Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

recedite

GreeBo wrote: »

Of course it is, just like having a female race discriminates against men...or rather is supposed to but now it seems you can grow your hair, chop your bits off and away you go.

No need to chop anything off. In the USA, if you're brazen enough, you can literally ride a ladies race like a spare prick and take the gold medal off them.

A transgender rider has won a major women’s race in the US in what is believed to be a first for cycling. Jillian Bearden was born a male but identifies as a woman and has not had sex reassignment surgery.

Meanwhile, it seems the bronze medallist in the other (track) race is "a sore loser"...

Wagner, 38, commented about her placing after trans woman Rachel McKinnon, 36, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, scooped the prize.
'I was the 3rd place rider. It's definitely NOT fair,' she wrote suggesting that McKinnon was not deserving after winning the 35-44 age bracket.

But she was soon lashed back into her place by crusading social justice warriors.

After a backlash, the Houston, Texas woman who posed with a huge grin as she stood lower down on the podium in Los Angeles, said sorry for her public comment that garnered lots of attention.
'After having some time to reflect, I realize my twitter comments earlier this week unintentionally fanned the flames on a controversial situation, and that I regret,' she wrote. 'I made the comments out of a feeling of frustration, but they weren't productive or positive.

It will be coming here soon.

Well you know what they say, "if you can't beat them join them".

I may as well be an early adopter. I haven't a hope in the National Champs mens race, but Gold in the ladies race might just be a possibility...

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

No need to chop anything off. In the USA, if you're brazen enough, you can literally ride a ladies race like a spare prick and take the gold medal off them.


Meanwhile, it seems the bronze medallist in the other (track) race is "a sore loser"...

But she was soon lashed back into her place by crusading social justice warriors.



It will be coming here soon.

Hasn’t affected sports here yet but we are in fact way ahead of most countries in the ease of gender recognition. In fact the Irish law it similar is what is being urged in the U.K.

P_1

GreeBo wrote: »

Im sorry, did you just *assume* his sex? :eek:

he actually identifies as a pygmy for the purposes of thie thread.

Take your idiotic arguments and jog onto Poshmarnock golf course circa 1950. Were in the 21st century. Get with the times or leave us alone

GreeBo

P_1 wrote: »

Take your idiotic arguments and jog onto Poshmarnock golf course circa 1950. Were in the 21st century. Get with the times or leave us alone

"get with the times"?
Is that what the Nazi's used to shout?

You can't handle a basic, logical argument without resorting to personal attacks, get with the Daily Mail more like.

BTW Portmarnock would have no issue with trans-woman playing golf there...they allow men which is what these trans-women still are.

You can dress me in a skirt, spank my ass and call me Judy, I'm still a male of the species.

splinter65

If a man can say that he’s now decided that he’s a woman and can compete in a women only sporting competition, then why don’t we completely dispense with the concept of segregating sporting contests on the grounds of sex. The he who is now a she, and lots of posters here, are suggesting that this person has absolutely no physical advantage over the biologically female competitors.
So let’s just have one marathon, one Wimbledon tennis final, one Tour de France etc. Can someone explain why we should continue with two separate competions?

P_1

GreeBo wrote: »

"get with the times"?
Is that what the Nazi's used to shout?

You can't handle a basic, logical argument without resorting to personal attacks, get with the Daily Mail more like.

BTW Portmarnock would have no issue with trans-woman playing golf there...they allow men which is what these trans-women still are.

You can dress me in a skirt, spank my ass and call me Judy, I'm still a male of the species.

You wouldn't last 2 seconds of a decent spanking. Jog on and try getting up and over the Wall by Eniskerry without keeling over

GreeBo

P_1 wrote: »

You wouldn't last 2 seconds of a decent spanking. Jog on and try getting up and over the Wall by Eniskerry without keeling over

You see this is why your movements amount to nothing.
You can't have a coherent debate without resorting to ad hominem whenever someone poses a perfectly valid question that doesnt fit with your colourful narrative and you cant come up with some 'witty' yet meaningless retort.

Please even try to answer my original question regarding lizard-man, cat-man and <snip> and explain to me how they are different.

Otherwise I will just have to assume you are trolling and ignore you from now on.

