Transgender cyclist wins women’s championship

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris(NJ)

Well-Known Member
#metoo! Oh wait...wrong thread.

Any response to this topic that doesn’t support the person in question is going to be viewed by as woman hating and trans gender hating. Soooo, not much point in people expressing their opinion. Opinions are no longer allowed in 2018.
 

Paul H

Fearless OOS Poser
#metoo! Oh wait...wrong thread.

Any response to this topic that doesn’t support the person in question is going to be viewed by as woman hating and trans gender hating. Soooo, not much point in people expressing their opinion. Opinions are no longer allowed in 2018.
There are competing values here that we strongly believe it which usually ends up in passionate debate.
I don't want to say there is no answer... I hope there is an answer but I think it will not be an easy answer.
 

BrianGT3

Well-Known Member
Team MTBNJ Halter's
It's a new frontier going forward and competition unfortunately becoming intermingled with politically, culturally and emotionally charged contentious subjects. Open honest conversation is important, as there is no easy answer or solution. It's up to the USAC and UCI to make the calls as they are the ones whom run these events. As of now all rules are being adhered to so whats the big issue? It's also up the competitors in these events as well. I hope they openly have the opportunity to share their feelings and opinion whether controversial or not. They also can choose whether or not to compete. The sanctioning bodies running these event will determine fairness going forward.

Male & Females are far far more similar than different. Yet, we need to acknowledge our physiology. What about differences in skeletal structures? Bone density? Muscle distribution and fiber composition? Tendon strength and connection points? How does this impact athletic performance? That's all open to debate. If people want to ignore all of the above I guess that's a solid arguement for abolishing Male & Female racing classes and strictly having open competition.
 

stb222

Love Drunk
Jerk Squad
A quote from the article posted from her:

"I train 15/20hrs/week, twice/day 5-6 days/week. Yeah....I just jumped off the couch and won. Transphobic bigots, y'all."

so.....
No one said you didn't do the work and this is the main problem I have with these arguments is that someone throws the flag on a sensitive subject and all the sudden it is "Transphobic bigots, y'all.". You are a hater, racist, phobic, the topic doesn't matter, everyone now needs to be sensitive of every single topic.

The current rules are the rules and like every rule / limit, someone will push the boundaries.

One year seems too short, but I guess in the absence of a biological passport for all athletes, what else can they go by?

Male & Females are far far more similar than different. Yet, we need to acknowledge our physiology. What about differences in skeletal structures? Bone density? Muscle distribution and fiber composition? Tendon strength and connection points? How does this impact athletic performance? That's all open to debate. If people want to ignore all of the above I guess that's a solid arguement for abolishing Male & Female racing classes and strictly having open competition.

I have a hard time understanding why the physiology items can be ignored.
 
Last edited:

RobW

Well-Known Member
Not sure what the quotes around person mean, but yes, what the USAC, WADA, the IOC and the UCI are saying is that anyone who identifies as a woman and has a qualifying testosterone level for one year prior to competition can compete as a woman. Rachel McKinnon met that requirement.
a person is- male or female, or trans man/trans woman- i didnt want to generalize to a specific group so i wasnt offending anyone.
 

Tim

aka sptimmy43
My opinion going forward is that all sports/competition should be "open." No distinctions should be made based on gender, weight, age, etc. Everyone and anyone can compete if they qualify based on ability.
 

rick81721

Lothar
My personal opinion ? I have to trust in the ruling bodies (interesting term in context?) to do their research, and establish the correct guidelines.

I don't have that much blind faith in ruling bodies. I think there is a component of kowtowing to political-correctness here.

In my opinion, "doctor" McKinnon, being born genetically male, and growing to adulthood as a physiologically and hormonally intact male, has a physical sports advantage over genetic females. Does anyone think if she were born with XX chromosomes instead of XY, she would have the same skeletal and muscular attributes she has today?
 

Norm

Mayor McCheese
Team MTBNJ Halter's
I was going to ask a question out of curiosity, but then I looked it up because I am sure it's an issue already. The question was one of women with naturally high testosterone levels. Sure enough, here you go:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dde2b7020fe6

This is the natural progression for this entire conversation. The women noted above will need to take birth control pills to lower their testosterone levels to X, whatever X is. This begs the next question, which is: why can't the women born with 1% of X then take testosterone to get to X? This is a big question. And I think it's fair.
 

a.s.

Well-Known Member
I don't have that much blind faith in ruling bodies. I think there is a component of kowtowing to political-correctness here.

In my opinion, "doctor" McKinnon, being born genetically male, and growing to adulthood as a physiologically and hormonally intact male, has a physical sports advantage over genetic females. Does anyone think if she were born with XX chromosomes instead of XY, she would have the same skeletal and muscular attributes she has today?

I agree!
 

rick81721

Lothar
I was going to ask a question out of curiosity, but then I looked it up because I am sure it's an issue already. The question was one of women with naturally high testosterone levels. Sure enough, here you go:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dde2b7020fe6

This is the natural progression for this entire conversation. The women noted above will need to take birth control pills to lower their testosterone levels to X, whatever X is. This begs the next question, which is: why can't the women born with 1% of X then take testosterone to get to X? This is a big question. And I think it's fair.

What I find interesting is that the above directly contradicts "doctor" McKinnon's "research". She claims: "There is no evidence that having a higher produced value of endogenous testosterone has any performance advantages at all. The evidence does not bear that out. So that is the second myth: the more testosterone you have, naturally, the better you are."

https://www.velonews.com/2018/10/ne...track-champion-and-transgender-athlete_480206

IAAF president Coe says: "Our evidence and data show that testosterone, either naturally produced or artificially inserted into the body, provides significant performance advantages in female athletes,”

Obviously, someone is wrong here.
 

pooriggy

Well-Known Member
Team MTBNJ Halter's
I don't understand why they are defining men and women by testosterone levels, since this can be highly variable.

Imo determination of sex should be based on chromosomes, XX is female, XY is male. Nothing you take can change your chromosomes.

I understand some people born XX identify better as XY and vice versa. I don't have a problem with what set of chromosomes you wish to identify with, however when it comes to competition I believe you should have to compete in the class that represents your chromosomes.
 

Santapez

Well-Known Member
Team MTBNJ Halter's
Ok. I got sucked in.

-We currently define different categories based on sex and ability, to allow people to have a space to fit in to race, at least at the amateur level. If Males/Females (sex, not gender) competed together overwhelmingly the men would dominate the women. Outliers can be pointed to, but in general the men are faster than the woman. Male bodies in general are better at most sports naturally.

-At the high end there's no distinction of levels. It's open, but based on sex. This is a best-of-the-best competition, therefore it's open. But it's split up between men and women because men have the natural advantage.

Genetics play a key part, and in sports genetics was something that is a known benefit, not something played with to level the playing field. Long arms help swimming, short femurs help in power lifting, lanky is good for endurance sports, thick ankles are good for power sports, long arms better for striking, etc. Naturally produced hormone levels are part of this. If a woman (or man) has naturally high T due to genetics or the diet they eat, then that's part of winning. Shit, natural genetics is what people point to when their country's team wins. Fans don't feel they have the bond with the athletes over the years of hard work it took to win, the bond is over being born in the same country. The guy with the funny mustache didn't sit there angry after the olympics that the Germans lost to Owens because of the coaching.

The splits have made two distinctions between the two major genetic differences, Male or Female to allow two classes. If it was fully open we'd pretty much cease seeing women even competing in sports at any high level.
 

Juggernaut

Master of the Metaphor
This is WAY too complicated to get resolved in this forum.

What is true for Cycling for example with the genetic/biological passports makes some sense to be used as a guide; for other sports like MMA for example, I don’t think it’s enough. For an athlete like Cyborg who competes (competed) as a female, the “residual training effects” of the T levels prior to the Carano fight (I’m referring to the ground breaking 2009 bout with Gina Carano) was evident. Carano was the better technical fighter but could not overcome the “significant” strength advantage of Cyborg.

Yes, it’s common for there to be a strength discrepancy between fighters but this was on another level.

If the Transgender population increases, serious considerations must be given to removing the “gender” component all together. At elite levels you could segregate classes (if that is deemed appropriate) based on a “passport” levels TBD, for “sport class” athletes who knows.., maybe randomly split the field into a bunch of groups blind by entry number?

Anyway you slice it I’m DFL so it’s not gonna impact me. :)
 
Last edited:

manmachine

New Member
I think the person having developed as a male, going through puberty as male, resulting in a male body gives this person an unfair advantage (in physical competition) over women who dont have a male body. Just like drugs and blood doping create an unfair advantage.

To me this issue is about trying to keep an even playing field

I think this is a respectful and reasonable opinion. So I similarly request respectful responses to my opinion

100% AGREE. It is SO funny, how if you happen to have a dissenting pov, then it's somehow it is rendered (or attempted to be) invalid or it reaps scorn. :rolleyes:
 

Patrick

Overthinking the draft from the basement already
Staff member
Ok. I got sucked in.

...Male bodies in general are better at most sports naturally.

... natural advantage.

The splits have made two distinctions between the two major genetic differences, Male or Female to allow two classes. If it was fully open we'd pretty much cease seeing women even competing in sports at any high level.

1. be very careful when you get home...

2.
are there differences in physiology? Sure,
But naturally better? I'd watch that.

Differences are:

biological/genetic/heredity
AND
environmental/social ?

We are now in a time when young women and men are not to be bound by old cultural norms. At least in our liberal part of the world.
At some point, perhaps actual sex gender reassignment will not be necessary to feel "whole" - because it will be perfectly normal to live anywhere on the spectrum of traditional roles
without concern for birth gender.

now that young and gifted women are encouraged, and have role models, perhaps the gap at the pointy end will start to close.
For sports and all things. It is going to take time, maybe a couple generations? We see laws put in place to accelerate the closure of this gap.

---

so as a guy, i accept another guy is better than me at something. maybe genetic, maybe environment, maybe a hundred other things. I'm good with that.
I also accept that there are women much better than me at just as many things for the same reasons.

the question does come down to, for a female competitor, is this one of the things they can accept?
i'm in no position to answer that -

do i think it is an unfair advantage? yes. (i just gave an opinion!)
do i think they shouldn't be allowed to compete at the elite level? i'll take the lame position, not my call. But am interested in how it evolves, and eventually resolves.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom