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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

123578

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 649 ✭✭✭TGD


    terrydel wrote: »
    CramCycle wrote: »
    But it is a reasonable question. If Rachel had been born female and due to random genetic variation and upbringing, ended up exactly the same physically (to the point her competitive attributes were pretty much identical), would people still call for hormone suppression?

    And its reasonable to question the legitimacy of someone who merely identifies as a women, rather than meet scientifically well-established, biological determinants of what defines a female of the species, competing against actual biological females.
    I agree: “it is reasonable to question” and that doesn’t make us bigots.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    CramCycle wrote: »
    But it is a reasonable question. If Rachel had been born female and due to random genetic variation and upbringing, ended up exactly the same physically (to the point her competitive attributes were pretty much identical), would people still call for hormone suppression?

    If my aunt had balls she'd be.... oh


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    CramCycle wrote: »
    But it is a reasonable question. If Rachel had been born female and due to random genetic variation and upbringing, ended up exactly the same physically (to the point her competitive attributes were pretty much identical), would people still call for hormone suppression?

    If Rachel had been born female she wouldn't have the shape or lung capacity or bone structure she does.

    If she was born female but had the testosterone of an average male injected in as she grew up then she would have that advantage.

    As seen in East Germany in the 80s.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Danzy wrote: »
    As seen in East Germany in the 80s.

    That reminds me of the old joke about a female Russian/East German shotputter complaining to her doctor about developing chest hair.

    Doctor : really? how far does it go?
    Shotputter : ehm....down to my balls

    :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    wexie wrote: »
    That reminds me of the old joke about a female Russian/East German shotputter complaining to her doctor about developing chest hair.

    Doctor : really? how far does it go?
    Shotputter : ehm....down to my balls

    :pac:

    Just looked at the shot put figures from them and an athlete in question, still wouldn't have made nationals in mens novice events in Germany. Yet won Olympic medals.

    It is the level of denial to avoid cognitive dissonance that gets me.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,510 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    who'd want to be a woman anyway?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Of course it is reasonable to question. That is the basis of civilised society. I only have a problem with said questions when, even unbeknownst to the asked, they are clearly loaded and attempting to steer opinion against an already marginalised part of society. I don't have many trans friends, and excluding people online, that list whittles down quite quickly. I can count them on one hand with fingers to spare. If I didn't have any, that wouldn't affect my view. As someone pointed out, percentage wise, it is a small minority of the population. It's surprising I know more than one in person.
    The issues though are simple, out of the group I know on a face to face basis, half do not refer to themselves as trans, they are their chosen sex. The other half do. They are still both their chosen sex.
    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 am not left wing either, in case it wasn't clear by some of my views on here, I am very much a zero tolerance kinda person on crime and have no qualms about more extreme sentences. Being central right doesn't make you an asshole (maybe a little bit) in the same way being left doesn't make you sympathetic to every minority.
    The athlete being discussed here today is a woman, unless she is doping or cheating, then she deserved to win. Athletes may feel cheated, but the truth is they were, at best, second best on the day, that's my opinion.
    I respect all the other points brought up as I can see why they were brought up but I do not agree with them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Of course it is reasonable to question. That is the basis of civilised society. I only have a problem with said questions when, even unbeknownst to the asked, they are clearly loaded and attempting to steer opinion against an already marginalised part of society. I don't have many trans friends, and excluding people online, that list whittles down quite quickly. I can count them on one hand with fingers to spare. If I didn't have any, that wouldn't affect my view. As someone pointed out, percentage wise, it is a small minority of the population. It's surprising I know more than one in person.
    The issues though are simple, out of the group I know on a face to face basis, half do not refer to themselves as trans, they are their chosen sex. The other half do. They are still both their chosen sex.
    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 am not left wing either, in case it wasn't clear by some of my views on here, I am very much a zero tolerance kinda person on crime and have no qualms about more extreme sentences. Being central right doesn't make you an asshole (maybe a little bit) in the same way being left doesn't make you sympathetic to every minority.
    The athlete being discussed here today is a woman, unless she is doping or cheating, then she deserved to win. Athletes may feel cheated, but the truth is they were, at best, second best on the day, that's my opinion.
    I respect all the other points brought up as I can see why they were brought up but I do not agree with them.

    That is fine , for women who train at 6am every day to be the best it may not.



    I'm a 40 yr old male, don't train now but have seen women who trained and got Olympic medals.

    The effort they put in I will never beat

    I could match the Women's record for deadlift without training.

    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

    An average power lifting gym in a small town will have men who would win women's Olympic medals and they will not make provincials. In running it will take a 17 yr old male nqtional Irish title to set a world women's record.

    It is grand to say Athlete's feel cheated when you haven't run at 6 am in pissing rain for years.

    Come down from the pulpit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    GreeBo wrote: »
    However if a 12 year old decided that they actually identified as a 9 year old that would be ok then I guess.

    I don't know. I used to play waterpolo when I was 15 and my trainer made me identify as 13 so I could play in the under 14s.
    I got a league gold medal out of it. My team only came second in the under 16s.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Danzy wrote: »

    Come down from the pulpit.

    Not on a pulpit. Just my view. I am physically active. I can lift a decent weight and can squat lift more than most gym trainers would think. Could I deadlift 300+ kg, I would seriously doubt it, I'd doubt most men could without training. If you can, as claimed, without training, well **** me, with training you might have a WR in you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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 %.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,371 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,248 ✭✭✭✭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/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,180 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,180 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Lumen wrote: »
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    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:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    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:

    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Jesus wept

    Religion too. What would Allah say?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭OscarMIlde


    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.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    terrydel wrote: »
    Religion too. What would Allah say?

    As an infidel I don't think I'm allowed to say and/or I wouldn't get to hear


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,180 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    terrydel wrote: »
    The fact that she is biologically a man, that fact?
    "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.

    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,510 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Lumen wrote: »
    her biology has been manipulated. Her biology is now something else, I guess.
    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.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Lumen wrote: »
    "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?
    Lumen wrote: »
    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.
    Lumen wrote: »
    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%


  • Advertisement
Advertisement