People would be "calling her a man" – Transgender cycling champ in online row with Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies

Shades wrote:

In this equality, diversity and fairness world if you apply something to a particular situation, in this case transgender equality in sport, eventually you run headlong into another policy; in this case transgender equality runs straight into clean-sport/cheating.  Could you put a transgender category into the Para-Olympics?  Labelling transgender as a disability?  Can you imagine the 'sh#t-storm'?

It's not specific to gender issues or even to an "equality, diversity and fairness world". It's simply that justice and equality occasionally conflict. 

bigbiker101 wrote:

Whilst I understand the debate here around what classifies a Man or a Women (or not as the case maybe), lets not lose sight that in this example there is no debate, Rachel was a Man... so should she be allowed to compete against women, for me the answer is an absolute No.

I would also suggest this... forget politically motivated governing bodies about the rights or wrongs, ask the female athletes if it is fair… I think we will find an overwhelming No and that to me is the end of the debate, as we will just see people stopping competing and the sport wrecked

Well, that's certainly one side of the debate. However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

Take the emotive side out of it, and you effectively have an athlete who has elected to have major surgery.

If an elite athlete chooses to undergo a hip operation, they accept that there will be a period of recovery during which they will be unable to compete.

If an elite athlete chooses to undergo gender reassignment treatment, they accept that there will be a period of transition during which they will be unable to compete.

srchar wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

Take the emotive side out of it, and you effectively have an athlete who has elected to have major surgery.

If an elite athlete chooses to undergo a hip operation, they accept that there will be a period of recovery during which they will be unable to compete.

If an elite athlete chooses to undergo gender reassignment treatment, they accept that there will be a period of transition during which they will be unable to compete.

A temporary competition ban might be considered acceptable, but then what happens with fully transitioned athletes? You'd have just the same situation where someone may have had years of high testosterone exposure and then be competing against significantly smaller women.

There's also the problem of XXY XYY XXX chromosomes whereby the owner can't have surgery and yet other competitors would feel cheated.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

Whilst I understand the debate here around what classifies a Man or a Women (or not as the case maybe), lets not lose sight that in this example there is no debate, Rachel was a Man... so should she be allowed to compete against women, for me the answer is an absolute No.

I would also suggest this... forget politically motivated governing bodies about the rights or wrongs, ask the female athletes if it is fair… I think we will find an overwhelming No and that to me is the end of the debate, as we will just see people stopping competing and the sport wrecked

Well, that's certainly one side of the debate. However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

There is more to performance than just testosterone, otherwise the only winners would be people who had the highest level.  I do not know how they would compete but that is a different issue, they shouldn't compete against biological women (or however we wish to classify them as), however there should be some way for transgener folk to compete, perhaps their own category, after all the special olympics has loads of different categories depending on their disability... and I'm not classifing transgener folk as disabled, I'm just citing an example, there has to be a way of solving this without damaging the sport which is exactly what is happening now.

bigbiker101 wrote:

there should be some way for transgener folk to compete

I don't see why. They can still do whatever sport they want to do, no one is stopping them, but to insist they be allowed to compete in the women's categories is PC entitlement gone mad. There are a million other hurdles for transgender folk to overcome, why hang your hat on this ludicrously contraversial peg.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

Whilst I understand the debate here around what classifies a Man or a Women (or not as the case maybe), lets not lose sight that in this example there is no debate, Rachel was a Man... so should she be allowed to compete against women, for me the answer is an absolute No.

I would also suggest this... forget politically motivated governing bodies about the rights or wrongs, ask the female athletes if it is fair… I think we will find an overwhelming No and that to me is the end of the debate, as we will just see people stopping competing and the sport wrecked

Well, that's certainly one side of the debate. However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

The fairly obvious one would be to compete against other trans athletes, though there is probably not enough in numbers to make it a compelling sport.

The likely solution would be for athletes to compete as their chosen gender up to the point at which they start earning serious money and winning championships.

The rights of trans women to be recognised as women in elite sports and the rights of (hate the word) cis women to compete on a level playing field are fundamentally incompatible. I would therefore make the argument that rights of the majority (by around 1000X) group must take precedence.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

Whilst I understand the debate here around what classifies a Man or a Women (or not as the case maybe), lets not lose sight that in this example there is no debate, Rachel was a Man... so should she be allowed to compete against women, for me the answer is an absolute No.

I would also suggest this... forget politically motivated governing bodies about the rights or wrongs, ask the female athletes if it is fair… I think we will find an overwhelming No and that to me is the end of the debate, as we will just see people stopping competing and the sport wrecked

Well, that's certainly one side of the debate. However, where does that leave transitioning/transitioned athletes? They wouldn't compete in the male categories as they're at a disadvantage due to less testosterone and they wouldn't be allowed in the female categories.

