• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

JoeMorgue said:
The problem is we established the "gender is fluid" in other context without "but not chromosonal gender" caveat.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's an insurmountable problem, though.

What's needed is a clarification of language and concepts. In the past history of testing for sports eligibility, sloppy inaccurate ideas have been promoted: that many sports are or should be segregated by gender, and that genetic testing (karyotyping) reveals ones "true" gender.

The latter notion is false; therefore the former one can't hold. We cut out the "gender" middleperson and say instead that some sports are or should be segregated by karyotype, and that karyotyping reveals ones karyotype. Both are much more defensible claims.
 
Roboramma said:
Why would you assume that someone siting a source endorses everything that the source endorses? He was citing the source in respect to the facts, nothing else.
Click to expand...


Except that going to LifeSiteNews for "facts" on transpeople is like going to Stormfront for "facts" on Jews and African Americans. It's highly suspect at best, and extremely likely to be either bald-faced lies or so manipulated and out-of-context as to be little better than bald-faced lies.

If you can't find verification of the information from a more reliable mainstream source, that should make you question how valid the information is that you're disseminating.
 
luchog said:
Except that going to LifeSiteNews for "facts" on transpeople is like going to Stormfront for "facts" on Jews and African Americans. It's highly suspect at best, and extremely likely to be either bald-faced lies or so manipulated and out-of-context as to be little better than bald-faced lies.

If you can't find verification of the information from a more reliable mainstream source, that should make you question how valid the information is that you're disseminating.
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that he was citing was this quote from the OP (which he quoted from the article I guess):

Rachel McKinnon, a Canadian-born philosophy professor, just beat every women (sic) aged 35-39 at this year’s Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) Masters Track Cycling World Championships ... despite being a biological male.
Click to expand...

It's possible that that's false, but is that what you're questioning? If so, then sure, I understand the potential issues with the source. If not, then the source doesn't seem to matter.

Here's another source of the same story:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...n/news-story/ba61a67990321e7cc8529962323f2d0b

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...ransgender-woman-win-track-world-title-397473

https://www.outsports.com/2018/10/16/17980010/trans-athlete-cycle-rachel-mckinnon-twitter

That last is firmly on McKinnon's side on the issue, but it is still reporting that this happened.

Maybe you're objecting to some other facts in the OP other than the fact that McKinnon is transgender and competed in and won a women's cycling event? If so, which ones?
 
Please note that when admins or mods participate in threads outside FMF, they are posting as ordinary members; do not make their admin or mod status part of the debate. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes I did.

Really, Darat, now you just look foolish.
Click to expand...
You seem to have lost track of the discussion. Reread the discussion and you will see that you've not provided contradictory evidence to what I actually posted rather than the fantasy of what you seem to have imagined I posted.
 
Darat said:
You seem to have lost track of the discussion. Reread the discussion and you will see that you've not provided contradictory evidence to what I actually posted rather than the fantasy of what you seem to have imagined I posted.
Click to expand...

Nobody is buying you schtick, Darat. You made a bad argument, you can't back it up with anything, you've been called out by multiple people in multiple ways, you have failed to address any of the objections raised, and now you're trying to simply pretend away anything contradictory. Who do you imagine you're fooling?
 
Ziggurat said:
Nobody is buying you schtick, Darat. You made a bad argument, you can't back it up with anything, you've been called out by multiple people in multiple ways, you have failed to address any of the objections raised, and now you're trying to simply pretend away anything contradictory. Who do you imagine you're fooling?
Click to expand...
What bad argument did I make? That segregation in many of the sports that first became organised 100 or so years ago was because of attitudes about what was suitable for women? I've presented evidence for that or do you not believe the FAs own official history?
 
Darat said:
What bad argument did I make? That segregation in many of the sports that first became organised 100 or so years ago was because of attitudes about what was suitable for women? I've presented evidence for that or do you not believe the FAs own official history?
Click to expand...

Think there might be a mixing of the arguments as to the historical reason womens sport was separated and the reason it is now even though women have achieved a level of equality

Historically you are correct.

In the modern day it is now fairness

(Though I imagine there might have been a pinch of fairness historically as well tbh)
 
Darat said:
What bad argument did I make? That segregation in many of the sports that first became organised 100 or so years ago was because of attitudes about what was suitable for women? I've presented evidence for that or do you not believe the FAs own official history?
Click to expand...

That segregation today remains in place because of attitudes about what was suitable for women.

Otherwise what does the history have to do with the topic under discussion?
 
Roboramma said:
That segregation today remains in place because of attitudes about what was suitable for women.

Otherwise what does the history have to do with the topic under discussion?
Click to expand...

But I haven't made that argument.

What I did say is that we do see some of the results of that discrimination even today. For instance womens football originally drew as big (and sometimes bigger crowds) than the mens football until it was in effect banned by the FA, it's popularity still hasn't recovered from that discrimination happening based "…the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.." and until very recently was very much underfunded (and often still is comparatively underfunded). One can't ignore the results of such discrimination if one wants to understand the state of "womens" sports today.

I really have struggled to understand why this is apparently so controversial when the history of discrimination against females competing in sport is so well documented.
 
Roboramma said:
That segregation today remains in place because of attitudes about what was suitable for women.

Otherwise what does the history have to do with the topic under discussion?
Click to expand...

The origins of the segregation? In many sports there was, in the far past, no competition at all - or at best purely casual competition - because those sports were considered 'unladylike' or too physically demanding. As attitudes changed organised competition evolved but with segregation by sex in the interest of 'fairness'. That segregation mostly remains and for the same reason. If an entirely new sport were introduced than we might skip straight to 'fairness', but for most sports there has been an evolution.

I can't for the life of me understand why some people here are piling into Darat so, er, vigorously.
 
Darat said:
What bad argument did I make? That segregation in many of the sports that first became organised 100 or so years ago was because of attitudes about what was suitable for women? I've presented evidence for that or do you not believe the FAs own official history?
Click to expand...

It's bad because it doesn't tell us why, now that those attitudes and reasons are no longer relevant, we still segregate. You know full well why we still segregate.

It's bad because no one asked why segregation in sports happened in the first place. The question was about why it's still so now.
 
Darat said:
But I haven't made that argument.

What I did say is that we do see some of the results of that discrimination even today. For instance womens football originally drew as big (and sometimes bigger crowds) than the mens football until it was in effect banned by the FA, it's popularity still hasn't recovered from that discrimination happening based "…the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.." and until very recently was very much underfunded (and often still is comparatively underfunded). One can't ignore the results of such discrimination if one wants to understand the state of "womens" sports today.

I really have struggled to understand why this is apparently so controversial when the history of discrimination against females competing in sport is so well documented.
Click to expand...


This bit is the problem

The fact is now in the professional era with elite athletes, womens football is just a bit crap to watch compared mens

Like womens rugby, or rowing, or pick most sports

And in this new age money goes to those who point the most eyeballs towards the screen

I would take issue with you that female participation isn't encourage by the way.

They just aren't as saleable
 
Show jumping (riding horses over various jumps, often in indoor arenas) and similar horse riding events such as three day eventing have long (always?) had men and women competing against each other in the elite events.

Of course, the horse does the bulk of the physical work, and any disadvantage due to women's generally lower strength is probably compensated by their generally lower weight.

It does seem to show that there is no prejudice against men and women competing on equal terms in disciplines where they are actually roughly equal in ability.
 
ceptimus said:
Show jumping (riding horses over various jumps, often in indoor arenas) and similar horse riding events such as three day eventing have long (always?) had men and women competing against each other in the elite events.

Of course, the horse does the bulk of the physical work, and any disadvantage due to women's generally lower strength is probably compensated by their generally lower weight.

It does seem to show that there is no prejudice against men and women competing on equal terms in disciplines where they are actually roughly equal in ability.
Click to expand...

What sex is the horse?
 
Belz... said:
Joking aside, are there differences between female and male horse performance? Do they always use one over the other in races?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I just hope they don't do to male human athletes what they do to a lot of male horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom