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
-
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.
The fact that she is biologically a man, that fact?
Because, by using that word it insinuates that those arguing for the women she has beaten, are somehow not accepting of her plight. That just ignores the nuance of the situation completely, its not a black and white issue, you can be sympathetic to her and still want to protect the rights of the others, even if that means that in a sporting context she is disadvantaged.0 -
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:
You keep insulting everyone who doesnt hold the same view as you, and telling people to 'read up', why dont you provide this evidence that you've clearly read in-depth?
Loads of women competing against trans women find it unfair, are they all wrong too?
And does McKinnon take any of this hormone therapy that you are banging on about?
I consider myself very leftwing (voted Labour all my life, until they got into bed with fg, now vote PBP, staunch union advocate, believe in high taxation & state provision of health and education for all, vote in favour of all social advancement issues) but I think the modern liberal left are an embarassment, shouting down anyone who questions anything, throwing out the usual remarks, calling people 'bigots' etc. I bet you care so much for society that you vote ff/fg whenever they promise you an extra cent in the euro at the expense of providing social housing. Do you only selectively chose whatever trendy issue there is to advocate for?
Please address the issue of the many female athletes who do have a huge issue with this.0 -
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:
It would be interesting to see the records for the athletes who are winning prior to transitioning. We're they in the top 1-2% in their disciplines/respective competitions? Or maybe top 15-20%? As if there is a big discrepancy on where their performance ranks in the respective gender segregated sports it would suggest that there is a benefit. It need not just be those winning, the data should be examined for the full dataset available for sports people who have transitioned.
Surely you would support such an data analysis, to demonstrate that there is no advantage and put this issue to bed?0 -
Neoliberalism and lads lifting 170Kgs untrained and could do 300kg with a bit of training
Jesus wept
http://irishpowerliftingfederation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Female-IrishPF-records-06.3.16.pdf
http://irishpowerliftingfederation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/IrishPF-Mens-Classic-National-Records-and-Standards-06.03.15.pdf0 -
-
Advertisement
-
c montgomery 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.
Michael Phelps physiological advantages which make him ideally suited for competitive swimming are quite likely significantly contributed to by his autosomal genes as his sex determining ones. If by a twist of fate Michael Phelps had received the exact same set of autosomal chromosomes but was xx instead of xy the hypothetical female Phelps may well have larger than average hands and feet etc and dominated the women's swim categories. Given that xy Rachel McKinnon would be a middling cyclist if competing in men's events it's unlikely xx McKinnon would be any better than a middling female cyclist. Mc Kinnins dominance is due to the inherent relative advantage any xy individual has over xx individuals.0 -
-
"biologically a man" is a gross simplification. She was born male, but her biology has been manipulated. Her biology is now something else, I guess.The fact that she is biologically a man, that fact?
In normal life I prefer not to stick labels on people. If someone wants to be called something or treated in a particularly way then I'm happy to adjust my words and behaviour to accommodate that, although I may get it wrong and hope those mistakes are forgivable.
But in elite sport we need categories. If we got rid of categories there would be only men competing with each other. So some poor feckers have to navigate the complexity of modern biological and social gender and come up with a set of rules for those categories. Good luck with that, because however you do it someone is going to be disadvantaged.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,548 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 47997
someone mentioned earlier in the thread that she's pre-op. citation required on this, i'm not going to start googling that on my work laptop.her biology has been manipulated. Her biology is now something else, I guess.
and she has stated that it's a violation of her human rights to be forced to take testosterone suppressants, which will have gotten a few backs up.0 -
"biologically a man" is a gross simplification. She was born male, but her biology has been manipulated. Her biology is now something else, I guess.
It is indeed a gross simplification, yet it's still more correct than 'woman' I'd argue, yet that is what we're all just supposed to swallow without asking anymore questions?In normal life I prefer not to stick labels on people. If someone wants to be called something or treated in a particularly way then I'm happy to adjust my words and behaviour to accommodate that, although I may get it wrong and hope those mistakes are forgivable.
And that's okay, I think it's the right and respectful thing to do and I try to do similar. That doesn't mean I believe they actually are a woman though.But in elite sport we need categories. If we got rid of categories there would be only men competing with each other. So some poor feckers have to navigate the complexity of modern biological and social gender and come up with a set of rules for those categories. Good luck with that, because however you do it someone is going to be disadvantaged.
That is indeed going to be a ****ty job and I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for it myself.
Having said that, seems to me that it would be a lot less unfair to disadvantage the .03/0.08/0.0whatever % than the 50odd%0 -
Advertisement
-
"biologically a man" is a gross simplification. .
Good luck with that, because however you do it someone is going to be disadvantaged.
Gross simplification, hahahaha. Its about the furthest thing from that in the context of this thread, in that it has a highly complex biological basis that is scientifically agreed as fact to a degree and level few other things in this world are.
And in this case, 99% of women are in all likelihood the ones being disadvantaged. Isnt that great!0 -
Noone has mentioned the fact that biological women have a menstrual cycle, while biological males do not.
It must be the opposite of taking EPO.
Surely this is a disadvantage to cis women athletes competing against trans women?0 -
Noone has mentioned the fact that biological women have a menstrual cycle, while biological males do not.
It must be the opposite of taking EPO.
Surely this is a disadvantage to cis women athletes competing against trans women?
Most elite female athletes don't I believe, though your point still stands.0 -
This is madness, identifying as something is fine, man, women and anything in between. But claiming not to be a man as you don't identify as one (which is fine as it affects no one), but then competing against women is nuts. The fact is he will always be a biological man however tempered by a few hormones.
It's like the south park episode where mr garision becomes trans and loses it when told he cant have a child or abortion.
I feel for the ladies on the podium who lost. Lets hope Anthony Joshua doesn't identify as a lady soon and trim down to meet katie taylor.0 -
It really doesn't though, if you want to play the numbers game on it. It would only affect an athlete competing against someone who was transgender in a sport where this might be beneficial. Not entirely clear which sports these would be but it is not all of them. Considering female participation levels in sport, it is quite conceivable in these rare cases that there are females more than capable of competing but simply do not. The simple fact that is while it is changing, if your a male who is good at a sport, you are more likely to be identified and encouraged. There is also the possibility that those who may be competitive at that level simply have less of an interest. But that is all hearsay. The simpler view is that if you are looking at 0.03% of the population, rough figures have you at about 0.06% of the female population. For many sports, that is simply not a large enough minority that there would even be a recognisable number of competitors in all but a minority of sports. This may change with male to female transitions due to a higher likely hood of being encouraged to sport at a younger age, and in fact reverse in the other direction.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.
And I thought I had made it clear that it wasn't in every respect, I certainly had no opinion that the majority was bad and never stated such a thing, I stated that when society help the majority at the cost of a minority, in regards things that would not be harmful to the population as a whole, the minority will suffer. Obviously I am not giving carte blanche for a minority to do what they want, despite how what I have said has been misinterpreted.As I said to you in a previous post, your over-simplistic minority = good, majority = bad, simply does not hold water in every respect.
And the fact remains that she is a woman by the standards of our society. As regards the benefits of her being a man, most of those have been put to bed by Rachel herself, she seems to be quite open about it: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.
https://www.velonews.com/2018/10/news/qa-dr-rachel-mckinnon-masters-track-champion-and-transgender-athlete_480206
https://www.instagram.com/p/BpErhorB5qT/?utm_source=ig_twitter_share&igshid=tlry1wfu2fqk
I'd obviously fact check it all when i have the time but if she is being honest, it really doesn't seem that she has much of an advantage that other female athletes may have if they were born to the right parents or in the right part of the world.
Again, look at the numbers, on any other day, her competitors would have left her in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and often nowhere. Should underdogs not be allowed win games because on paper they are not the better team/athlete and they had a great day?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.
Your being misleading, this could quite clearly have a huge mental health impact on someone transitioning or who has transitioned. I am not sure how to make it clearer as if it is not immediately obvious, I suspect it never will be.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.
But in the rare scenarios that you have some who is transgender, who competes in a sport, in the cases that they do not do well or are not top 5% we simply do not hear about it, but in the cases that they do well, they are not 0.03%, they are in fact far higher. So while it is rare, when it does come up, you are in fact being unfair to a larger % of the field that you might like to admit.Having said that, seems to me that it would be a lot less unfair to disadvantage the .03/0.08/0.0whatever % than the 50odd%
What about people who have mosaicism, the definition of anything scientifically like this is typically ground down to what suits the narrative. In this scenario, and it is my point of view, is that any person who has gone through the legal minefield to have their gender changed legally, should be allowed compete in that group. What if someone was born intersex and their parents decided that they were female but they actually had many of the supposed benefits of being male that other posters have alluded too?Gross simplification, hahahaha. Its about the furthest thing from that in the context of this thread, in that it has a highly complex biological basis that is scientifically agreed as fact to a degree and level few other things in this world are.
And in this case, 99% of women are in all likelihood the ones being disadvantaged. Isn't that great!0 -
If its hearsay dont bring it into this debate, to be quite honest you are going off on a massive tangent and its impossible to work out what point you are trying to make.It really doesn't though, if you want to play the numbers game on it. It would only affect an athlete competing against someone who was transgender in a sport where this might be beneficial. Not entirely clear which sports these would be but it is not all of them. Considering female participation levels in sport, it is quite conceivable in these rare cases that there are females more than capable of competing but simply do not. The simple fact that is while it is changing, if your a male who is good at a sport, you are more likely to be identified and encouraged. There is also the possibility that those who may be competitive at that level simply have less of an interest. But that is all hearsay. The simpler view is that if you are looking at 0.03% of the population, rough figures have you at about 0.06% of the female population. For many sports, that is simply not a large enough minority that there would even be a recognisable number of competitors in all but a minority of sports. This may change with male to female transitions due to a higher likely hood of being encouraged to sport at a younger age, and in fact reverse in the other direction.
If as highly likely, she is gaining from her male genes, then she is seriously disadvantaging a large number of women. You can bring in any other scenario you like in society, thats not the point here, its not one size fits all, just because its right and proper to assist minorities in say participation in grass roots sport, allowing them to compete against athletes with a huge headstart isnt fair.And I thought I had made it clear that it wasn't in every respect, I certainly had no opinion that the majority was bad and never stated such a thing, I stated that when society help the majority at the cost of a minority, in regards things that would not be harmful to the population as a whole, the minority will suffer. Obviously I am not giving carte blanche for a minority to do what they want, despite how what I have said has been misinterpreted.
Nobody here is saying she shouldnt be recognized by society how she wishes to be.And the fact remains that she is a woman by the standards of our society. As regards the benefits of her being a man, most of those have been put to bed by Rachel herself, she seems to be quite open about it:
https://www.velonews.com/2018/10/news/qa-dr-rachel-mckinnon-masters-track-champion-and-transgender-athlete_480206
https://www.instagram.com/p/BpErhorB5qT/?utm_source=ig_twitter_share&igshid=tlry1wfu2fqk
But that doesnt mean she can then go and do anything she likes afterwards, if it negatively affects others, which is very likely the case here. Sure maybe I can go enter the paralympics then? How would you feel about that? I find it incredible you cant get the nuance of it.
Using the person themselves to defend the point is hardly unbiased, especially when she refers to those questioning her as bigots.Again, look at the numbers, on any other day, her competitors would have left her in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and often nowhere. Should underdogs not be allowed win games because on paper they are not the better team/athlete and they had a great day?
Your being misleading, this could quite clearly have a huge mental health impact on someone transitioning or who has transitioned. I am not sure how to make it clearer as if it is not immediately obvious, I suspect it never will be.
But in the rare scenarios that you have some who is transgender, who competes in a sport, in the cases that they do not do well or are not top 5% we simply do not hear about it, but in the cases that they do well, they are not 0.03%, they are in fact far higher. So while it is rare, when it does come up, you are in fact being unfair to a larger % of the field that you might like to admit.
What about people who have mosaicism, the definition of anything scientifically like this is typically ground down to what suits the narrative. In this scenario, and it is my point of view, is that any person who has gone through the legal minefield to have their gender changed legally, should be allowed compete in that group. What if someone was born intersex and their parents decided that they were female but they actually had many of the supposed benefits of being male that other posters have alluded too?
Shes a world champion, some underdog.
Nobody is advocating that she cant self identify, have it legally accepted whatever, but you simply refuse to even accept or acknowledge that the facts of her life might mean she is denying fairness to everyone she competes with.
If its shown that she is definitely gaining from her male genetics, would you still advocate that she be allowed compete against females?
Do you actually have any interest in the welfare of those she's competing against? You havent mentioned them once.0 -
I am not accusing any named individual of 'pretending' to be transgender.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.0 -
The point was some people are trying to make out that there are two major issues here, one that it affects all female athletes and disadvantages them all. This is simply not true, if it does disadvantage some, it is, at this point in time, a very small minority, so throwing round phrases like 99% of female athletes are disadvantaged is erroneous at best. The second was, you claim she has a massive advantage, which is far from being proven, and considering placings and disadvatages that all female atheltes face in regards participation and support, quite frankly, we cannot know. As you said, lets not bring hearsay in to the debate and read the articles provided, see do they shed some light for the perceived advantage in this case. In fact the IOC with a panel of researchers, not opinionists or columnists said that there is no evidence that transgender women have a sporting advantage over athletes born female. I know Ross tucker disagrees and I like alot of his work but this is not me being liberal or otherwise, these are the facts and rules as set out by a global sporting body.If its hearsay dont bring it into this debate, to be quite honest you are going off on a massive tangent and its impossible to work out what point you are trying to make.
But she doesn't seem to have a huge headstart, she maybe world champion in a Masters Category, so from an already reduced field, in a sport that has not exactly been the best to females in regard promotion and in the majority of other races, was not exactly dropping people or winning by huge margins, have a look at her record. Has anyone accused those who paced second or third of doping yet, because if it is such a huge advantage, they would need something to get that close as well, right? I mean, she placed 4th in the qualifying heats, and was roundly beaten over the year in several other events.If as highly likely, she is gaining from her male genes, then she is seriously disadvantaging a large number of women. You can bring in any other scenario you like in society, thats not the point here, its not one size fits all, just because its right and proper to assist minorities in say participation in grass roots sport, allowing them to compete against athletes with a huge headstart isnt fair.
Your missing the nuance that I am making, she is a woman, therefore she should be allowed do whatever a woman is allowed do. not whatever she wants, but whatever any other female is allowed do.Nobody here is saying she shouldn't be recognized by society how she wishes to be.
But that doesnt mean she can then go and do anything she likes afterwards, if it negatively affects others, which is very likely the case here. Sure maybe I can go enter the paralympics then? How would you feel about that? I find it incredible you cant get the nuance of it.
Maybe but I was hoping you could tease out the facts that were stated in the article, I am not asking you to take her opinion as fact.Using the person themselves to defend the point is hardly unbiased, especially when she refers to those questioning her as bigots.
The point was that on any other Sunday, she probably would not have won. She might have been close but she would not have won.Shes a world champion, some underdog.
What about the transgender rider who comes in with the bunch in a A4 race, should they be given a time behind the bunch? Should the automatically be boosted to A2? Could it just simply be that some athletes are better than others and in this case, that is what happened.Nobody is advocating that she cant self identify, have it legally accepted whatever, but you simply refuse to even accept or acknowledge that the facts of her life might mean she is denying fairness to everyone she competes with.
Those competitors have beaten her several times and I haven't asked for them to be tested for anything or disqualified, because, you know what, the advantage you perceive may not be what you think it is. You haven't given any of this proof you are asking me for, other than statements on your perceptions. At least I understand that I am coming from an angle of not knowing the correct answer, so I am giving what i think is the best answer.If its shown that she is definitely gaining from her male genetics, would you still advocate that she be allowed compete against females?
Do you actually have any interest in the welfare of those she's competing against? You haven't mentioned them once.
In the grand scheme of things, should a member of society who has quite likely already have had various types of oppression and levels of it, really be subject to more because a number of people think its unfair, without proof.0 -
The point was some people are trying to make out that there are two major issues here, one that it affects all female athletes and disadvantages them all. This is simply not true, if it does disadvantage some, it is, at this point in time, a very small minority, so throwing round phrases like 99% of female athletes are disadvantaged is erroneous at best. The second was, you claim she has a massive advantage, which is far from being proven, and considering placings and disadvatages that all female atheltes face in regards participation and support, quite frankly, we cannot know. As you said, lets not bring hearsay in to the debate and read the articles provided, see do they shed some light for the perceived advantage in this case. In fact the IOC with a panel of researchers, not opinionists or columnists said that there is no evidence that transgender women have a sporting advantage over athletes born female. I know Ross tucker disagrees and I like alot of his work but this is not me being liberal or otherwise, these are the facts and rules as set out by a global sporting body.
But she doesn't seem to have a huge headstart, she maybe world champion in a Masters Category, so from an already reduced field, in a sport that has not exactly been the best to females in regard promotion and in the majority of other races, was not exactly dropping people or winning by huge margins, have a look at her record. Has anyone accused those who paced second or third of doping yet, because if it is such a huge advantage, they would need something to get that close as well, right? I mean, she placed 4th in the qualifying heats, and was roundly beaten over the year in several other events.
Your missing the nuance that I am making, she is a woman, therefore she should be allowed do whatever a woman is allowed do. not whatever she wants, but whatever any other female is allowed do.
Maybe but I was hoping you could tease out the facts that were stated in the article, I am not asking you to take her opinion as fact.
The point was that on any other Sunday, she probably would not have won. She might have been close but she would not have won.
What about the transgender rider who comes in with the bunch in a A4 race, should they be given a time behind the bunch? Should the automatically be boosted to A2? Could it just simply be that some athletes are better than others and in this case, that is what happened.
Those competitors have beaten her several times and I haven't asked for them to be tested for anything or disqualified, because, you know what, the advantage you perceive may not be what you think it is. You haven't given any of this proof you are asking me for, other than statements on your perceptions. At least I understand that I am coming from an angle of not knowing the correct answer, so I am giving what i think is the best answer.
In the grand scheme of things, should a member of society who has quite likely already have had various types of oppression and levels of it, really be subject to more because a number of people think its unfair, without proof.
Again, and its going around in circles so I'll say it for the last time, I've no issue with her identifying as a woman, with that being legally allowed, but if (and I've used the if/possibly numerous times) it disadvantages those she competes against, how is that fair on them?
You havent asked for her competitors to be penalised because like most sensible people, you know full well that there is far, far less likelihood that they are starting with an inherent advantage in the same way that the odds are high that she is. Its not bigoted or anything else to refuse to ignore the inherent advantages male genetics confer over female ones on an athletic basis.
You dont oppress others in order to solve the oppression of another imho.
If her genetics infer an advantage on her, well then thats going to negatively affect pretty much her entire competition. Just because she doesnt finish first everytime doesnt change that.
Anyway, we'll never agree so have a good one.0 -
if (and I've used the if/possibly numerous times) it disadvantages those she competes against, how is that fair on them?
That's the big 'if' though. I'd go with innocent until proven guilty myself. Once you're assertions are based around an 'if' like this that squarely accuses a competitor winning due to an unfair advantage, surely you assume the burden of proof to show this to be true? Pointing at a person's politics and moaning about (neo?)liberals doesn't help. Personally, I don't believe the necessary research has been done yet, nor that many if any on here (myself included) have the academic background to make a strong assertion either way. Until this changes, I think fair play is giving the women involved the benefit of the doubt.0 -
Advertisement
-
marieholmfan wrote: »I am not accusing any named individual of 'pretending' to be transgender.
You said that someone would definitely change their gender to further their sporting career, which I think is highly doubtful and potentially hurtful.0 -
and I don't think it does.Again, and its going around in circles so I'll say it for the last time, I've no issue with her identifying as a woman, with that being legally allowed, but if (and I've used the if/possibly numerous times) it disadvantages those she competes against, how is that fair on them?
No one is oppressing anyone, everyone at a certain level has genetic advantages over Jo Soap, looking at the results, there is nothing to suggest that she has anything that puts her above and beyond her competitors. As I said before, different course/ event, different day of that month and she would never have gotten it. If she had gotten fourth would there be outrage, how come this outrage is only coming out for a win.You havent asked for her competitors to be penalised because like most sensible people, you know full well that there is far, far less likelihood that they are starting with an inherent advantage in the same way that the odds are high that she is. Its not bigoted or anything else to refuse to ignore the inherent advantages male genetics confer over female ones on an athletic basis.
You dont oppress others in order to solve the oppression of another imho.
I just don't see it looking at the data, if in fact there is an advantage, it is incredibly slight. Tell me how do we account for every top athletes advantages, do we put weights on people from certain genetic backgrounds, hormone suppressors for those with naturally high hormone levels (IOC already do this for transgender women if there count is to high for their limit AFAIK). I am not trying to troll, at what point is an advantage unfair?If her genetics infer an advantage on her, well then thats going to negatively affect pretty much her entire competition. Just because she doesnt finish first everytime doesnt change that.
Anyway, we'll never agree so have a good one.0 -
-
-
People take things they know will kill themselves eventually, do it in sports.
Why you think some woukd not in any context.
I have no doubt some might, there are athletes in Britain who faked physical disabilities to do better in the Paralympics. It is always, although I imagine rare, a possibility. Banning all athletes for the behaviour of some is why the Russia ban for doping was a joke, if they can be caught and proven, go for it but banning all trans athletes for the theoretical behaviour of non trans cheats would be grossly unfair.0 -
You keep insulting everyone who doesnt hold the same view as you, and telling people to 'read up', why dont you provide this evidence that you've clearly read in-depth?
You could start with a link from the begining of this thread posted by Lumen:
https://303cycling.com/transgender-cyclist-story-jillian-bearden/
And lots aren't calling it unfair, even the second placed woman. Are they all wrong too?Loads of women competing against trans women find it unfair, are they all wrong too?
And the third placed woman who is unhappy about the result beat McKinnon 10 out of the last 13 times they faced each other. By the totally uninformed metric of those on this thread that should be totally impossible.And does McKinnon take any of this hormone therapy that you are banging on about?
I consider myself very leftwing (voted Labour all my life, until they got into bed with fg, now vote PBP, staunch union advocate, believe in high taxation & state provision of health and education for all, vote in favour of all social advancement issues) but I think the modern liberal left are an embarassment, shouting down anyone who questions anything, throwing out the usual remarks, calling people 'bigots' etc. I bet you care so much for society that you vote ff/fg whenever they promise you an extra cent in the euro at the expense of providing social housing. Do you only selectively chose whatever trendy issue there is to advocate for?
Please address the issue of the many female athletes who do have a huge issue with this.
You're so wide of the mark here it's laughable. You know nothing of my situation, and even less about how I vote or my politics. You post about 'shouting down' and then go on to make totally false and unfounded personal assumptions about my own beliefs and situation you have literally not a single clue about :rolleyes:
It's also sad to see you have had to resort to attacking the poster and not the post.
McKinnon's medal does absolutely no harm to women's sport. I would have no problem losing out on a medal to a trans woman nor would I have any issue lining up with a trans woman in a race. I know a number of trans people and am aware of what they have to go through to stay healthy whilst transitioning.
It's comforting to know so many people are passionate about women's cycling. I look forward to seeing all of this support racing next year. It's so encouraging to witness such a lot of concern for our sports' development, misguided or not...0 -
You could start with a link from the begining of this thread posted by Lumen:
https://303cycling.com/transgender-cyclist-story-jillian-bearden/
And lots aren't calling it unfair, even the second placed woman. Are they all wrong too?
And the third placed woman who is unhappy about the result beat McKinnon 10 out of the last 13 times they faced each other. By the totally uninformed metric of those on this thread that should be totally impossible.
You're so wide of the mark here it's laughable. You know nothing of my situation, and even less about how I vote or my politics. You post about 'shouting down' and then go on to make totally false and unfounded personal assumptions about my own beliefs and situation you have literally not a single clue about :rolleyes:
It's also sad to see you have had to resort to attacking the poster and not the post.
McKinnon's medal does absolutely no harm to women's sport. I would have no problem losing out on a medal to a trans woman nor would I have any issue lining up with a trans woman in a race. I know a number of trans people and am aware of what they have to go through to stay healthy whilst transitioning.
It's comforting to know so many people are passionate about women's cycling. I look forward to seeing all of this support racing next year. It's so encouraging to witness such a lot of concern for our sports' development, misguided or not...
You wouldnt but plenty of women who compete do have a serious issue with it, you refuse to even acknowledge that as it doesnt suit your narrative. I'll ask you again, where is your concern for their welfare?
The sport is catergorised for a reason, to bring fairness, if by the only biological basis we have she does not qualify as a woman, then I dont think she should be competing in that category, because I believe it is unfair on others.
There is tons of science that show the advantages of testosterone to those competing in physical activity, it is indisputable at this stage. Again you ignore that. Whether she's had an historical/residual advantage or not is up for debate. Again there is plenty of evidence to say she has.
As for attacking you, get over yourself. I questioned whether you show this concern for other issues, if thats an attack you should step away from the keyboard. You have done nothing but condescend those with the opposing view, typical modern liberal attitude, rather than listen to their issues and concerns.
I've stated numerous times that I dont care at all what this woman identifies as, it is her life, my concern is for those she is competing against and the unfairness I believe her participation brings to them. Nothing more, nothing less.0 -
Where are all these complaints? Believe me if I thought I was robbed of 10th in A4 there would be a national campaign but yet Rachel seems to have one competitor and a load of people online who I presume are not her competitors.You wouldnt but plenty of women who compete do have a serious issue with it, you refuse to even acknowledge that as it doesnt suit your narrative. I'll ask you again, where is your concern for their welfare?
O am glad you picked testosterone. Have you looked at her numbers, not only is she lower than the majority of men, she is also well below the IOC range of expected testosterone in women, in fact in her last test, it was borderline undetectable. females produce testosterone, typically less than males, but many competitive males also have low testosterone levels. If you think testosterone is giving Rachel an advantage then your really missing the point as her tested levels are so low she could start doping with it and still be way under the expected levels of a typical athlete, male or female.The sport is catergorised for a reason, to bring fairness, if by the only biological basis we have she does not qualify as a woman, then I dont think she should be competing in that category, because I believe it is unfair on others.
There is tons of science that show the advantages of testosterone to those competing in physical activity, it is indisputable at this stage. Again you ignore that. Whether she's had an historical/residual advantage or not is up for debate. Again there is plenty of evidence to say she has.
to be fair you do seem to be pontificating about anyone who thinks Rachel is entitled to race in the Women's cat, is some far left liberal, I find that insulting myself as I am pretty central right. I am not condescending your view, I am asking you to have something to back it up.As for attacking you, get over yourself. I questioned whether you show this concern for other issues, if thats an attack you should step away from the keyboard. You have done nothing but condescend those with the opposing view, typical modern liberal attitude, rather than listen to their issues and concerns
and you have yet to provide anything that shows its unfair bar the argument, she was once male and therefore was once superior which in this case, from all I have read (and posted links too) does not hold water.I've stated numerous times that I dont care at all what this woman identifies as, it is her life, my concern is for those she is competing against and the unfairness I believe her participation brings to them. Nothing more, nothing less.0 -
Where are all these complaints? Believe me if I thought I was robbed of 10th in A4 there would be a national campaign but yet Rachel seems to have one competitor and a load of people online who I presume are not her competitors.
O am glad you picked testosterone. Have you looked at her numbers, not only is she lower than the majority of men, she is also well below the IOC range of expected testosterone in women, in fact in her last test, it was borderline undetectable. females produce testosterone, typically less than males, but many competitive males also have low testosterone levels. If you think testosterone is giving Rachel an advantage then your really missing the point as her tested levels are so low she could start doping with it and still be way under the expected levels of a typical athlete, male or female.
to be fair you do seem to be pontificating about anyone who thinks Rachel is entitled to race in the Women's cat, is some far left liberal, I find that insulting myself as I am pretty central right. I am not condescending your view, I am asking you to have something to back it up.
and you have yet to provide anything that shows its unfair bar the argument, she was once male and therefore was once superior which in this case, from all I have read (and posted links too) does not hold water.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have done nothing but condescend those with the opposing view, typical modern liberal attitude, rather than listen to their issues and concerns.
Complaining about someone being condescending and then making a sweeping generalisation like that? C'mon now.Plenty of woman, maybe not in this particular instance, have raised concerns over this.
Again, unsupported generalisation. How about some solid references that go beyond one of anecdotal cases?0
Advertisement