Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

The previous record was set in 1995 - 23 years previous (this record was set in 2018). The changes in bike frames, and more importantly gearing, have been huge since 1995. The average speed in the Tour de France increases by around 0.42% each year. If you take that as a metric, the speed increase would be circa 9.66% over a 23-year period. The previous record set in 1995 was 167mph and if you apply the average TDF speed increase of 9.66% in the period, the expected speed would be 183.13mph - her record was 183.9.

Secondly, a lot of this record is about control and not raw power as they are towed for the first two miles of the five-mile course and released at a speed of over 100 mph. It's worth noting the article doesn't say she released at 100mph, it says she released at a speed over 100mph. This could be 100.05mph, or it could be 112mph - this has a huge impact.

The reason I am pointing this out is that you chose a very specialised event to demonstrate that a woman is capable of beating a man in a sporting event. I wonder how many people attempt it, and how often - a very limited sample is nowhere near as accurate a predictor versus a large sample set.

It's also worth pointing out that aerodynamics plays a significant role in this, and women are slighter and more compact, therefore, it would give them an advantage - It's hard to quantify whether this advantage equalises, or is more of an advantage, compared to the extra power a man has. I'm only pointing this out as IMO, to use this as proof that a woman could beat a man physically, is flawed.

a) The point of comparison does work, because the basis of the comparison is common to both circumstances, ie - discrimination, and whether or not that discrimination can be justified. The point being made is that ‘the science’ which was used then to justify discrimination, just didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Scientific research later showed that the arguments being used to support discrimination had no scientific merit. Didn’t take a genius to work that out in the first place, but hey ho. There is no contradiction whatsoever between fairness and inclusion, because the basis of what is fair or unfair can only be determined by including everyone first, and then determining what constitutes fair or unfair treatment, based upon reasonable grounds, as opposed claims that discrimination is supported by scientific evidence. That’s just plain old pseudoscience -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

b) You’re doing it again, by asking is it ethical for you to compete in the Transplant Games, when the question is rather whether or not it is fair to exclude a person who’s received a transplant from competing in the Olympic Games or athletics competitions organised by the WA or any other sporting body on the basis that their new organs confer an unfair advantage over their competitors. Evidence could only be anecdotal at best, particularly if they were winning competitions. Anecdotal evidence could not legitimately be considered scientific evidence. You can’t argue that there’s anyone seeking an organ transplant to compete in the World Transplant Games so there’s no reason to assume anyone is claiming to be transgender solely because they’re a bit shìt in the category they are limited to by current rules, created not by nature, biology nor science, but by man, or, humans at least (I don’t mean to labour the point, merely to cover all the bases, I’m sure you get the idea), and they want to hoover up all the medals in a category in which they would be perceived to have any advantage whatsoever, ignoring the glaringly obvious disadvantage that, well, they’re assumed to be cheating right from the off merely because of their participation, and any achievements they make in their chosen sport will be tarnished with accusations of cheating or having an unfair advantage over other competitors.

Neither science nor time nor any sort of technological progress will have any bearing on the ability of anyone to compete in the category of their preferred gender, simply because those are not the factors which inhibit their participation.

The factor which inhibits their participation are the rules of the governing bodies of any sport. Those decisions are absolutely not driven by science, they are driven by political ideology, one which means that competition is limited to regarding sports competitions as a demonstration of superiority, and you can’t do that if you’re just going to allow anyone to compete, because then you can’t demonstrate how superior you are to everyone else if everyone else can demonstrate that they can do the same thing as you can do! Kinda tears the arse outta the whole concept really, that’s why it’s necessary to exclude people and call it being fair to everyone, because events like the Olympics where there are eight times as many media people for every athlete are big money generators where most of the actual participants won’t get any financial benefit, they’ll be lucky to go home with a goodie bag they can flog on eBay to fund their further development and career in their chosen sport, while large corporates use the events to advertise their latest products, and then there’s the odd upstart who tries to use the event to further their own political ideology, knowing that it’s being broadcast to a global audience.

Took the words right out of my mouth there.

From the article:

Great achievement all the same, but sod all to do with the sex of the cyclist.

Figure out a system of handicapping athletes in certain sports like track and field possibly. Extra weight and so on.

Ah yes, the novel length responses are back with very little to add to the argument in the slightest, yet again.

What kind of shite is this? Science is very basis of separating sports into male and female because it is SCIENTIFIC fact that male and female bodies are different in many ways, not just because of their genitals.

Again, I have said this to you before, but bears repeating for some of the new comers in here that might not be familiar with your avoidance tactics. Males are typically taller than females, males have more muscle (particularly in the torso), males have larger bones, males have larger lunges which impacts exercise capacity and output over females.

Males have typically lesser amounts of body fat than females as well. Males produce more testosterone than females which impacts strength, muscle mass etc. It also plays a role in psychological performance around mood and confidence.

These are documented scientific facts. Nothing about the above is ideological at all.

This creates the need for separate categories of sport and games by sex because there is a very large difference between the two, and that is not a level playing field in the slightest.

Now I will wait for your long winded response with some weird links to do with nothing and say something about it being all systemic etc.

Probably yes.

The equipment is the important factor here. Even within that article there is mention of 2 other records:

This was set by a male, Todd Reichert.

A quick look at track cycling records show, surprise surprise, slower times for females over males. Males best time for the Flying 200m TT is by Mikhail Iakovlec with 9.099, female best is by Kelsey Mitchell at 10.154. If you do the hour record, Filippo Ganna travelled 56.792kms, Ellen van Dijk travelled 49.254kms in an hour.

Agreed. I am not saying historically that is the reason, I know that part.

As you say, it has little to no relevance to this issue or sports today.

So penalize the majority so a few can compete? Give me a break.

It was simply presented, I remarked it was simple.

A few folks have thusly presented the arguments against, and now we are all better informed on why handicapping in that manner is not workable.

I thought they meant the opposite, handicapping a trans woman who transitioned from adult male etc. not handicapping everyone in the women's/men's league to suit.