As Captain Planet said, "The choice is yours!"

magicbastarder

splinter65 wrote: »

So let’s just have one ... one Tour de France

eh, there *is* only one tour.
unless you've been hearing about female winners the rest of us haven't?

wexie

magicbastarder wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

So let’s just have one ... one Tour de France

eh, there *is* only one tour.
unless you've been hearing about female winners the rest of us haven't?

In which women don't compete, and there WAS a female tour de france but it was just very hard to keep going due to funding issues.

smacl

wexie wrote: »

In which women don't compete, and there WAS a female tour de france but it was just very hard to keep going due to funding issues.

Illustrating that women's sports are grossly underfunded and undervalued by comparison to men's which is a far bigger issue for all women athletes than the very occasional transgender competitor.

GreeBo wrote: »

You can dress me in a skirt, spank my ass and call me Judy, I'm still a male of the species.

recedite wrote: »

No need to chop anything off. In the USA, you can literally ride a ladies race like a spare prick and take the gold medal off them.

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I have no problem with transgender people going about their lives and being whatever they want to be.As long as they don't do any harm to anyone else then they are fine to do as they please.

Looking at posts like the above by posters who rarely visit these forums, all I see is rather lame excuse to mouth off a load of transphobic bigotry by those who couldn't give a damn about cycling, women's sports or female athletes. Or maybe you're glued to the UCI youtube feed for the track world cup this weekend lads? :rolleyes:

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

Illustrating that women's sports are grossly underfunded and undervalued by comparison to men's which is a far bigger issue for all women athletes than the very occasional transgender competitor.







Looking at posts like the above by posters who rarely visit these forums, all I see is rather lame excuse to mouth off a load of transphobic bigotry by those who couldn't give a damn about cycling, women's sports or female athletes. Or maybe you're glued to the UCI youtube feed for the track world cup this weekend lads? :rolleyes:

There's nothing transphobic about what I posted.

Typical response from people who can't defeat an argument properly just play the ism/phobic card and hope it sticks.

How do you know I don't care about womens sports?.

Frankly people opposed to the likes of McKinnon participating care a lot more about womens sports an those who want to allow her to participate.

GreeBo

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

There's nothing transphobic about what I posted.

Typical response from people who can't defeat an argument properly just play the ism/phobic card and hope it sticks.

How do you know I don't care about womens sports?.

Frankly people opposed to the likes of McKinnon participating care a lot more about womens sports an those who want to allow her to participate.

+1

Its the same old tripe...I cant defend my argument therefore you are evil.

CramCycle

GreeBo wrote: »

By that logic you must support slavery as I didn't see you in Nigeria trying to stop it. It's a stupid, cheap shot and I think you know it.

You are purposefully misreading my post. I have never posted on slavery in Nigeria and know very little about it. You on the other hand have been posting about women's sports and the unfairness with alot of passion. This to me would indicate you have a strong passion for women's cycling. This is great as it has a small cohort of passionate people already who could do with a bit more support. I myself help out at one race, as well as actively work with my own club to make sure we host a separate women's race. Because there are not as many people as you out digging in though, many women's races are blended with A4 or A3, which is abhorrent to you so I look forward to you giving a helping hand. If your not sure where to get started, drop me a PM and I can give you contacts or let you know of clubs local to you who would be glad of the help.

Don't be silly. She could have an advantage and still just be a **** cyclist

. And she could just be a good cyclist

By your logic PEDs don't give an advantage as not everyone on them wins. Do you think lance was the only one on drugs?

But by yours, every trans male to female athlete must be at the top of every podium with a margin that rivals Landis epic win.

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh there is BS alright, but my post doesnt contain any.
I find it strange that you are ok with people changing one fact (their gender) but not another.

Never said I wasn't OK with it, it's simply whataboutery and not related to the discussion in hand.

No, but biology effectively is.
There are not "more than enough" cases...whats the rate?
Less than .05% of the population are born with both/mixed genitalia.

That's still a reasonable number of people, but not a big enough majority for you. Luckily someone else has Godwin'd the thread already.

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.

It is the legal and competitive definition, until that changes, all your spouting is white noise.

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.

Again, not reassigning anything, those are the legal and competitive definitions.

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?

Well the last person is well known in this thread, and I can say authoratively she is a woman. The other two I don't know them but in the context of this conversation it is pointless. They can still compete in any competition that is open to their gender. The lizard and cat bit is just clouding the water as it doesn't matter. I don't know these people but if they are athletes, they can compete.

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I have no problem with transgender people going about their lives and being whatever they want to be.As long as they don't do any harm to anyone else then they are fine to do as they please.

and who are they harming?

The person will be taller.
They will have a bigger heart and lungs.
They will have longer arms and legs.
They will have greater bone density
All of the above give a person a significant advantage in competing in sport.

And that is not true at a one to one level. It is at a statistical population (not global as regional variations plays a huge part) level but I have dated women taller than.me, I have seen scans of women with bigger lung and heart capacity than.me. Two of my female co workers have a far higher bone density than me (we have a DEXA scanner in work). All of the above give them a significant advantage in sport over me. I don't ask for them to be thrown out of races when I have raced against her (and lost). That is just different people having different advantages and disadvantages. I could beat a fair few posters here in sprints and endurance events but there are several female athletes at my level who would mop the floor with me, does that mean they should not be allowed compete because they have a genetic or other advantage?

She has all of those advantages from being born a man and it is completely unfair on female athletes to be forced to compete against somebody who has those natural advantages of being born male.It doesn't matter what someone wants to identify as it doesn't matter what the legal situation is , if you want a fair sport you cannot have people who were born men competing in a womens sport.

But she really doesn't, those advantages are born from a multitude of areas and an inability to see the different factors makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. I have given data disputing the claimed advantages that Rachel has, and they are roundly ignored, then posters just jump to the well she is not female, and ignore the earlier points they were making.

Whether or not someone wins all the time is irrelevant it makes no difference Rachel MacKinnon has gained a completely unfair advantage by not being born a woman and therefore regardless of how successful she is she should not be allowed to compete in womens cycling events nor should any other transgender athlete

No she hasn't.

Recently the world seems to have given up on common sense for fear of being labelled transphobic.

It's not transphobic to ask the questions. It is transphobic when presented with reasonable answers to said questions to roundly ignore them and revert to chanting it doesn't matter she is a man. This is simply not true. If there were not reasonable answers then it would make sense to keep up the chant but a specific set of posters here seem intention whataboutery and distraction. I stupidly have responded to nearly all of their posts in length only for them to pick out the bits they can try and alter slightly. It is like being responded to by a Daily Mail headline generator than a person

Elmo Murphy

CramCycle wrote: »

You are purposefully misreading my post. I have never posted on slavery in Nigeria and know very little about it. You on the other hand have been posting about women's sports and the unfairness with alot of passion. This to me would indicate you have a strong passion for women's cycling. This is great as it has a small cohort of passionate people already who could do with a bit more support. I myself help out at one race, as well as actively work with my own club to make sure we host a separate women's race. Because there are not as many people as you out digging in though, many women's races are blended with A4 or A3, which is abhorrent to you so I look forward to you giving a helping hand. If your not sure where to get started, drop me a PM and I can give you contacts or let you know of clubs local to you who would be glad of the help.

. And she could just be a good cyclist
But by yours, every trans male to female athlete must be at the top of every podium with a margin that rivals Landis epic win.

Never said I wasn't OK with it, it's simply whataboutery and not related to the discussion in hand.

That's still a reasonable number of people, but not a big enough majority for you. Luckily someone else has Godwin'd the thread already.

It is the legal and competitive definition, until that changes, all your spouting is white noise.

Again, not reassigning anything, those are the legal and competitive definitions.

Well the last person is well known in this thread, and I can say authoratively she is a woman. The other two I don't know them but in the context of this conversation it is pointless. They can still compete in any competition that is open to their gender. The lizard and cat bit is just clouding the water as it doesn't matter. I don't know these people but if they are athletes, they can compete.

and who are they harming?


And that is not true at a one to one level. It is at a statistical population (not global as regional variations plays a huge part) level but I have dated women taller than.me, I have seen scans of women with bigger lung and heart capacity than.me. Two of my female co workers have a far higher bone density than me (we have a DEXA scanner in work). All of the above give them a significant advantage in sport over me. I don't ask for them to be thrown out of races when I have raced against her (and lost). That is just different people having different advantages and disadvantages. I could beat a fair few posters here in sprints and endurance events but there are several female athletes at my level who would mop the floor with me, does that mean they should not be allowed compete because they have a genetic or other advantage?
But she really doesn't, those advantages are born from a multitude of areas and an inability to see the different factors makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. I have given data disputing the claimed advantages that Rachel has, and they are roundly ignored, then posters just jump to the well she is not female, and ignore the earlier points they were making.

