Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

terrydel · 18-10-2018 11:05am

Lumen wrote: »

"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!

Finnrocco · 18-10-2018 11:15am

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?

Gravelly · 18-10-2018 11:30am

Finnrocco wrote: »

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.

Jude13 · 18-10-2018 12:44pm

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.

CramCycle · 18-10-2018 1:54pm

terrydel wrote: »

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Gravelly wrote: »

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.

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.

wexie wrote: »

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%

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.

terrydel wrote: »

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!

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?

terrydel · 18-10-2018 2:17pm

CramCycle wrote: »

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 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.

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

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.

CramCycle wrote: »

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

Nobody here is saying she shouldnt 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.

Using the person themselves to defend the point is hardly unbiased, especially when she refers to those questioning her as bigots.

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

marieholmfan · 18-10-2018 3:24pm

smacl wrote: »

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.

I am not accusing any named individual of 'pretending' to be transgender.

CramCycle · 18-10-2018 3:34pm

terrydel wrote: »

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Using the person themselves to defend the point is hardly unbiased, especially when she refers to those questioning her as bigots.

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.

Shes a world champion, some underdog.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

terrydel · 18-10-2018 3:43pm

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

smacl · 18-10-2018 5:24pm

terrydel wrote: »

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.

smacl · 18-10-2018 5:26pm

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.

CramCycle · 18-10-2018 5:30pm

terrydel wrote: »

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?

and I don't think it does.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Danzy · 18-10-2018 5:34pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Women's record is north of 300kg

It's a big weight but you wouldn't win a Munster title in power lifting with it a a man

Danzy · 18-10-2018 5:36pm

smacl wrote: »

You said that someone would definitely change their gender to further their sporting career, which I think is highly doubtful and potentially hurtful.

People take things they know will kill themselves eventually, do it in sports.

Why you think some woukd not in any context.

CramCycle · 18-10-2018 6:01pm

Danzy wrote: »

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.

eeeee · 18-10-2018 11:46pm

terrydel wrote: »

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/

terrydel wrote: »

Loads of women competing against trans women find it unfair, are they all wrong too?

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.

terrydel wrote: »

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...

terrydel · 19-10-2018 8:19am

nee wrote: »

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.

CramCycle · 19-10-2018 8:42am

terrydel wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

terrydel · 19-10-2018 8:57am

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

smacl · 19-10-2018 9:51am

terrydel wrote: »

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?

GreeBo · 19-10-2018 10:34am

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.

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.

So if I say I'm a she-wolf you will just accept it?
What if I say I'm actually your boss and you are fired, will you accept that or not?

Why will you accept one label I give myself but not another?

marieholmfan · 19-10-2018 10:49am

GreeBo wrote: »

So if I say I'm a she-wolf you will just accept it?
What if I say I'm actually your boss and you are fired, will you accept that or not?

Why will you accept one label I give myself but not another?

How does this relate to cycling?
This is a complicated matter and will probably be figured out over time.

GreeBo · 19-10-2018 10:55am

marieholmfan wrote: »

How does this relate to cycling?
This is a complicated matter and will probably be figured out over time.

Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.

The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.

Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.

CramCycle · 19-10-2018 12:11pm

terrydel wrote: »

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.

Where? I could, I imagine find just as many competitors, rather than just women in general, who have voiced opinion he other way. Did you ever think, rather than just saying they are afraid of being called bigots, maybe, just maybe, and quite unintentionally, they could be bigots, but don't want to admit it out loud. I haven't shouted you down, nor do I think your bigotted. I think we are looking at it from two different stand points. You seem to have strong beliefs on some huge advantage Rachel has achieved through her early life. I am very much of the opinion that the facts do not bare this out. She is not winning by a country mile, she is not winning every race, all in all, looking at her form, there is nothing to say she will ever win that competition again. She might be competitive at it but no more than any other person in the race.

As for testosterone, you wilfully ignore the comment I made about the historical/residual advantages she's had from being born a biological male and the physiological benefits that entails in relation to physical activity, as in higher testosterone levels for an extended time. She may have those levels low now, but that wasn't always the case. Go read anything from Ross Tucker on this.

I have read loads on Ross Tucker on this, even he isn't sure of his opinion. You are willfully missing the points about several male athletes having lower than female athletes or competitors athletes testosterone. As well as Rachel herself having low levels, and nothing to indicate that her levels were abnormally high before hand to endow an advantage over others.

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.

I am saying that there is nothing even close to proof that it has been or would be an advantage.

GreeBo wrote: »

So if I say I'm a she-wolf you will just accept it?
What if I say I'm actually your boss and you are fired, will you accept that or not?

Why will you accept one label I give myself but not another?

This is just going down nonsense town now, one is a form of self identification, the other is an earned position, you are just conflating things which cannot be compared.

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.

The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.

Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.

The 65kg bit maybe, but the other part yes, legally, socially and morally you can change. It is not an easy decision or process, and I couldn't even begin to imagine how tough it is in the modern world, but it doesn't change the fact that you can.

The other question that will or has come up, is if it does give a huge advantage (which in this case it would appear not to be to an impartial observer), in this minority of a minority, would I still support her participation. Yes I would, she is a woman, and as such stopping her talking part in a competition for women because she has an undoping/cheating related advantage, be it genetic, social, financial (and they all make a difference), then yes. Every winner at international level has an unfair advantage in one of these categories. In Rachels, I would put it down more to social and financial than genetic, but there we go.

Plenty of racers who do better than me who are the benefactors of social and financial supports that remove fair play from the competition, and in the same way, there are a few lads I race against who, if I only targeted beating them, I always would win due to genetic advantages, that is sport.

GreeBo · 19-10-2018 12:22pm

CramCycle wrote: »

This is just going down nonsense town now, one is a form of self identification, the other is an earned position, you are just conflating things which cannot be compared.

They can be compared. They are both facts.
One of the people is actually your boss, another one is identifying as you boss, in the face of all the facts.

CramCycle wrote: »

The 65kg bit maybe, but the other part yes, legally, socially and morally you can change. It is not an easy decision or process, and I couldn't even begin to imagine how tough it is in the modern world, but it doesn't change the fact that you can.

Legally and socially are not biological facts though.

Male & Female are definitions, you cant change the label without changing the definition.

CramCycle wrote: »

Plenty of racers who do better than me who are the benefactors of social and financial supports that remove fair play from the competition,

Indeed they are, but there is nothing in the competition that pretends to be "fair" or trying to balance social or economic factors, however when a race is defined as a "female" race, then it is *specifically* separating males from females.

marieholmfan · 19-10-2018 1:36pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists.

The point is that you *are* something, there are some facts that you dont get to choose, not even if you are Donald Trump.

Being 85KG is a fact, being an 85KG man or an 85KG woman is a fact.
You cant just decide to switch facts anymore than you can decide you now identify as a 65KG man.

Why are you so exercised about this?
This is a complicated issue that will be figured out over time.

GreeBo · 19-10-2018 1:41pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Why are you so exercised about this?
This is a complicated issue that will be figured out over time.

Who says I am exercised about it?

I have an opinion that I am sharing just as you are.

I dont believe actual female athletes should be denied medals or careers because of what is hopefully some temporary insanity on the part of the IOC.

CramCycle · 19-10-2018 2:10pm

GreeBo wrote: »

They can be compared. They are both facts.
One of the people is actually your boss, another one is identifying as you boss, in the face of all the facts.

You have to know that is BS.

Legally and socially are not biological facts though.

By societal terms they are. Regardless of this, everyone glossed over my genetic mocaism or intersex athletes comments. Should someone who from birth believed they were female in any and every sense of the word, who became an athlete and done well, have their accomplishment stripped because some people think it is unfair.

Male & Female are definitions, you cant change the label without changing the definition.

Life isn't black and white, even without chosen intervention there are more than enough cases to justify saying it is not black and white.

Indeed they are, but there is nothing in the competition that pretends to be "fair" or trying to balance social or economic factors, however when a race is defined as a "female" race, then it is *specifically* separating males from females.

And in my opinion, transgender women are women. This is really the crux of the issue. I have given plenty of examples why it isn't an advantage in this case, in fact I'd understand it more if there was a clear advantage, but there really does not appear to be. In this scenario, I think the numbers hold up that the advantage is either non existent or in line with any other random variable in our biological make up. therefoer the only reason to be disgruntled in this scenario is because you believe Transgender women are not women. I respectfully believe you are wrong.

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont believe actual female athletes should be denied medals or careers because of what is hopefully some temporary insanity on the part of the IOC.

But you think some female athletes should be?

Lumen · 19-10-2018 4:20pm

...checks in on thread.

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe wolves are excellent cyclists

...checks out of thread.

magicbastarder · 19-10-2018 4:51pm

seems some are, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_De_Wolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_De_Wolf
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=167602

GreeBo · 19-10-2018 6:25pm

CramCycle wrote: »

You have to know that is BS.

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

CramCycle wrote: »

By societal terms they are. Regardless of this, everyone glossed over my genetic mocaism or intersex athletes comments. Should someone who from birth believed they were female in any and every sense of the word, who became an athlete and done well, have their accomplishment stripped because some people think it is unfair.

What does "societal terms" have to do with biology though?
Biology is biology. Its the same in the middle of the Amazon as it is in Outer Mongolia, society doesnt define gender, biology does.
You can believe all you want, it doesnt make it real. Life isnt fair, life is life and nature is nature.

According to societal terms I can identify as a lion and go try live in the Serengeti but when an actual lion rocks up and eats me, thats biology and nature at work.
Thats the facts.
Thats life.

CramCycle wrote: »

Life isn't black and white, even without chosen intervention there are more than enough cases to justify saying it is not black and white.

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

CramCycle wrote: »

And in my opinion, transgender women are women. This is really the crux of the issue. I have given plenty of examples why it isn't an advantage in this case, in fact I'd understand it more if there was a clear advantage, but there really does not appear to be. In this scenario, I think the numbers hold up that the advantage is either non existent or in line with any other random variable in our biological make up. therefoer the only reason to be disgruntled in this scenario is because you believe Transgender women are not women. I respectfully believe you are wrong.

They are not the biological definition of women. If you want another word to describe them, go right ahead, but you cant just (mis) appropriate an existing word that has a specific definition and use it to mean something else.

Pluto used to be a planet, we then realised it wasnt, so we dont call it a planet anymore. We didnt just change the definition of the word 'planet' to include bodies like Pluto.

CramCycle wrote: »

But you think some female athletes should be?

Which female athletes did I say should be?
The people who you are calling "women" are most certainly not female, please stop reassigning the meaning of words.

Is this man a lizard?
erik-the-lizardman-sprague-attends-the-lizardman-wax-figure-unveiling-picture-id117220721

erik-the-lizardman-sprague-attends-the-lizardman-wax-figure-unveiling-picture-id117220721

Is this man cat?

Is this man a woman?

How can you say "yes" to the third one but "no" to the other two?

P_1 · 19-10-2018 10:21pm

The last point in the above post is so asinine it doesnt deserve the dignity of a reply.

Look if her being trans gave an inherent advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the TDF, but she isn't. What does that tell us?

Another point. While she is incredibly intelligent and clearly has a bit of talent on the rothair, she does have a rather butch appearance. Would there be so much discussion on this if she appeared more femme? Just some food for thought

CramCycle · 20-10-2018 9:08am

I have given several points to show there is no measurable advantage over her competitors. Then the goalposts moved to she is simply not female. The truth of the matter is we are never going to agree on this point. Rachel is a woman, not just in my opinion (which doesn't actually matter in the greater scheme of things), but legally and accepted by the organisers of the competition she was competing in.

If one thing can be taken from this, it was nee's excellent point where hopefully this enthusiasm for women's racing carries forward with all the passionate posters on this thread and they can help out next year. I presume with all the strong beliefs purported here that there are a few more eager faces ready to help out.

recedite · 20-10-2018 9:31am

P_1 wrote: »

The last point in the above post is so asinine it doesnt deserve the dignity of a reply.

Dignity has nothing to do with it.

You have no answer. Just admit it.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 20-10-2018 9:38am

GreeBo wrote: »

Who says I am exercised about it?

I have an opinion that I am sharing just as you are.

I dont believe actual female athletes should be denied medals or careers because of what is hopefully some temporary insanity on the part of the IOC.

If you believe this is temporary then you haven’t been following the trajectory of the issue. In fact Rachel McKinnon is logically correct. If she’s legally a woman then she should race in female competitions.

Furthermore the testosterone test is discriminatory.

Elmo Murphy · 20-10-2018 12:46pm

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

However in sport it is quite obvious that from the point where it is "decided" (don't know how better to phrase it) in the process of a baby being created whether you are going to be a born male or female the "decision" of the child being born male provides significant advantage on the child physically. for the child
The person will be taller.
They will have a bigger heart and lungs.
They will have longer arms and legs.
They will have greater bone density

All of the above give a person a significant advantage in competing in sport.

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

All transgender athletes should have to compete in the mens sport and at least they do not gain an unfair advantage by being born a man , this is fair to women and it's fair to transgender athletes as they can still compete in their chosen sport.

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

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

P_1 · 20-10-2018 12:47pm

recedite wrote: »

Dignity has nothing to do with it.

You have no answer. Just admit it.

Simply put what someone does to their body is of no business to anyone else.

Lumen · 20-10-2018 1:12pm

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I have no problem with transgender people going about their lives and being whatever they want to be.As long as they don't do any harm to anyone else then they are fine to do as they please.
...
Recently the world seems to have given up on common sense for fear of being labelled transphobic.

That's weird phrasing. Why would transgender people hurt anyone?

Substitute another word and see how it looks.

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

Elmo Murphy · 20-10-2018 1:38pm

Lumen wrote: »

That's weird phrasing. Why would transgender people hurt anyone?

Substitute another word and see how it looks.

I'm not implying they would.

I'm clarifying that regardless of what subsection of society a person belongs to as long as they cause no harm to anyone else then they can do as they please and I have no issue with them.

However transgender people competing in womens sport sport clearly is causing harm to female athletes.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 20-10-2018 2:01pm

P_1 wrote: »

Simply put what someone does to their body is of no business to anyone else.

You sure about that?

recedite · 20-10-2018 2:10pm

P_1 wrote: »

Simply put what someone does to their body is of no business to anyone else.

Only if it does not affect anyone else.
But when a man on drugs is standing like an eejit on the winner's podium of a ladies race, having cheated the lady standing next to him out of her gold medal, that has a big effect on plenty of other people.

P_1 · 20-10-2018 3:38pm

recedite wrote: »

Only if it does not affect anyone else.
But when a man on drugs is standing like an eejit on the winner's podium of a ladies race, having cheated the lady standing next to him out of her gold medal, that has a big effect on plenty of other people.

A. Trans. Woman. Is. A. Woman.

If you think otherwise theres just no point continuing this exchange. Theres a crowd of irritating middle class bored housewives in the UK you can go off and whiter to

Elmo Murphy · 20-10-2018 4:11pm

P_1 wrote: »

A. Trans. Woman. Is. A. Woman.

If you think otherwise theres just no point continuing this exchange. Theres a crowd of irritating middle class bored housewives in the UK you can go off and whiter to

Biologically they are not women , never have been and never will be.

They simply have been modified so they can look like and live as women in order to keep them happy and content with their lives, which is perfectly fine.

eeeee · 20-10-2018 5:10pm

Insert the name Kirsten Wild for 'They' in the below:

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

The person will be taller.
They will have a bigger heart and lungs.
They will have longer arms and legs.
They will have greater bone density

All of the above give a person a significant advantage in competing in sport.

Than Maya Abbott. Both professional cyclists and biological women. Look at the results (see below).

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I'm not implying they would.

I'm clarifying that regardless of what subsection of society a person belongs to as long as they cause no harm to anyone else then they can do as they please and I have no issue with them.

However transgender people competing in womens sport sport clearly is causing harm to female athletes.

Trans women are not hurting bio women. They're certainly not hurting me. Look into the conditions and levels of T they have to live under. And look at the results.
As I have said before, the third placed woman beat Rachel 10 out of the 13 times they met.
Look into the results of the other trans women competing in cycling. Look at the rules they have to adhere to (Olympic and national federations). Look at their results.
By the metric of the above and posters spouting same these women are unbeatable, but the results don't bear this out at all.

Elmo Murphy · 20-10-2018 5:43pm

nee wrote: »

Insert the name Kirsten Wild for 'They' in the below:

Than Maya Abbott. Both professional cyclists and biological women. Look at the results (see below).

Trans women are not hurting bio women. They're certainly not hurting me. Look into the conditions and levels of T they have to live under. And look at the results.
As I have said before, the third placed woman beat Rachel 10 out of the 13 times they met.
Look into the results of the other trans women competing in cycling. Look at the rules they have to adhere to (Olympic and national federations). Look at their results.
By the metric of the above and posters spouting same these women are unbeatable, but the results don't bear this out at all.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any transgender athlete is unbeatable.

Rachel MacKinnon has gained an unfair advantage due to being born a man and therefore is performing better than she should be because she is biologically not a woman.

GreeBo · 20-10-2018 6:11pm

P_1 wrote: »

A. Trans. Woman. Is. A. Woman.

If you think otherwise theres just no point continuing this exchange. Theres a crowd of irritating middle class bored housewives in the UK you can go off and whiter to

So why isn't lizard man a lizard?

He had medical procedures to make himself look like a lizard...same for cat man and same for this cyclist.

What makes "her" different than the other two?

GreeBo · 20-10-2018 6:13pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If you believe this is temporary then you haven’t been following the trajectory of the issue. In fact Rachel McKinnon is logically correct. If she’s legally a woman then she should race in female competitions.

Furthermore the testosterone test is discriminatory.

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

GreeBo · 20-10-2018 6:21pm

CramCycle wrote: »

If one thing can be taken from this, it was nee's excellent point where hopefully this enthusiasm for women's racing carries forward with all the passionate posters on this thread and they can help out next year. I presume with all the strong beliefs purported here that there are a few more eager faces ready to help out.

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

Look if her being trans gave an inherent advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the TDF, but she isn't. What does that tell us?

Don't be silly. She could have an advantage and still just be a **** cyclist.
By your logic PEDs don't give an advantage as not everyone on them wins. Do you think lance was the only one on drugs?

P_1 · 20-10-2018 6:21pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Putting. Full. Stops. In. A. Sentence. Proves. Nothing.

If trans women are women then there’s a serious problem for biological women in sports.

Right.We definitely shouldn’t be listening to women on this issue.

Considering you're 1) Male and 2) Irish I highly doubt they'd entertain your thoughts.

Why don't you head off on a nice relaxing cycling assuming you're actually a cyclist and not one of those gowls who complains about cyclists holding up traffic

GreeBo · 20-10-2018 6:57pm

P_1 wrote: »

Considering you're 1) Male and 2) Irish I highly doubt they'd entertain your thoughts.

Why don't you head off on a nice relaxing cycling assuming you're actually a cyclist and not one of those gowls who complains about cyclists holding up traffic

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

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

Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

Comments