Is this cool?

orraloon

Imposter wrote:

Does anyone know what level McKinnon was riding at before the switch to female?

Not 100% on this but my interpretation from listening to the (edited) Q&A on the VN podcast is that only took up cycling after move to US, which again I understand to be post transition, via getting into spin classes in the gym. So zero involvement before the switch. But pls correct if I misunderstand.

DeVlaeminck

Webboo wrote:

I’m sure it’s just my imagination but the guy holding her up at the start seemed to be reaching a long way under her saddle.

THere are so many jokes you could make but it'd be quite wrong to do so, it might end up inflaming the situation and lead to one of the other riders taking matters into their own hands and pulling her off.

timoid.

Wheelspinner wrote:

Mackinnon wasn't the fastest qualifier in her sprint event - came in second, and the times of the top 4 were extremely close in that qual. In the subsequent eliminations rounds, the times posted by the other competitors in winning their quarter and semi finals were still pretty much the same - quicker or slower by a few tenths/hundredths, but basically no different.

The winning time in the final was no different, and the bronze medal races were won in same or even slightly quicker time.

If you can be bothered checking the other events (age groups) or mens equivalent, the gap between winner and minor placings in speed/time whatever was very similar.

Mackinnon was not a standout, vastly better then the opposition racer, just one of the top 4-6 of them in her age group. Whether her results are because she's not had to work as hard as her opposition due to a perceived advantage from the male background, or whether because she's just a better sprint racer than the others is hard to tell.

If this was Olympics or the real World Champs, it might be worth caring about, but since it is Masters age group racing it seems pretty insignificant really.

Quick - name the winner of the Mens 55+ Pursuit Gold Medal.

See? Who cares? A trans-gender person "won" one event out of about 100. Big deal.

Who cares? Everyone else who competed against her. Especially those who finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Also this is the thin end of the wedge. With this thinking future generations of biological women will be shut out from winning at sport. Horrible.

Live as a woman if you will, but don't screw up women's sport to demonstrate your rights or make a activism point.

timoid.

JeemyW wrote:

Very interesting stuff. I found these quotes here, and I have removed the ones that show the advantages of an XX chromosome set, which are less relevant to sport. The point being that an XY chromosome set gives a sporting advantage to the person that is likely relevant to better cycling performance.

Lets just assume Men = XY and Women = XX, I don't think that's too far a stretch!

Men are physically stronger than women, who have, on average, less total muscle mass, both in absolute terms and relative to total body mass. The greater muscle mass of men is the result of testosterone-induced muscular hypertrophy. Men also have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.

Men have greater cardiovascular reserve, with larger hearts, greater lung volume per body mass, a higher red blood cell count, and higher haemoglobin. They also have higher circulating clotting factors, which leads to faster healing of wounds.

And perhaps less relevant, but interesting:

Men are taller than women, by an average of about 15cm or 6 inches. The average adult man in America is 175.8cm tall, versus 162cm for the average adult woman.

So the provable facts state that if you are born with XY chromosomes, on average you will have larger lungs, heart, muscle mass, stronger bones and ligaments, throughout your development, primarily due to "testosterone-induced muscular hypertrophy". Even if you argue that in a particular sporting discipline, this is not necessarily advantageous, its provably different enough to justify two classes of competition, traditionally "men's" and "women's" cycling/tennis/why.

Dabber wrote:

Did McKinnon develop a musculature, in the years prior to deciding they would now call themselves a female, more akin to that of a male? Highly likely I would have thought.

From what I've read McKinnon started transitioning at 29 years old or so. Its pretty much agreed that full body development is complete by 18-21.

So my 2 cents is that regardless of current testosterone levels, which might affect stamina and performance in competition and trading, this person has 8-11, or 29 years of advantage, dependent how you view it. Either way its a huge disparity.

Effectively McKinnon was illegally doping the T for 29 years, then stopped, but was still allowed to compete.

“We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society,” McKinnon says, “and not be recognized that way in sports. … Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn’t be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.”

I am sure this won't be a popular opinion, but I feel this is simply a case of a selfish person using an unfair advantage to win. If we cannot focus on performance advantage, then what is the point of fair competition?

I feel McKinnon's approach is very disingenuous; it may just be his/her personality. But I think its cheating....

It all comes down to what is or isn't "fair competition". I read up a lot about it; I am not a competitive person at all so its interesting to me - all my family and friends are competitive, athletes (mainly rugby, cycling, golf), and some are pro or semi-pro. I found a good article here, and possibly a relevant quote.

One 2010 study published in the Journal of Economic Psychology found that competitive pressure had no effect on a subject’s ability to complete a difficult task — but it did make subjects substantially more likely to cheat, especially if the task was exceptionally challenging for them.

One could argue that higher testosterone levels make one more aggressive and competitive.

If one is angry with Lance Armstrong for lying about his P-E drug use, if it was "the most devious sustained deception ever perpetrated in world sporting history", then this person's refusal to be T-limited must be comparable, no?

I agree it doesn't matter over much but it IS interesting.

Also, when reading about it I found, in reference to the comment above about Eastern European and Russian athletes who had doped on T for a long time eventually transitioning, the fact that Armstrong accused the test labs of faking his samples. Apparently this was a genuine tactic used during the Cold War both to conceal doping within host countries, and discredit competitors.

This is spot on. The physiogical advantatges of being born male are undeniable.

I am a very average athlete. On Strava my times are generally about top 25% for men, top 5% for women (I would be top 10 in many KOM segments). With structured training, I could probably be very competitive with the women, but would still have no hope competing with the men.

arnuf

Timoid. wrote:

I am a very average athlete. On Strava my times are generally about top 25% for men, top 5% for women (I would be top 10 in many KOM segments). With structured training, I could probably be very competitive with the women, but would still have no hope competing with the men.

I'm sure this is all quite impressive, i fail to see how this is relevant to the question whether all women are allowed to compete in women's sport.

bompington

arnuf wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

I am a very average athlete. On Strava my times are generally about top 25% for men, top 5% for women (I would be top 10 in many KOM segments). With structured training, I could probably be very competitive with the women, but would still have no hope competing with the men.

I'm sure this is all quite impressive, i fail to see how this is relevant to the question whether all women are allowed to compete in women's sport.

Currently all women are allowed to compete in Women's sport. What is being debated here is whether those who have merely declared themselves to be women in contradiction of physical reality, and who therefore have fundamental physical advantages over women, should be allowed to do so.

Vino'sGhost

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Webboo wrote:

I’m sure it’s just my imagination but the guy holding her up at the start seemed to be reaching a long way under her saddle.

THere are so many jokes you could make but it'd be quite wrong to do so, it might end up inflaming the situation and lead to one of the other riders taking matters into their own hands and pulling her off.

Im sure it wont cum to that

Vino'sGhost

Timoid. wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

Mackinnon wasn't the fastest qualifier in her sprint event - came in second, and the times of the top 4 were extremely close in that qual. In the subsequent eliminations rounds, the times posted by the other competitors in winning their quarter and semi finals were still pretty much the same - quicker or slower by a few tenths/hundredths, but basically no different.

The winning time in the final was no different, and the bronze medal races were won in same or even slightly quicker time.

If you can be bothered checking the other events (age groups) or mens equivalent, the gap between winner and minor placings in speed/time whatever was very similar.

Mackinnon was not a standout, vastly better then the opposition racer, just one of the top 4-6 of them in her age group. Whether her results are because she's not had to work as hard as her opposition due to a perceived advantage from the male background, or whether because she's just a better sprint racer than the others is hard to tell.

If this was Olympics or the real World Champs, it might be worth caring about, but since it is Masters age group racing it seems pretty insignificant really.

Quick - name the winner of the Mens 55+ Pursuit Gold Medal.

See? Who cares? A trans-gender person "won" one event out of about 100. Big deal.

Who cares? Everyone else who competed against her. Especially those who finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Also this is the thin end of the wedge. With this thinking future generations of biological women will be shut out from winning at sport. Horrible.

Live as a woman if you will, but don't screw up women's sport to demonstrate your rights or make a activism point.

I agree but this "woman" is saying that the second place person is her firend so will be pleased for her win...

Also the point of this aggressive activism is to stifle debate so that trans people are treated as if they were women. in every area.

timoid.

arnuf wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

I am a very average athlete. On Strava my times are generally about top 25% for men, top 5% for women (I would be top 10 in many KOM segments). With structured training, I could probably be very competitive with the women, but would still have no hope competing with the men.

I'm sure this is all quite impressive, i fail to see how this is relevant to the question whether all women are allowed to compete in women's sport.

It's not impressive. That's the point. An also ran in a men's event will be competitive in a women's event.