No she hasn't.

It's not transphobic to ask the questions. It is transphobic when presented with reasonable answers to said questions to roundly ignore them and revert to chanting it doesn't matter she is a man. This is simply not true. If there were not reasonable answers then it would make sense to keep up the chant but a specific set of posters here seem intention whataboutery and distraction. I stupidly have responded to nearly all of their posts in length only for them to pick out the bits they can try and alter slightly. It is like being responded to by a Daily Mail headline generator than a person

Just stop it man. You're embarrassing yourself.

At a point in the process of a child being created they become male or female.From the point where the child become male rather than female it has gained an advantage.

If Rachel McKinnon was born a female her entire biology would have went down a different path and from an athletic perspective it would have went down the less favourable path.

If all the women she competes against have to be handicapped from an athletic perspective ( i.e. size of heart,lungs,bone density,muscle mass,height,length of legs and arms etc) of being a natural born woman and she doesn't it means she has gained an unfair advantage over her competitors and this is grossly unfair on the women who compete against her.

Saying some women are taller than men, some women are better athletes than men is irrelevant to he entire argument, the point is that being born a male rather than female means Rachel McKinnon has gained an unfair advantage over her female competitors, female sports exists because of this reason.That is the crux of the entire issue and there is no disputing this point whether you or anyone else wants to attempt to.

smacl

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

At a point in the process of a child being created they become male or female.From the point where the child become male rather than female it has gained an advantage.

So what. Rachel McKinnon competed within the rules of the sport, where those rules were fully cognisant of her being a transgender woman and explicitly allowed for it. The other competitors were well aware of rules and entered the competition on that basis. If you're not happy with those rules take it to the UCI or IOC, don't blame the athlete.

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

So what. Rachel McKinnon competed within the rules of the sport, where those rules were fully cognisant of her being a transgender woman and explicitly allowed for it. The other competitors were well aware of rules and entered the competition on that basis. If you're not happy with those rules take it to the UCI or IOC, don't blame the athlete.

My whole issue is that the rules are wrong in the first place.

She shouldn't have been allowed to compete.

smacl

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

My whole issue is that the rules are wrong in the first place.

She shouldn't have been allowed to compete.

If you're not happy about the rules of a sport that you enjoy watching or participate in, complain to those that make the rules. Do you enjoy watching women's cycling or participate in it?

Lumen

Does anyone have actual data concerning the performance loss of gender reassignment and associated ongoing treatment?

The crux of the issue seems to be that people think its unfair that a mediocre male athlete could switch gender and perform better than their previous relative ability.

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

If you're not happy about the rules of a sport that you enjoy watching or participate in, complain to those that make the rules. Do you enjoy watching women's cycling or participate in it?

I can't participate in it because I'm a man.

So what you are saying is that we can't discuss it here because I haven't written a formal complaint to UCI?

splinter65

magicbastarder wrote: »

eh, there *is* only one tour.
unless you've been hearing about female winners the rest of us haven't?

So ladies are permitted to enter the Tour de France then?

smacl

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I can't participate in it because I'm a man.

So what you are saying is that we can't discuss it here because I haven't written a formal complaint to UCI?

But do you enjoy watching women's cycling or any cycling for that matter?

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

Does anyone have actual data concerning the performance loss of gender reassignment and associated ongoing treatment?

The crux of the issue seems to be that people think its unfair that a mediocre male athlete could switch gender and perform better than their previous relative ability.

The studies out there appear limited, but from "Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies" the conclusion states

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

I guess the researchers just aren't spending enough time on boards to make an informed decision. :pac:

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

But do you enjoy watching women's cycling or any cycling for that matter?

I do.

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

The studies out there appear limited, but from "Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies" the conclusion states



I guess the researchers just aren't spending enough time on boards to make an informed decision. :pac:

No amount fo research is needed.

