Ah well. Strange world

ldlamb wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 21:09 The women’s belt needs to be called the women’s champion because, while great athletes, they are only the champion of other women....the men’s middleweight, welterweight, or light weight champion is the champion of every living soul at 160, 147, or 135, so no need for any extra definer.

That makes total sense but dont waste your time trying to convince any gender-bending lunatic of that, because gender-benders are not rational people, they are confused & deranged.

oogiebe wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 21:23 So replace "Female" with "Not Male." It's all nonsense.

Or "pussy".

They can call 'em whatever they want. Other than Claressa Shields and Braekhus I don't know who any female Boxing Champions are at the moment so I frankly don't give a sh*t what they wanna call it.

They're the Women's Champion to me whether it's P.C. to call 'em that or not.

As for the "Why is it not called the Men's Middleweight Championship" question. Well that's simple. Because there was a Middleweight Champion that was only a man for decades upon decades when Women's Boxing basically wasn't a thing.

And whether it pisses anybody off or not, the Men's athletic anything basically will be more of an interest to the general public than the Women's version of it.

Exceptions being possibly Volleyball or Gymnastics or something else I couldn't care less about.

I thought women were proud to be women.

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑11 Mar 2020, 20:28

oogiebe wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 21:23 So replace "Female" with "Not Male." It's all nonsense.

Or "pussy".

Yup. And if they fought topless, I would watch.

Dudes been shook

The WBC still use the words "female" and "male" to differentiate and categorise their rankings on their website.

Gender pronouns, such as "she", "hers", "his", "he" etc. are still in use for all their articles.

The WBC has different rules for "male" and "female" fighters, with that specific terminology still being used.

I'm still not sure about the reason why the WBC chose to make such a change.

Perhaps they wanted to minimise any criticism (accusations of "hate speech", misogyny or so-called "discrimination") from the safe-space seeking SJW language police, which are usually leftist liberal millennial student-type snowflakes.

Riddick Blowe wrote: ↑10 Mar 2020, 16:14 Hasn’t this happened with football too? Pretty sure I was reading the football section of some rag only to get confused and then realise it was about women.

It’ll just serve to confuse and annoy people. There is nothing ‘equal’ about people’s interest for men and women’s sports in the main

This.

It happens regularly in football. During close season I'll see a news item that West Ham have signed a new player and I'm thinking "Who the hell is that I've never even heard of him?" only to find out it's a her not a him, signing for the women's team. I'm wise to it now but still get caught out on occasion. It's mildly irritating.

There is nothing derogatory about the designation 'female'. Why not go the whole hog and dispense with the terms men and women and we can all just be referred to as human FFS?

If you're going to have a situation where you can have say two undisputed lightweight champions this sounds like a contradiction in terms. Still, do I care, really? The world is going bonkers. This is a very small manifestation of that.

..one of those idiotic decisions that has nothing to do with struggle against discrimination, equal rights etc..

oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Mar 2020, 20:47

boxing_rocks wrote: ↑11 Mar 2020, 20:28
Or "pussy".

Yup. And if they fought topless, I would watch.

Looking at some of them, I would prefer them to cover more.