The second placed finisher in this masters event was an elite rider who coaches others, this Rachel character had only started riding her bike. She won because of her male physiology. The other podium finishers worked a damn sight harder to be beaten by someone with an unfair advantage.

mrb123

Webboo wrote:

I’m sure it’s just my imagination but the guy holding her up at the start seemed to be reaching a long way under her saddle.

Checking for these?
http://www.balls.bike/

StillGoing

Mental illness is a chemical imbalance. They are simply mentally ill. Born a woman, you're always a woman. Born a man, you're always a man. In the eyes of the sane, there's no cross over or in-between. Live as the opposite sex if you wish, but it should not be forced on the rest of us. If the intolerance is bad now, wait until the law fully changes and the discrimination cases start flying in.

exlaser

philthy3 wrote:

Mental illness is a chemical imbalance. They are simply mentally ill. Born a woman, you're always a woman. Born a man, you're always a man. In the eyes of the sane, there's no cross over or in-between. Live as the opposite sex if you wish, but it should not be forced on the rest of us. If the intolerance is bad now, wait until the law fully changes and the discrimination cases start flying in.

You are entitled to your view, but this statement is medically incorrect.

Wheelspinner

Timoid. wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

Mackinnon wasn't the fastest qualifier in her sprint event - came in second, and the times of the top 4 were extremely close in that qual. In the subsequent eliminations rounds, the times posted by the other competitors in winning their quarter and semi finals were still pretty much the same - quicker or slower by a few tenths/hundredths, but basically no different.

The winning time in the final was no different, and the bronze medal races were won in same or even slightly quicker time.

If you can be bothered checking the other events (age groups) or mens equivalent, the gap between winner and minor placings in speed/time whatever was very similar.

Mackinnon was not a standout, vastly better then the opposition racer, just one of the top 4-6 of them in her age group. Whether her results are because she's not had to work as hard as her opposition due to a perceived advantage from the male background, or whether because she's just a better sprint racer than the others is hard to tell.

If this was Olympics or the real World Champs, it might be worth caring about, but since it is Masters age group racing it seems pretty insignificant really.

Quick - name the winner of the Mens 55+ Pursuit Gold Medal.

See? Who cares? A trans-gender person "won" one event out of about 100. Big deal.

Who cares? Everyone else who competed against her. Especially those who finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Also this is the thin end of the wedge. With this thinking future generations of biological women will be shut out from winning at sport. Horrible.

Live as a woman if you will, but don't screw up women's sport to demonstrate your rights or make a activism point.

Why don't you have a look at the results?

Let's have a look at those who competed against her. In the specific event McKinnon won, there were only 11 riders that even registered for qualifying. Eleven. From the whole world. McKinnon from Canada, 1 rider from Netherlands, and the other 9 were from the USA. Hardly surprising since the event was held in Los Angeles. Not exactly a big spread of nations for such an important World Championships, eh?

Of the 10 that actually started qualifying, the first 6 were between 11.9 and 12.4 seconds for the 200m - close enough to be competitive. The remaining 4 were so far behind to be considered irrelevant. So, a "World Champion" had only to beat 5 others. Oh wait, correction, the fastest qualifier withdrew, so only 4 other riders. Only had to race 2, because they didn't apparently bother with the 1/4 final. The times in all those races suggest that the result was not about outright speed, because they were relatively slow. In the final, where they both qualified in 12 seconds or under, yet the second heat was almost 13 seconds as the 200m time. Sounds like tactics, not just power won the day.

But apparently you think this is the beginning of the end of women's sport globally as we know it. Really? Five - count 'em, 5 (!) women and one transgender, representing three entirely first-world countries, had the time and money to bother going to LA for a fun weekend on the track to race for a completely phony "World Championship".

This has about as much real significance in the sporting world as a jousting match at the village fair.

But carry on with the paranoia that there are hordes of blokes just busting for the chance to don a frock, called themselves female and go out there and win something for once in their life.

Jesus wept.

StillGoing

Wheelspinner wrote:

But carry on with the paranoia that there are hordes of blokes just busting for the chance to don a frock, called themselves female and go out there and win something for once in their life.

Jesus wept.

Even one bloke competing in women's events or being admitted to a female only body/organisation is one too many for me.

StillGoing

exlaser wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Mental illness is a chemical imbalance. They are simply mentally ill. Born a woman, you're always a woman. Born a man, you're always a man. In the eyes of the sane, there's no cross over or in-between. Live as the opposite sex if you wish, but it should not be forced on the rest of us. If the intolerance is bad now, wait until the law fully changes and the discrimination cases start flying in.

You are entitled to your view, but this statement is medically incorrect.

Go on then, enlighten me. If they're born male, but think they want to be a female to the extremes of removing body parts etc, is that not a chemical imbalance that is causing it, or do you believe that its just an emotion that they can't turn off or something?

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

exlaser wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Mental illness is a chemical imbalance. They are simply mentally ill. Born a woman, you're always a woman. Born a man, you're always a man. In the eyes of the sane, there's no cross over or in-between. Live as the opposite sex if you wish, but it should not be forced on the rest of us. If the intolerance is bad now, wait until the law fully changes and the discrimination cases start flying in.

You are entitled to your view, but this statement is medically incorrect.

Go on then, enlighten me. If they're born male, but think they want to be a female to the extremes of removing body parts etc, is that not a chemical imbalance that is causing it, or do you believe that its just an emotion that they can't turn off or something?

Exlaser may have been commenting on your claim that 'mental illness is a chemical imbalance' - which is factually incorrect. There is no single biological cause for mental illness. Either way, such a simplistic approach as yours is not helpful and implies the kind of intolerance which you claim to be against.

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

exlaser wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Mental illness is a chemical imbalance. They are simply mentally ill. Born a woman, you're always a woman. Born a man, you're always a man. In the eyes of the sane, there's no cross over or in-between. Live as the opposite sex if you wish, but it should not be forced on the rest of us. If the intolerance is bad now, wait until the law fully changes and the discrimination cases start flying in.

You are entitled to your view, but this statement is medically incorrect.

Go on then, enlighten me. If they're born male, but think they want to be a female to the extremes of removing body parts etc, is that not a chemical imbalance that is causing it, or do you believe that its just an emotion that they can't turn off or something?

Exlaser may have been commenting on your claim that 'mental illness is a chemical imbalance' - which is factually incorrect. There is no single biological cause for mental illness. Either way, such a simplistic approach as yours is not helpful and implies the kind of intolerance which you claim to be against.

Depends which corner of the room you sit in. I myself suffer with bouts of the black dog through PTSD and go my consultants diagnosis of chemical imbalance by an over production of cortisol.

Wheelspinner

philthy3 wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

But carry on with the paranoia that there are hordes of blokes just busting for the chance to don a frock, called themselves female and go out there and win something for once in their life.

Jesus wept.

Even one bloke competing in women's events or being admitted to a female only body/organisation is one too many for me.

Well you're 40 years too late to start complaining.

Dr Renee Richards.

Vino'sGhost

Good news from the US, Trumpy is going to pass a law that defines a persons sex as that which its genitals indicate it it at birth.

Sorted.

iainf72

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Good news from the US, Trumpy is going to pass a law that defines a persons sex as that which its genitals indicate it it at birth.

Sorted.

Does that mean they'll recognise male, female and intersex then?

JeemyW

Well you're 40 years too late to start complaining.

Dr Renee Richards.

Even more curioser, "Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."

I also was discussing this elsewhere and found newspaper articles about the same occurrence in wrestling (the person concerned is young, and winning championships outright) and rugby (where its obvious from pictures there is a ginormous weight advantage, and the person concerned is also trying to fight being held to any kind of testosterone limitation). I just don't have time to start checking them and putting them up here just now.

Its a hugely difficult issue. Once somebody identifies as a different gender from birth, its unfair to prevent them playing the sport they love. But I don't think its incorrect to say that if they play that sport on an individual basis against people of the opposite gender, there will be a large disparity, and in the case of genetic women competing against trans women, an insurmountable advantage to the trans women.

I'm not sure, or well-informed enough to know if even simply limiting testosterone removes that advantage enough to level the playing field. Removing the playing field entirely seems unfair, and even if there were enough trans people to have their own league, that's rather like segregation.

No easy answers but a few indisputable facts. Throwing those born genuinely intersex into the mix is yet another set of issues; I presume once the decision is made to live as female in this case, the testosterone-related advantages cease to be a factor much earlier than in the case of transitioning.

gweeds

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Good news from the US, Trumpy is going to pass a law that defines a persons sex as that which its genitals indicate it it at birth.

Sorted.

Handy, as it means we can legitimately call him a cunt.