They have an advantage by virtue of being born men. Thats all there is to it and all that needs to be said.They have bigger lungs,heart,longer arms and legs, being taller than they would have had if they were born female.

That is an unfair advantage.

wexie

Lumen wrote: »

Does anyone have actual data concerning the performance loss of gender reassignment and associated ongoing treatment?

smacl wrote: »

The studies out there appear limited, but from the conclusion states

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised

I guess the researchers just aren't spending enough time on boards to make an informed decision. :pac:

I think a bigger problem is that even as much as suggesting gathering the data tends to bring up complaints of bigotry, phobias and worse.

If people really believe there isn't a problem or an advantage, why would there be a problem gathering data?

smacl

Hmm, you you say

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

No amount fo research is needed.

They have an advantage by virtue of being born men. Thats all there is to it and all that needs to be said.They have bigger lungs,heart,longer arms and legs, being taller than they would have had if they were born female.

That is an unfair advantage.

and the peer reviewed journal says...

There is no direct and consistent research to suggest that transgender female individuals (and transgender male individuals) have an athletic advantage in sport and, therefore, the majority of competitive sport policies are discriminatory against this population.

Perhaps you'd care to back your assertion with a bit of evidence that goes beyond anecdote and what you feel is 'common sense'.

magicbastarder

facts? where we're going, we don't need... facts.

Elmo Murphy

smacl wrote: »

Hmm, you you say



and the peer reviewed journal says...



Perhaps you'd care to back your assertion with a bit of evidence that goes beyond anecdote and what you feel is 'common sense'.

It's not anecdotal.

Men are bigger and stronger than women therefore if you are born male rather than female you will have a natural advantage.

If my point is wrong then clearly if I had been a female rather than a male I would currently still be 5ft11 and weight around 13 stone as a woman.

If that is the case then how come so few women are 5ft11 and 13 stone weight and yet so many men are?

smacl

wexie wrote: »

I think a bigger problem is that even as much as suggesting gathering the data tends to bring up complaints of bigotry, phobias and worse.

If people really believe there isn't a problem or an advantage, why would there be a problem gathering data?

I don't think there's a block to gathering data so much as a lack of statistically valid data due to the tiny number of trans athletes with respect to the total number of athletes out there. The type of reaction I've read on this thread and others seems to be knee jerk, making the assumption that it is unfair because that is the intuitive conclusion, which in my opinion is also a conclusion from bias. For my money the biggest issue for sports is to maximise levels of participation which in turn involves maximising inclusion. This seems to be in line with the view of the IOC who have softened the rules on transgender male participation in recent years in order to be as inclusive as possible. If transgender women athletes start dominating the field in women's sports no doubt these rules will get revised, but until such time as that is the case the argument against trans women being allowed to compete seems ill informed.

CramCycle

wexie wrote: »

I think a bigger problem is that even as much as suggesting gathering the data tends to bring up complaints of bigotry, phobias and worse.

If people really believe there isn't a problem or an advantage, why would there be a problem gathering data?

I have no issue gathering data, in fact anytime I have posted data or tried to point to ways that it could be interpreted it has been roundly ignored by some posters.

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

It's not anecdotal.

Men are bigger and stronger than women therefore if you are born male rather than female you will have a natural advantage.

If my point is wrong then clearly if I had been a female rather than a male I would currently still be 5ft11 and weight around 13 stone as a woman.

If that is the case then how come so few women are 5ft11 and 13 stone weight and yet so many men are?

First of all, I know many women who are shorter and heavier than that, taller and lighter and some who are probably not far off that, but it was an point that has no relevance.
Your missing one clear point here, pro athletes are typically a sub set of the wider human race in regards advantages, be they genetic or otherwise. The advantages you claim all men hold over all women simply does not hold true at an international level. We accept that those at the top of their game are a breed apart from the rest but when someone is trans and wins a minority of their events, they are cheating in some way. It would not take much looking forward to find someone born female who has bigger lung or heart volume, who has higher bone density or higher muscle mass. Somehow these people who have been gifted genetic advantages above all others, are in some way not cheating despite that being the claim against Rachel despite the fact, with data linked to earlier in thread, she simply does not have all those advantages.

People want it to be cheating and when provided by reasoned and well thought out reasons why it is not, they turn too moronic, men are better than women without any proof other than their own feelings