They have every right to transition to a different outward gender, but they should realise that they are also giving up the ability to compete at such a high level as they should continue to compete in the Y chromosone / high testosterone at puberty classification. Sporting prowese has always been determined by a combination of genetics, training and conditioning, by transitioning they are making a deliberate decision to reduce their conditioning.

I'm sure that no men will object to trans-gender women taking part in their competitions.

massive4x4 wrote:

The rights of trans women to be recognised as women in elite sports and the rights of (hate the word) cis women to compete on a level playing field are fundamentally incompatible. I would therefore make the argument that rights of the majority (by around 1000X) group must take precedence.

 

 

Totally agree. 

Someone said above that sport is about determining the winner. It isn't, it's an entertainment. If we just want the find the fastest/strongest human we wouldn't play so many games, nor would we allow drugs cheats to ever return, but we do. It is about drama; sport is the greatest natural drama after watching Planet Earth reruns. Some people find it boring, but fans are watching for the build up, the injuries, the comebacks, the last minute goals, the punctures and crashes. The team trades and politics. It is a soap-opera and as such we tolerate bad-guys. Perhaps they will be redeemed or perhaps they will be the villain in someone elses story. We love to moan about drugs and get on our high horses, but cheating is an important part of sport's story. So the question is, is Dr McKinnon's activites within the boundaries of what we will tolerate and still preserve sports integrity?

As far as I can see on a purely physical basis Rachel is a man taking drugs and competing in a Womens event. Whatever logical knots she needs to tie to convince herself that the playing field is level is all in her mind. If your natural sense of justice is offended looking at that podium then you are right to speak out. On International Womens Day we should be listening to these senior athletes. Road.cc is such a saugagefest after all we shouldn't turn Womens sport into one as well.

cbrndc wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there are any athletes born female competeing  in mens sport at any reasonable level? I've never heard of any, which would suggest they do not come close to winning if there are.

Apparently so..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Other wrote:

In 2017 Mack Beggs, a teenager from Texas, was required to wrestle against girls throughout the season of his transition from female to male up through the state championship, despite wanting to wrestle against boys. This was due to state sport regulations requiring athletes to compete alongside athletes of their birth gender. Some opponents say the testosterone prescribed as part of his transition gives him an unfair advantage and made it unsafe for the other wrestlers. (He finished the regular season at 52-0 and won the state championship.)

fukawitribe wrote:

cbrndc wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there are any athletes born female competeing  in mens sport at any reasonable level? I've never heard of any, which would suggest they do not come close to winning if there are.

Apparently so..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Other wrote:

In 2017 Mack Beggs, a teenager from Texas, was required to wrestle against girls throughout the season of his transition from female to male up through the state championship, despite wanting to wrestle against boys. This was due to state sport regulations requiring athletes to compete alongside athletes of their birth gender. Some opponents say the testosterone prescribed as part of his transition gives him an unfair advantage and made it unsafe for the other wrestlers. (He finished the regular season at 52-0 and won the state championship.)

Do we know how Mack Beggs did once she'd fully transitioned and was competing against boys/men?

Tony Farrelly wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

cbrndc wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there are any athletes born female competeing  in mens sport at any reasonable level? I've never heard of any, which would suggest they do not come close to winning if there are.

Apparently so..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Other wrote:

In 2017 Mack Beggs, a teenager from Texas, was required to wrestle against girls throughout the season of his transition from female to male up through the state championship, despite wanting to wrestle against boys. This was due to state sport regulations requiring athletes to compete alongside athletes of their birth gender. Some opponents say the testosterone prescribed as part of his transition gives him an unfair advantage and made it unsafe for the other wrestlers. (He finished the regular season at 52-0 and won the state championship.)

Do we know how Mack Beggs did once she'd fully transitioned and was competing against boys/men?

Good point - no results, but apparently received a scholarship to compete at the collegiate level in the current year (which may mean bugger all).

cbrndc wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there are any athletes born female competeing  in mens sport at any reasonable level? I've never heard of any, which would suggest they do not come close to winning if there are.

Did you mean competing directly against men, not in 'mens sport' as aside from Decathlon I can't think of any (Though there have been female decathlon's they aren't competed at at any of the major events) 

Beryl Burton was the only one that I know of to compete successfully on a level playing field and at a high level, she was a physical freak of nature and driven, very, very driven as all greats are.

There are some absolutely incredible rare as rocking horse poop athletes that defy the odds, not just physically but mentally and oft that's were a lot of the maximising of your potetnial comes from. I think Daley Thompson is one of those rare once in a generation athletes, like most multi event athletes they are trying to master all of them, compare him to the dioped up Eastern Europeans at the time and it seems incredible that a 5ft 11 bloke from Essex would not just see them off but destroy them time and time again!

Another was Kathy Cook (nee Smallwood), despite competing against women who were doped to the gills she still managed to grab medals on the biggest stage and was basically still an amateur as she worked as a PE teacher, cruelly robbed by 'pseudo men', the worst ones in athletics for me were kratochvilova (had muscles in places I didn't know existed!) and Flo Jo, who changed radically in a very short time and ran ridiculous times!

keirik wrote:

That one photo demonstrates whats wrong with allowing transgender to compete in womens sport.

Headline should be "Man wins womens race"

 

I have no problem with them competing, but it has to be fair,  maybe what's needed is mens, womens, and transgender categories

I'm still waiting for the 'not very good at sport' category.  We are at an unfair disadvantage.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

keirik wrote:

That one photo demonstrates whats wrong with allowing transgender to compete in womens sport.

Headline should be "Man wins womens race"

 

I have no problem with them competing, but it has to be fair,  maybe what's needed is mens, womens, and transgender categories

 

I'm still waiting for the 'not very good at sport' category.  We are at an unfair disadvantage.

Good point!

Maybe this is showing that dividing people into different categories is always going to have "edge cases" where people don't quite fit properly.

I hereby propose that we move over to a "handicap" system, so we can get males/females/intersex people all competing in the same event, but fairly. I'm not quite sure how that applies to cycle racing as the fastest racers will presumably be starting after their slower teammates and thus will need to sprint to reach the peloton.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

keirik wrote:

That one photo demonstrates whats wrong with allowing transgender to compete in womens sport.

Headline should be "Man wins womens race"

 

I have no problem with them competing, but it has to be fair,  maybe what's needed is mens, womens, and transgender categories

 

I'm still waiting for the 'not very good at sport' category.  We are at an unfair disadvantage.

Good point!

Maybe this is showing that dividing people into different categories is always going to have "edge cases" where people don't quite fit properly.

I hereby propose that we move over to a "handicap" system, so we can get males/females/intersex people all competing in the same event, but fairly. I'm not quite sure how that applies to cycle racing as the fastest racers will presumably be starting after their slower teammates and thus will need to sprint to reach the peloton.

I understand that the prudes at the UCI are currently frowning on Porn Pedallers  attempts at this...

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

keirik wrote:

That one photo demonstrates whats wrong with allowing transgender to compete in womens sport.

Headline should be "Man wins womens race"

I have no problem with them competing, but it has to be fair,  maybe what's needed is mens, womens, and transgender categories

I'm still waiting for the 'not very good at sport' category.  We are at an unfair disadvantage.

Me too.

Although, come to think of it,  I still wouldn't win.

keirik wrote:

... I have no problem with them competing, but it has to be fair,  maybe what's needed is mens, womens, and transgender categories

Ah, but there's the rub. They want to stand on the point of being real women, so a third category won't cut it. Sadly, that can only ever be their fantasy, since reality's a bitch - it can not be changed.

Rick_Rude wrote:

If you are born male and develop as a male you have advantages over biological females unless you are bottom percentage type male that can't punch their way out of a paper bag. Having a reduction in testosterone won't reduce your frame, heart and lungs etc. What we have is ex-males with esteem problems and women's sport is just one part of the esteem boost. I feel for biologically female athletes as these are not 'women' no matter how pc you want to be.

You're determined to live down to that user name aren't you?

exilegareth wrote:

quote]You're determined to live down to that user name aren't you?

Which bit about having a physical advantage is wrong?

Trans females and biological females are not the same thing. This is nothing to do with accepting people as people. This is to do with sport and competition and rules.

Rick_Rude wrote:

If you are born male and develop as a male you have advantages over biological females unless you are bottom percentage type male that can't punch their way out of a paper bag. Having a reduction in testosterone won't reduce your frame, heart and lungs etc. What we have is ex-males with esteem problems and women's sport is just one part of the esteem boost. I feel for biologically female athletes as these are not 'women' no matter how pc you want to be.

Wow.... straight out the pages of the sun. You should change your profile pic to a photo of Graham LIneham.

FrankH wrote:

"People would be calling her a man"

I don't think so. I could fancy Sharron Davies, I don't think I could ever fancy Rachel McKinnon.

So what you find attractive is the decisive factor here? You do realise that there are many others who do fancy men and trans people?

I don't exactly know where to stand on this subject. I think every effort shoud be made to make sports and society inclusive for all people, however I want to know more about the science behind this;  what advantage trans atheletes have and how this compares to the various advantages that different women may have over each other due to their varying genetics. Then I may be able to make a better judgment.

What I do know is who I may fancy has nothing to do with it.