Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

Effects

CramCycle wrote: »

if Rachel McKinnion had been born female and arrived at this point exactly the same as she is now, would people still call for her hormone suppression.

But she didn't, so what's the point discussing it?

CramCycle

Effects wrote: »

But she didn't, so what's the point discussing it?

It's a discussion site, so why not? Why not answer the question.

c montgomery

CramCycle wrote: »

Michael Phelps has huge genetic advantage over me as a swimmer. I think it is only fair he is given GH supressors until his feet are the same size as mine.

The truth of the matter is that every good athlete has a genetic advantage over me, all doping aside, the winner in most sports always has a huge advantage.

The question could be, if Rachel McKinnion had been born female and arrived at this point exactly the same as she is now, would people still call for her hormone suppression. Or would she simply be a genetically advantaged athlete no better or worse than Mr. Phelps is to swimming.

The Phelps analogy is a reach.

We have categories like male and female for a reason. Men are must stronger faster and have quicker reflexes than women.
We don't have categories based on limb size, height, lung capacity in most sports. Exception being combat sports as weight generally relates to strength so equal weight equates to equal strength is the thought process.

Canis Lupus

Danzy wrote: »

I do a physical job so have that as a mitigating factor but I'm no longer an athlete, maybe never was,lol, A months stretching and if lift a w omen's record.

I could do it now but would be frightened I'd pop a muscle

It'd want to be a hefty job you're doing but I'd also say you wouldn't be able to do a 300kg DL@40yrs without training for whatever that adds to this conversation.

smacl

c montgomery wrote: »

Exception being combat sports as weight generally relates to strength so equal weight equates to equal strength is the thought process.

Worth remembering that historically women are also under represented in sports in general and combat sports in particular, so there's much more going on here than physiology. Women's sports categories also attract less media interest which translates to less funding, coaching, equipment and professional opportunity. Competitive martial arts was my thing for many years back in the day and the the ratio of men to women at international level competition was about 5:1. While it certainly plays a part. there's much more going on than raw physiology. Those with genuine concern about women's sports should be raising their voices to encourage higher levels of participation, coverage and funding first and foremost. Whether or not the transgender thing is an issue can only be tested once you've the same number of women participating in competition as men, who've been training for the same number of years, with the same sports career opportunities, media coverage and ongoing funding. This is the level playing field we need to start from before pointing the finger at transgenderism providing unfair opportunity. I'd also be concerned about how much of the argument here, from those who aren't that interested in cycling in general, is opportunistic argument from bias against trans people.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

As a society, I hope we have chosen that once you have made your choice, that is the way the world should view you. If that gives a minority of a minority an advantage in a sport, well then **** it, it is our duty as a civilised society to live with that.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the latter. Why is it ok to seriously disadvantage a huge % of those competing, just to accommodate ( and yes I know that word kind of trivialises the issue) a tiny minority.
Isnt civilised society about protecting the greater good?
Certainly that's not the case economically, with neoliberalism increasingly benefitting a smaller and smaller minority, and I cant get my head round how people defend that. So in a sporting context I cannot defend it either.
I consider myself very left-wing, certainly economically and politically and socially on nearly all issues, but I think the issue here is a sporting fairness one, and I'd always have to lean towards what is fair for all or nearly all, than a tiny %.

Effects

CramCycle wrote: »

It's a discussion site, so why not? Why not answer the question.

OK.

CramCycle wrote: »

If Rachel McKinnion had been born female and arrived at this point exactly the same as she is now, would people still call for her hormone suppression.

No, people would not be calling for hormone suppression of a naturally born woman, with natural levels of hormones.
They wouldn't be calling for it because she wouldn't be someone who was born a man but changing gender to become a woman.

CramCycle

terrydel wrote: »

I agree with the first sentence, but not the latter. Why is it ok to seriously disadvantage a huge % of those competing, just to accommodate ( and yes I know that word kind of trivialises the issue) a tiny minority.
Isnt civilised society about protecting the greater good?
Certainly that's not the case economically, with neoliberalism increasingly benefitting a smaller and smaller minority, and I cant get my head round how people defend that. So in a sporting context I cannot defend it either.
I consider myself very left-wing, certainly economically and politically and socially on nearly all issues, but I think the issue here is a sporting fairness one, and I'd always have to lean towards what is fair for all or nearly all, than a tiny %.

We often use the greater good as a phrase but a modern society is there to protect the minority from the majority, it is one of the key tenants of a modern democratic society. You start only looking after the majority who are most likely, already being well looked after in comparison to minority groups, well, quite simply, bad things happen to the minority.

smacl

Effects wrote: »

They wouldn't be calling for it because she wouldn't be someone who was born a man but changing gender to become a woman.

Just a thought. Do you or anyone here think someone is liable to change gender in order to improve their possibility of winning at sports? I'd assume not. As such, if you think it is unfair, it is certainly not the athlete's fault as she's neither hidden the fact she's transgender nor broken any rules. Until such time as transgender women start to dominate the sport, or significant numbers of other female athletes complain, this looks more like an anomaly from where I'm sitting. If it becomes an actual problem, nothing to stop the UCI from introducing a handicap system based on a rigorous study of the measured benefits of transgenderism in female cycling. Anything less than this is unfair.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

We often use the greater good as a phrase but a modern society is there to protect the minority from the majority, it is one of the key tenants of a modern democratic society. You start only looking after the majority who are most likely, already being well looked after in comparison to minority groups, well, quite simply, bad things happen to the minority.

I think that is a very simplistic viewpoint.
The current minority in western society are the elite, who have thru economic policies witnessed here over the last decade or so, insulated themselves from the pitfalls of recession and economic uncertainty. Its called neoliberalism, which has at its heart the ideal of enriching those at the top (the 1%) to the detriment of those at the bottom (the 99%). And is egged on by highly undemocratic organisations such as the EU (see how they ignored the democratic will of the people in Greece for example, when imposing crushing austerity).
So, to simply frame this as protecting the minority = good, protecting the majority = bad is quite frankly nonsense.

marieholmfan

smacl wrote: »

Just a thought. Do you or anyone here think someone is liable to change gender in order to improve their possibility of winning at sports?

To assert that they identify as a different gender? Definitely. It isn't necessary to transition to compete.

terrydel

smacl wrote: »

Do you or anyone here think someone is liable to change gender in order to improve their possibility of winning at sports?

Yes, there are over 7 billion people in the world, simple probability tells you that there is most likely someone or a group of people who will do pretty much anything that you can dream up.

smacl

marieholmfan wrote: »

To assert that they identify as a different gender? Definitely. It isn't necessary to transition to compete.

Seriously??? We're talking about someone being on intensive hormone therapies for years here which is not something I imagine anyone would consider without very real need. You make it sound like some bloke rocking up the the starting line in a tutu claiming to be a woman to grab some glory.

marieholmfan

smacl wrote: »

Seriously??? We're talking about someone being on intensive hormone therapies for years here which is not something I imagine anyone would consider without very real need. You make it sound like some bloke rocking up the the starting line in a tutu claiming to be a woman to grab some glory.

The specific example of Kate Weatherly the New Zealand mountain biker unlike Rachel McKinnon whose integrity is not in question (not that Kate Weatherly's integrity is in question either) is not of someone who was on hormone therapy for years, but months or weeks.

smacl

marieholmfan wrote: »

The specific example of Kate Weatherly the New Zealand mountain biker unlike Rachel McKinnon whose integrity is not in question (not that Kate Weatherly's integrity is in question either) is not of someone who was on hormone therapy for years, but months or weeks.

Are you suggesting she chose to become transgender to further her sports career though? Given you said in your previous post that someone would 'definitely' do this, that's the implication I'm getting. From what I've read the controversy wasn't over whether she should be allowed to compete as a transgender woman so much as whether there should be a stand down period of not competing after the changeover.

Gravelly

CramCycle wrote: »

We often use the greater good as a phrase but a modern society is there to protect the minority from the majority, it is one of the key tenants of a modern democratic society. You start only looking after the majority who are most likely, already being well looked after in comparison to minority groups, well, quite simply, bad things happen to the minority.

We've come full liberal circle now.

Not allowing biological men to compete, and beat, women in women's sports events isn't some kind of Final Solution. Protecting minorities from harm isn't the same as allowing minorities to do whatever the hell they please.
Modern liberal theory has conflated feelings with rights, and this is a prime example of it.

