Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling
Options
Comments
-
-
-
marieholmfan wrote: »How does this relate to cycling?
This is a complicated matter and will probably be figured out over time.
Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.
The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.
Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.0 -
Where? I could, I imagine find just as many competitors, rather than just women in general, who have voiced opinion he other way. Did you ever think, rather than just saying they are afraid of being called bigots, maybe, just maybe, and quite unintentionally, they could be bigots, but don't want to admit it out loud. I haven't shouted you down, nor do I think your bigotted. I think we are looking at it from two different stand points. You seem to have strong beliefs on some huge advantage Rachel has achieved through her early life. I am very much of the opinion that the facts do not bare this out. She is not winning by a country mile, she is not winning every race, all in all, looking at her form, there is nothing to say she will ever win that competition again. She might be competitive at it but no more than any other person in the race.Plenty of woman, maybe not in this particular instance, have raised concerns over this. But they just get called bigots. And shouted down by the mob as is now common.
I have read loads on Ross Tucker on this, even he isn't sure of his opinion. You are willfully missing the points about several male athletes having lower than female athletes or competitors athletes testosterone. As well as Rachel herself having low levels, and nothing to indicate that her levels were abnormally high before hand to endow an advantage over others.As for testosterone, you wilfully ignore the comment I made about the historical/residual advantages she's had from being born a biological male and the physiological benefits that entails in relation to physical activity, as in higher testosterone levels for an extended time. She may have those levels low now, but that wasn't always the case. Go read anything from Ross Tucker on this.
I am saying that there is nothing even close to proof that it has been or would be an advantage.Are you saying that shes had zero advantage from being born and living a large period of her life as a biological male? And are you also suggesting that the catergorisation of sport into male/female is purely based on what someone thinks they are, because it that is the case, then you are ok with any male deciding to enter any female discipline? You cant have it both ways.
This is just going down nonsense town now, one is a form of self identification, the other is an earned position, you are just conflating things which cannot be compared.So if I say I'm a she-wolf you will just accept it?
What if I say I'm actually your boss and you are fired, will you accept that or not?
Why will you accept one label I give myself but not another?
The 65kg bit maybe, but the other part yes, legally, socially and morally you can change. It is not an easy decision or process, and I couldn't even begin to imagine how tough it is in the modern world, but it doesn't change the fact that you can.Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.
The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.
Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.
The other question that will or has come up, is if it does give a huge advantage (which in this case it would appear not to be to an impartial observer), in this minority of a minority, would I still support her participation. Yes I would, she is a woman, and as such stopping her talking part in a competition for women because she has an undoping/cheating related advantage, be it genetic, social, financial (and they all make a difference), then yes. Every winner at international level has an unfair advantage in one of these categories. In Rachels, I would put it down more to social and financial than genetic, but there we go.
Plenty of racers who do better than me who are the benefactors of social and financial supports that remove fair play from the competition, and in the same way, there are a few lads I race against who, if I only targeted beating them, I always would win due to genetic advantages, that is sport.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Why are you so exercised about this?Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.
The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.
Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.
This is a complicated issue that will be figured out over time.0 -
marieholmfan wrote: »Why are you so exercised about this?
This is a complicated issue that will be figured out over time.
Who says I am exercised about it?
I have an opinion that I am sharing just as you are.
I dont believe actual female athletes should be denied medals or careers because of what is hopefully some temporary insanity on the part of the IOC.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Oh there is BS alright, but my post doesnt contain any.You have to know that is BS.
I find it strange that you are ok with people changing one fact (their gender) but not another.
What does "societal terms" have to do with biology though?
By societal terms they are. Regardless of this, everyone glossed over my genetic mocaism or intersex athletes comments. Should someone who from birth believed they were female in any and every sense of the word, who became an athlete and done well, have their accomplishment stripped because some people think it is unfair.
Biology is biology. Its the same in the middle of the Amazon as it is in Outer Mongolia, society doesnt define gender, biology does.
You can believe all you want, it doesnt make it real. Life isnt fair, life is life and nature is nature.
According to societal terms I can identify as a lion and go try live in the Serengeti but when an actual lion rocks up and eats me, thats biology and nature at work.
Thats the facts.
Thats life.
No, but biology effectively is.
Life isn't black and white, even without chosen intervention there are more than enough cases to justify saying it is not black and white.
There are not "more than enough" cases...whats the rate?
Less than .05% of the population are born with both/mixed genitalia.
And in my opinion, transgender women are women. This is really the crux of the issue. I have given plenty of examples why it isn't an advantage in this case, in fact I'd understand it more if there was a clear advantage, but there really does not appear to be. In this scenario, I think the numbers hold up that the advantage is either non existent or in line with any other random variable in our biological make up. therefoer the only reason to be disgruntled in this scenario is because you believe Transgender women are not women. I respectfully believe you are wrong.
They are not the biological definition of women. If you want another word to describe them, go right ahead, but you cant just (mis) appropriate an existing word that has a specific definition and use it to mean something else.
Pluto used to be a planet, we then realised it wasnt, so we dont call it a planet anymore. We didnt just change the definition of the word 'planet' to include bodies like Pluto.But you think some female athletes should be?
Which female athletes did I say should be?
The people who you are calling "women" are most certainly not female, please stop reassigning the meaning of words.
Is this man a lizard?
Is this man cat?
Is this man a woman?
How can you say "yes" to the third one but "no" to the other two?0 -
-
-
-
Who says I am exercised about it?
I have an opinion that I am sharing just as you are.
I dont believe actual female athletes should be denied medals or careers because of what is hopefully some temporary insanity on the part of the IOC.
If you believe this is temporary then you haven’t been following the trajectory of the issue. In fact Rachel McKinnon is logically correct. If she’s legally a woman then she should race in female competitions.
Furthermore the testosterone test is discriminatory.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement