• 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

Brainster said:
And age groups as well--the guy in the OP won the age 35-39 championship.
Click to expand...

Which brings up another parallel: is it OK to have, say, a 25 year old cyclist enter a 50 to 60 year old division if they "identify" as being older?
 
Ziggurat said:
Would it bother you if an adult entered and won a writing contest meant for children? Would you be confused about why it bothered other people?
Click to expand...

Would he spend more time than anyone else in the thread posting about the subject to insist it isn't worth talking about?
:i:
 
Ziggurat said:
Would it bother you if an adult entered and won a writing contest meant for children? Would you be confused about why it bothered other people?
Click to expand...

"Bother" me? I would think the adult was misguided and possibly mentally ill, and probably feel pity for them. If they had to compete against children they can't have thought much of their own work.
 
Cavemonster said:
Would he spend more time than anyone else in the thread posting about the subject to insist it isn't worth talking about?
:i:
Click to expand...

Sigh. I'm disagreeing with the valuation of the bicycle race and the subsequent need for outrage. I'm not saying nobody should be speaking about it.
 
Cavemonster said:
Would he spend more time than anyone else in the thread posting about the subject to insist it isn't worth talking about?
:i:
Click to expand...

TM wants someone to justify this in broader terms, so I'll go ahead and give a broader justification.

Here's the fundamental question at stake: is it OK to use categories for people? Can these categories be objective, or can they only be subjective?

Rachel McKinnon is basically arguing that you cannot use objective categories for people, only subjective categories are acceptable. At the moment, that view is being applied to something "trivial" and "unimportant". But this is just the camel's nose. It won't end here.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Bother" me? I would think the adult was misguided and possibly mentally ill, and probably feel pity for them. If they had to compete against children they can't have thought much of their own work.
Click to expand...

That answers my first question, but not my second one.
 
Ziggurat said:
TM wants someone to justify this in broader terms, so I'll go ahead and give a broader justification.

Here's the fundamental question at stake: is it OK to use categories for people? Can these categories be objective, or can they only be subjective?

Rachel McKinnon is basically arguing that you cannot use objective categories for people, only subjective categories are acceptable. At the moment, that view is being applied to something "trivial" and "unimportant". But this is just the camel's nose. It won't end here.
Click to expand...

And what is the end of this slippery slope you're envisioning? Will it spread as far as women's badminton competitions? Croquet championships? My god, even...ice dancing?!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Sigh. I'm disagreeing with the valuation of the bicycle race and the subsequent need for outrage. I'm not saying nobody should be speaking about it.
Click to expand...

Who here is arguing that this justifies any particular level of outrage?

Everyone except you is saying that it's worth discussing and you're arguing against them.

Sigh indeed.
 
Cavemonster said:
Who here is arguing that this justifies any particular level of outrage?

Everyone except you is saying that it's worth discussing and you're arguing against them.

Sigh indeed.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's not worth fussing about, not that it's not worth discussing.

Accept that your brilliant gotcha (and very original emoticon) just don't work this time.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you're not interested in taking this conversation seriously, I certainly can't make you. But pretending there isn't more at stake won't make it so.
Click to expand...

That's the second time you've declared that I'm not being serious, and ordered me to leave the thread. I wonder which came first: your psychic mindreading ability, or your authority on this board? I hope you don't abuse your power for evil.

As for your links, no, it does not necessarily follow that a given individual winning a bicycle race leads to insurance underwriting changes and rape. In the first instance, insurance underwriting probably shouldn't be permitted to discriminate based on sex anyway. In the second instance, prison mismanagement that permits violence is a problem regardless of the sexes of the prisoners.
 
TragicMonkey said:
That's the second time you've declared that I'm not being serious, and ordered me to leave the thread.
Click to expand...

I never ordered you to leave the thread. I suggested what was proper to do (as have you), but that doesn't constitute an order, which I am not in a position to make or enforce.

As for your links, no, it does not necessarily follow that a given individual winning a bicycle race leads to insurance underwriting changes and rape.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about anything necessarily following? I'm discussing what questions are at stake. And it's the same question in all these cases. They are related, even if they don't absolutely determine the outcome of each other.

In the first instance, insurance underwriting probably shouldn't be permitted to discriminate based on sex anyway.
Click to expand...

The beneficiaries of that discrimination are likely to feel otherwise, but perhaps.

In the second instance, prison mismanagement that permits violence is a problem regardless of the sexes of the prisoners.
Click to expand...

And you can't imagine how making gender arbitrary could exacerbate that problem?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Because the proper response to the ridiculous is amusement or perplexity, not anger.
Click to expand...

Humans frequently don't do what is proper. If this confuses you (and you expressed confusion), then you don't understand humans.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In the greater scheme of things exactly how important are sporting competitions? What is the downside to Person A winning Event B instead of Person C? These are games, aren't they? By definition recreation, not work?
Click to expand...

I'd guess they're important for people competing and people watching.
 
Ok, instead of grouping races by sex or gender, we now need to group the races by Chromosome. XX,XY,extra, less, indeterminate. Problem solved. Maybe. Can you identify as different chromosome?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Very likely. Unfortunately fairness is not guaranteed in life. A competitor with 0.02 percent better lung capacity has an unfair advantage over one who does not. Who decides where the lines of fairness should be drawn?
Click to expand...

All true. Presumably you have no objection to abolishing weight classes and male-female segregation in sports?

TragicMonkey said:
Suppose your doomsday scenario occurs, and women don't win these contests.

And? What's the harm in that? Aside from hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

I love how it's ok to discriminate against 49.85% of the population, but not against 0.15%. According to your post, that is.

TragicMonkey said:
And the continued existence of a particular sport is important why? And so is the ability of some people to make money from it?
Click to expand...

Dude, are you bobbing the threat right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom