Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

CramCycle wrote: »

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

See? You are doing it again.
I'm not misreading your post, you are trying to belittle my opinion on this topic by pointing out (correctly I might add) that I have not helped in organising a womens bike race.
What on earth that has to do with trans women in sport (specifically cycling in this case) I have no idea, but you sure do seem to think it helps your argument somehow.
So, to try to illustrate how silly your point is, I'm throwing it right back at you; a-la support for slavery. If me not helping womens cyclists means I cant speak out against trans-women, then equally you not stopping slavery in Nigeria means you cant speak out against slavery. A pure nonsense argument.

CramCycle wrote: »

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

Not at all, in fact I have said the opposite.
If a trans women beats a single natural women, then they are unfairly depriving someone of something. Just like Lance was, even when he didnt win. Anyone he was ahead of was unfairly knocked back a place by someone with an unfair advantage.

CramCycle wrote: »

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

How is is whataboutery and not related to the discussion?
Its other examples of people having surgical procedures to change who they are. Except in these cases we all laugh at the poor misguided individuals....*of course* a man cant become a lizard or a cat...yet a woman can become a man through the same process and suddenly its ok and its wrong for the rest of us to point out the disparity here?

CramCycle wrote: »

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

"not a big enough majority"?
Its 0.05 of 1 percent....its nowhere near a majority, its hardly even a minority, its a statistical anomaly if anything.

CramCycle wrote: »

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

The problem is we havent been presented with reasonable answers to reasonable questions.
You dont like my cat/lizard example because you cant give an answer for it that fits with the rest of you narrative.
In one case an operation changes the definition of someone, in 2 others it doesnt...explain why?

Its logic-phobic when presented with logical questions and logic answers to just keep repeating "but the law says they are". The law is repeatedly shown to be an ass and doesnt stand up to the test of time.
Biologically unchangeable facts on the other hand do stand up, yet you are ignoring them for some reason.

CramCycle wrote: »

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

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

You are fixated on trying to disprove the idea that all men are stronger than all women, yet this isnt the argument.

"men" are stronger than "women", sure there are outliers but by and large, in the vast, vast majority of cases this is true.

Yet you are holding to the idea that since this person doenst win everytime, its fine. Lance didnt win everytime, I presume you had an issue with him doping?

Whats the difference?

On the cat lizard argument, while beyond the point that a transwoman is a woman. If someone wants to identify as whatever, let them, what's the harm? It's their body at the end of the day. Its not as if they're forcing you to do the same to yours

smacl wrote: »

That incorrectly supposes that the trans woman has done something unfair. This is not the case, as they've competed within a set of rules which explicitly allows them to compete. By denying them this, it is you who would treat them unfairly based on your own bias. I'm not seeing any reasonable evidence to support this bias, as in results of actual research. Anything less than this amounts to no more than opinion. Those best placed to make informed decisions as to what is or is not fair in a sport are the governing bodies of that sport, which of course they do on an ongoing basis which in turn has led to the rules we have today.

The rules are unfair and, in my opinion, only exist to appease the noisy minority.

Weepsie wrote: »

Lance doped to purposefully gain advantage. Pantani the same, Ben Johnson the same. They all doped to enhance performance. This is completely and utterly different

The fact is that there was an advantage that didnt always lead to someone taking first place. Some would say "what harm" in this case, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of this viewpoint by using PED takers as an example.

Weepsie wrote: »

You keep trying to draw similarities to this and other things which are absolutely poles apart and then accuse others of deflecting, or not backing up their point whne you have utterly failed to do so yourself, all while managing to be derogatory and inflame something which you evidently have no understanding of and think of it as a very black and white issue which it isn't.

It's ignorant at best

It is black and white, thats exactly the point I and others are making.
There are 2 sexes, male and female, you dont switch between then two anymore than you become a donkey by getting some surgeon to give you big ears and a tail.
The only reason we are treating this trans contradiction any differently is because people are now afraid to call things out for what they really are due to fear of being attacked by SJW.

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

I don't think he has a problem with someone identifying as whatever they are, but it doesn't mean they are the thing they identify as.

In this debate though someone who is biologically male identifying as a woman and competing in a female sport is unfair on real women who she competes against.

Bingo.
Call yourself a toddler for all I care, but that doesn't entitle you do a childrens allowance.
Call yourself a woman if you want, but that doesnt entitle you to do everything that a biological woman can.

smacl wrote: »

Hmm, you you say



and the peer reviewed journal says...



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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Weepsie wrote: »

Lance doped to purposefully gain advantage. Pantani the same, Ben Johnson the same. They all doped to enhance performance. This is completely and utterly different

You keep trying to draw similarities to this and other things which are absolutely poles apart and then accuse others of deflecting, or not backing up their point whne you have utterly failed to do so yourself, all while managing to be derogatory and inflame something which you evidently have no understanding of and think of it as a very black and white issue which it isn't.

It's ignorant at best

So being a man is not any kind of advantage in a sporting context.
So let’s just have the Wimbledon fortnight next June, one big draw culminating in the Wimbledon Final on the second Sunday?

wexie wrote: »

Yet you are happy to state that 'transwomen.are.women' and accept every one to just accept that?

Seems to me there might be a few shades of grey indeed

Do you know any? Try say it to their face that they're not women

One of the difficulties with understanding cycling performance is that the physiological traits which separate the elite from the also-rans aren't physically obvious.

But they are there, and they do differ by born gender.

So maybe the general case surrounding this issue of trans-people is easier to reason about in sports where the physiological traits are more obvious.

For instance, the average height of an NBA player is 6 feet 11 inches, and armspans of well over 7 feet are typical.

So if an averagely sized and proportioned NBA player were to transition to female and compete in womens' basketball, they would probably be the best player on earth, regardless of their hormone levels. Would that be fair? I don't know. I don't want to rob anyone of their athletic career through exclusionary rules, but it would seem like a somewhat odd outcome.

And hypothetically, if womens' basketball were to attract similar compensation to the mens game (say, by making it a legal requirement for the salary pools to be equal, which an advocate of equality might consider a good idea) there would be huge financial incentives for people to switch gender, since the average NBA player earns over $6m a year.

Maybe that would be OK? For the womens' game to be entirely dominated by trans players?

This may seem to be an absurd argument, since there several unlikely factors that would have to come together to make that happen.

But this is as much an argument about broad principles as a micro outcomes. There is strong whiff of "values" coming from either side of the argument.

ford2600 wrote: »

P1ck a fcuking side

Bear with me, I'm in the process of transitioning from one to the other.