WinnyThePoo

Gravelly wrote: »

We've come full liberal circle now.

Not allowing biological men to compete, and beat, women in women's sports events isn't some kind of Final Solution. Protecting minorities from harm isn't the same as allowing minorities to do whatever the hell they please.
Modern liberal theory has conflated feelings with rights, and this is a prime example of it.

Can you take this back to after hours.

Danzy

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It'd want to be a hefty job you're doing but I'd also say you wouldn't be able to do a 300kg DL@40yrs without training for whatever that adds to this conversation.

I never said I'd deadlift 300 without training.

I could deadlift 175 readily

The teeth would be rattling no doubt.

I could not squat it or close to it.

CramCycle

Gravelly wrote: »

We've come full liberal circle now.

Not allowing biological men to compete, and beat, women in women's sports events isn't some kind of Final Solution. Protecting minorities from harm isn't the same as allowing minorities to do whatever the hell they please.
Modern liberal theory has conflated feelings with rights, and this is a prime example of it.

Did you just try and jam as many non sensical soundbites in there for sh1ts and giggles or was there a point
Firstly I ain't liberal in the way you think the word means something.
Final Solution, what in ****s name are you on about?
No one said let minorities do what they want. Everyone follows the rules that are guided and dictated by the people. In this case, society has decided not to be such a prick and allow people to self identify, and there are huge benefits to the minority who were not born into the sex that they are. This is protecting a minority from harm because if you stop a man or woman doing what any other man or woman is allowed do then your causing harm.
As for your last sentence, that's the type of rubbish designed to sound smart and convince people who aren't focused into disliking the opposing point without actually meaning anything.

CramCycle

Danzy wrote: »

I never said I'd deadlift 300 without training.

I could deadlift 175 readily

The teeth would be rattling no doubt.

I could not squat it or close to it.

Women's record is north of 300kg

Hurrache

Sean Moncrieff had a serious segment on this today, he actually had Rachael on to discuss it with him.

First main segment on today's show, about 10/15 minutes into the first section of the playback

https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/8/48491/17th_October_2018_-_Moncrieff_Part_1/

Lumen

All elite athletes are freaks. The question is what sort of freaks we find acceptable, and that's always going to be a difficult conversation.

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

Did you just try and jam as many non sensical soundbites in there for sh1ts and giggles or was there a point
Firstly I ain't liberal in the way you think the word means something.
Final Solution, what in ****s name are you on about?
No one said let minorities do what they want. Everyone follows the rules that are guided and dictated by the people. In this case, society has decided not to be such a prick and allow people to self identify, and there are huge benefits to the minority who were not born into the sex that they are. This is protecting a minority from harm because if you stop a man or woman doing what any other man or woman is allowed do then your causing harm.
As for your last sentence, that's the type of rubbish designed to sound smart and convince people who aren't focused into disliking the opposing point without actually meaning anything.

But in this case, and its a point you seem unwilling to even address, accommodating a tiny minority (merely in a sporting context) has had the effect of seriously handicapping the 99% of other athletes.
As I said to you in a previous post, your over-simplistic minority = good, majority = bad, simply does not hold water in every respect. The current western neoliberal economic model is the best example around of that fact.
Sport should be about fairness and a level playing field, if we follow down the road you are advocating here, biological women may as well compete with biological men in all disciplines, and give up on their dreams of having much if any quantifiable success.
Rachel McKinnon is free to identify as whatever she likes, but in a biological sense, she is not a woman, thats a cold, hard fact.

Lu Tze

I think the issue is being overlooked a bit by focusing on this one example. I think it was quoted earlier in the thread that transgender women make up about 0.03% of the population of the world. Women make up more than 50%.

Assuming similar participation rates, only the top percentile sports people in each demographic are competing at national and international events.

If it was a level playing field as regards biology, you would expect there to be on average one transgender competitor in about the top 1,500 competitors in any given field.

If there are a lot more in the top 1,500, or if they are smashing world records/wining substantially more than the statistics might suggest they should in any given discipline, I think it is worth questioning if there are unfair physiological advantages due to transitioning from male to female.
Data can be used to prove it if it exists, but it will not be examined due to political/societal pressures any time soon.

terrydel

Lumen wrote: »

All elite athletes are freaks. The question is what sort of freaks we find acceptable, and that's always going to be a difficult conversation.

Its not about finding things acceptable, and framing it that way is just divisive, its about upholding the principles of fair sport and competition for all.

terrydel

Lu Tze wrote: »

I think the issue is being overlooked a bit by focusing on this one example. I think it was quoted earlier in the thread that transgender women make up about 0.03% of the population of the world. Women make up more than 50%.

Assuming similar participation rates, only the top percentile sports people in each demographic are competing at national and international events.

If it was a level playing field as regards biology, you would expect there to be on average one transgender competitor in about the top 1,500 competitors in any given field.

If there are a lot more in the top 1,500, or if they are smashing world records/wining substantially more than the statistics might suggest they should in any given discipline, I think it is worth questioning if there are unfair physiological advantages due to transitioning from male to female.
Data can be used to prove it if it exists, but it will not be examined due to political/societal pressures any time soon.

Exactly, even with a small sample size, it should be fairly easy to at least see where this is going.

Lumen

terrydel wrote: »

Its not about finding things acceptable, and framing it that way is just divisive, its about upholding the principles of fair sport and competition for all.

You can dress it up however you like, but it's the facts that are divisive, not my words.

In any case, how is the word "acceptable" divisive? It's an entirely neutral word.

Gravelly

CramCycle wrote: »

Did you just try and jam as many non sensical soundbites in there for sh1ts and giggles or was there a point
Firstly I ain't liberal in the way you think the word means something.
Final Solution, what in ****s name are you on about?
No one said let minorities do what they want. Everyone follows the rules that are guided and dictated by the people. In this case, society has decided not to be such a prick and allow people to self identify, and there are huge benefits to the minority who were not born into the sex that they are. This is protecting a minority from harm because if you stop a man or woman doing what any other man or woman is allowed do then your causing harm.
As for your last sentence, that's the type of rubbish designed to sound smart and convince people who aren't focused into disliking the opposing point without actually meaning anything.

That's quite the post. It doesn't actually say anything, but it's still quite the post.

"if you stop a man or woman doing what any other man or woman is allowed do then your causing harm"

This is exactly the lunacy I'm talking about. Nobody has a right to be an elite athlete. Following that logic means that I could claim that I am being harmed because they won't let oul fellas compete in my local GAA under 8's blitz.
Pure idiocy, dressed up as righteous protection of the downtrodden.

eeeee

Not all trans women are stronger than biological women. 99% of us competitive women are not being cheated out of it.
Maybe have a read of how the third placed woman has faired against Rachel. She's beaten Rachel 10 out of the last 13 times they've competed against her.
By the hyperbolic sounds of people on this thread she has to be at least doing or trans to even compete with a trans woman :rolleyes:.

I suggest those calling it unfair etc. Read up on the hormone therapy trans women have to use to stay healthy and it's effects on the body and then turn around and say they're still at an unfair advantage.
And if this biological advantage remained so pronounced surely every trans athlete would be winning every race they enter.
This is not the case.

So much misinformation, ignorance and hyperbole on this thread. I can't even :pac:

c.p.w.g.w

nee wrote: »

Not all trans women are stronger than biological women. 99% of us competitive women are not being cheated out of it.
Maybe have a read of how the third placed woman has faired against Rachel. She's beaten Rachel 10 out of the last 13 times they've competed against her.
By the hyperbolic sounds of people on this thread she has to be at least doing or trans to even compete with a trans woman :rolleyes:.

I suggest those calling it unfair etc. Read up on the hormone therapy trans women have to use to stay healthy and it's effects on the body and then turn around and say they're still at an unfair advantage.
And if this biological advantage remained so pronounced surely every trans athlete would be winning every race they enter.
This is not the case.

So much misinformation, ignorance and hyperbole on this thread. I can't even :pac:

Increased Bone Density
Increased Lung Capacity
Increased Muscle Mass(due to years of natural testosterone)

Trans female takes estrogen which can further increase bone density.

Dr Ramona krutzik talks about with regards Fallon fix the mma fighter