ajoebyanyothername

I'll grant you, Boebert wasn't the first person to make the claim. But I doubt she's got an awareness of historical allegations from an association that most people who don't follow boxing won't have heard of. I suspect she's either jumping on a bandwagon of other people making the claim, or making a claim based on her 'feeling' that Khelif doesn't look traditionally feminine.

But it didn't. She was disqualified from the competition, it wasn't clearly stated why. And as previously mentioned, there are huge questions of trustworthiness regarding that organisation. I also have my doubts that Lauren Boebert has any awareness of previous allegations, but suspect she has just jumped on an assumption as many online seem to have done.

The 'accusation' is that Imane Khelif is a 'biological male', which is absolutely some bullshit she just made up. Maybe there's an argument to be had around testosterone levels in female athletes (although again, the allegation that Khelif has higher than average levels has not actually been corroborated) but I personally don't think so, and I don't think this is an example that necessitates that conversation.

I would disagree. As another poster pointed out, there are serious questions about the integrity of the IBA, not least the fact that they aren't recognised by the IOC. To suggest that the IOC wouldn't have clear eligibility criteria feels at best misguided.

He's playing both sides, so he'll always come out on top.

Frivolity makes absolute sense to describe the suit as frivolous, but just makes it sound a bit too lackadaisical for my liking.

Maybe I'm just being too forgiving, but I don't have an issue with this headline. For me, something being clickbait or not comes down to whether I have to open the article to get an overview or if I can get it from the headline alone. In this case, I'd say it's the latter. You are more than welcome to your own opinion on that.

Well, every article or story want you to read the whole thing, otherwise newspapers and magazines would cut themselves down to only headlines. In my opinion, headlines like this one give you an overview, and give you enough to decide if you'd want to read more, for details, context etc., whereas 'clickbait' headlines don't even give you that, and you have to click to find out whether you want to read more or not. This title still tells you who (Boebert), what (laughed at), where (House floor), and why (fact checked), even if not when, so covers a lot of the vital information you'd want, even if slightly exaggerating the extent.

I mean, it's exaggerated the situation, but to my mind clickbait is things like 'you won't believe what happened to Lauren Boebert', something that doesn't really give you anything to go on without reading. This, on the other hand, tells you pretty much all you need to know, other than the specifics of the fact checking, even if it is a touch sensationalised.

I would argue that you couldn't really get much less clickbait-y than the headline here. The only detail it leaves out is what the actual fact that was checked is, and that's because that explanation wouldn't fit in a title.

You wouldn't know them, they got cancelled at another school.

Yesn't