Social Justice Transgender and gender identity discussion
- Thread starter Draven26
- Start date
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Transgender Cyclist Rachel McKinnon Wins Second-Straight World Masters Title
Her latest victory at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships reignites debate over fair play and sports as a human right.
By Rebecca Reza Oct 24, 2019
Rachel McKinnon dominated the competition at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Manchester, England, this past weekend, celebrating her second consecutive world title and world record in the 200-meter match sprint.
A transgender woman representing Canada, the 37-year-old earned her second world record in a qualifying race with a time of 11.649. American Dawn Orwick finished second.
When McKinnon won her world championship last year, both fellow competitors and others on social media argued that it was unfair for McKinnon to compete. Her win this year only reignited the debate—top female athletes like tennis legend Martina Navratilova, former world marathon record holder Paula Radcliffe, and two-time Olympic gold middle-distance runner Kelly Holmes spoke out after McKinnon’s weekend victory.
Former British Masters Champion Victoria Hood, who was unable to compete in the championship due to injury, spoke with the BBC after McKinnon’s win this week to voice her concerns.
“The science is clear—it tells us that trans women have an advantage,” Hood said. “It is excluding women and girls from their own category…it is a human right to participate in sport. I don’t think it’s a human right to identify into whichever category you choose.”
McKinnon took to Twitter to denounce Hood’s comments, posting a press release adding Hood’s age would place her in a different category. The Canadian has responded to many of the athletes’ criticisms, accusing them of hate speech and spreading transphobia.
“Fairness in sport means inclusion and respect of every athlete’s right and identity,” the release states.
In 2015, the IOC released guidelines allowing transgender women to compete in women’s categories under specific testosterone restrictions. Two years later, USA Cycling created its own guidelines, which also included testosterone restrictions. In October of last year, UCI released a statement saying it would be releasing its own guidelines, which would be adapted according to the rules of the IOC.
As Bicycling previously reported in January, McKinnon is in compliance with the IOC requirements.
In preparation for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games, the IOC’s plans to introduce stricter guidelines have come to a standstill due to scientists’ failure to agree on the subject, according to The Guardian.
McKinnon has ruled out any personal participation in the Games, but hopes to see another transgender athlete participate soon.
“There were many more barriers this year. A much bigger spotlight, truly incessant hate and people doing everything in their power to have me banned, make me fail and make me quit,” McKinnon concluded in a post on Instagram. “But I didn’t. And I won’t.”
www.bicycling.com
Her latest victory at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships reignites debate over fair play and sports as a human right.
By Rebecca Reza Oct 24, 2019
Rachel McKinnon dominated the competition at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Manchester, England, this past weekend, celebrating her second consecutive world title and world record in the 200-meter match sprint.
A transgender woman representing Canada, the 37-year-old earned her second world record in a qualifying race with a time of 11.649. American Dawn Orwick finished second.
When McKinnon won her world championship last year, both fellow competitors and others on social media argued that it was unfair for McKinnon to compete. Her win this year only reignited the debate—top female athletes like tennis legend Martina Navratilova, former world marathon record holder Paula Radcliffe, and two-time Olympic gold middle-distance runner Kelly Holmes spoke out after McKinnon’s weekend victory.
Former British Masters Champion Victoria Hood, who was unable to compete in the championship due to injury, spoke with the BBC after McKinnon’s win this week to voice her concerns.
“The science is clear—it tells us that trans women have an advantage,” Hood said. “It is excluding women and girls from their own category…it is a human right to participate in sport. I don’t think it’s a human right to identify into whichever category you choose.”
McKinnon took to Twitter to denounce Hood’s comments, posting a press release adding Hood’s age would place her in a different category. The Canadian has responded to many of the athletes’ criticisms, accusing them of hate speech and spreading transphobia.
“Fairness in sport means inclusion and respect of every athlete’s right and identity,” the release states.
In 2015, the IOC released guidelines allowing transgender women to compete in women’s categories under specific testosterone restrictions. Two years later, USA Cycling created its own guidelines, which also included testosterone restrictions. In October of last year, UCI released a statement saying it would be releasing its own guidelines, which would be adapted according to the rules of the IOC.
As Bicycling previously reported in January, McKinnon is in compliance with the IOC requirements.
In preparation for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games, the IOC’s plans to introduce stricter guidelines have come to a standstill due to scientists’ failure to agree on the subject, according to The Guardian.
McKinnon has ruled out any personal participation in the Games, but hopes to see another transgender athlete participate soon.
“There were many more barriers this year. A much bigger spotlight, truly incessant hate and people doing everything in their power to have me banned, make me fail and make me quit,” McKinnon concluded in a post on Instagram. “But I didn’t. And I won’t.”
Transgender Cyclist Rachel McKinnon Wins Second-Straight World Masters Title
Her latest victory at the Masters Track Cycling World Championships reignites debate over fair play and sports as a human right.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
Wow, so brave..
South Park has angered the trans activists for pointing out the obvious. I guess they've never seen South Park before lol, they go after everyone. If the trans agenda wants equality then shouldn't we able to joke about them like we do to everyone else? That's equality
South Park has angered the trans activists for pointing out the obvious. I guess they've never seen South Park before lol, they go after everyone. If the trans agenda wants equality then shouldn't we able to joke about them like we do to everyone else? That's equality
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
An example of a trans person calling out the sinister political agenda behind the trans movement. Trans people are being used and when you criticize the ideology, simple people conflate that as harassing trans people themselves or being unsympathetic to their plight. That's part of the agenda (like criticizing AGW and people hiding behind Greta):
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
When you're ready to swear allegiance to the Illuminati and our master Satan.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Yup... Any disagreement of someone who was born a biological male competing against women is equal to hating trans to a lot of people. Trans people should have equal rights, not more rights IMO.
w01fg4ng
Bluelighter
Do any of you guys actually play sports?
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I don't which is why I don't really care beyond as an academic argument. Honestly I think the whole idea of "fairness" in sports is kinda a joke anyway. 
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,736
Weak... Do you guys have anything relevant to say?
I don't think I need to play sports to have an opinion on the matter, and I'm obviously not the only one that thinks it unfair for someone born a biological male to be competing and beating female athletes.
I don't think I need to play sports to have an opinion on the matter, and I'm obviously not the only one that thinks it unfair for someone born a biological male to be competing and beating female athletes.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
It's only unfair of it actually gives them an advantage. I don't think it'd be controversial to say an advantage exists when such individuals aren't on hormone treatments.
But if they are, I've yet to see any convincing evidence either way. Just lots of assumptions.
I'll have an opinion on if it should be allowed or not when I see some evidence to back it up. Till then I remain on the fence.
ChemicallyEnhanced
Bluelighter
I agree with this Judge. "Transgender" - like "gay" - is not an insult as there is nothing wrong with being transgender; it is not a bad thing.
I know in the UK that is he is transgender and is being referred to in an insulting context, it counts as transphobia. I he is not transgender but is being called transgender it is classed as inappropriate use of language.
Just follow Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current to find out how mouth foaming these trans activists are. They are a threat to free speech and women's rights. Some of the stuff happening is utterly insane. Feminist groups can't even meet to discuss how giving men access to women's spaces is affecting them without mouth foaming trans activists accusing them of being fascists exercising hate speech. They have tried several times to shut down gatherings in public libraries in Canada, but they failed because the libraries are publicly funded and have to respect the Canadian Constitution's articles on free speech. Imagine that.
Pro-trans laws are giving men access to women's safe spaces in ways that are a threat to women. This is unacceptable and we should be able to talk about it without these deranged, misogynist men trying to shut down the conversation.
Pro-trans laws are giving men access to women's safe spaces in ways that are a threat to women. This is unacceptable and we should be able to talk about it without these deranged, misogynist men trying to shut down the conversation.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
The fact that an almost 60 yr old was discussing playing women's cricket professionally (as in the video I linked) just proves the point.
If you don't think there's an inherent biological advantage then you know nothing about sports, biology, physiology or you're just going along with the propaganda out of fear of being labelled transphobic.
If you don't think there's an inherent biological advantage then you know nothing about sports, biology, physiology or you're just going along with the propaganda out of fear of being labelled transphobic.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
And if you assume a physical advantage based on no data. You know nothing... Literally.
Assumptions are not facts. I want data.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I love how men being physically stronger and more athletic is now an assumptionJesus Christ. Just look at world records in each sport and compare male to female.
No. Saying biological men on hormone therapy for years, remain physically stronger, is the assumption.
It might be true, I'm not saying it's definitively false either, I don't know one way or the other. That's why I keep saying we need data to find out the correct course of action. Not assumptions.
If there remains a physical advantage after a couple years of hormone therapy, you won't get any argument from me against banning such people. I think it's unfortunate that it results in such discrimination, but it is what it is. And if you're aiming for fairness, such as it is. You gotta do what you gotta do.
But assumptions have repeatedly turned out wrong throughout history. Which is why I want evidence rather than assumption.
Especially since we already know that hormones are one of the biggest factors in the sex strength difference to start with. That's why athletes cheat with steroids. So it's not at all implausible that hormone therapy might suppress that advantage.
So, we get a bunch of people on female hormone therapy, test their strength, and compare it to the female average for their height and weight.
If it's within the margin of error, they can compete, if it's not, they can't.
How can anyone argue that that's not fair?
I've done a lot of research on this. There are two aspects to this to differentiate: developmental and metabolic. Developmental status covers things like bone density, lung capacity, and oxygen metabolism. Those things are determined during puberty and into early adulthood. If a person is developmentally male, they will have more physical advantage than developmental females, for the most part. Males have more density, more innate musculature, larger lung capacity. If someone is developmentally male and they complete their growth, then switching to female hormones will not affect their innate capacities. Estrogen in particular is pro-matrix forming in the bones (and why women get osteoporosis in middle age when estrogen tapers off). A male that is 6'4" who becomes female will still remain 6'4". He/she will have a longer stride for running, larger lungs for swimming, longer arms and muscles for throwing, etc. That will never change.
Then there is the metabolic aspect. This is determined by hormone status, fitness status, nutrition status, etc. A person who sits on the couch all day is not going to have the same metabolic status as someone who trains daily, regardless of their sex.
You can enhance metabolic status, you can't change developmental status. And this is the reason why most MTF trans are outperforming females in the women's category. They have more developmental advantages. We see this over and over with biological males coming out on top in women's sports.
The grey area you're alluding to is the biological males who started hormone therapy before or during puberty, like hormone blockers, etc. Their advantages may be less clear because they are more developmentally female than the group I mentioned above.
If someone like Caitlin Jenner competed in the women's category, she would clean house, and that would be unfair.
The first group, IMO, should not be treated just like women. They are not the same as other women. What they choose to call themselves is irrelevant because they have developmental advantages. We all know it, we all see it, yet we're supposed to pretend we don't and just call them women like any other female athlete. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. I won't subscribe to it.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Which is why I specifically said above that this needs to checked against height and weight. In many sports taller people are going to have an advantage, regardless of sex.
Soo, if you ban people born male who transitioned because their average height is greater, presumably you would have to also ban women who are of above average height too.
I find your post very interesting, but it's a bit unclear. It seems like the differences you're suggesting are mostly related to size. Wouldn't you also have to ban women at the extremes of size too on that basis?
Specifically what I want to know is. Is the average person who transitioned to female and has been on hormone therapy for years, going to have an advantage against a woman of roughly equal size?
Way I see it, if yes, they're banned. If age of transition makes a big difference we could obviously factor that in too.
If such a difference doesn't exist however, I think banning them is baseless.
I'll reiterate that I don't know the answer. You probably know better than I do. Hence why I'm asking what you think.
Soo, if you ban people born male who transitioned because their average height is greater, presumably you would have to also ban women who are of above average height too.
I find your post very interesting, but it's a bit unclear. It seems like the differences you're suggesting are mostly related to size. Wouldn't you also have to ban women at the extremes of size too on that basis?
Specifically what I want to know is. Is the average person who transitioned to female and has been on hormone therapy for years, going to have an advantage against a woman of roughly equal size?
Way I see it, if yes, they're banned. If age of transition makes a big difference we could obviously factor that in too.
If such a difference doesn't exist however, I think banning them is baseless.
I'll reiterate that I don't know the answer. You probably know better than I do. Hence why I'm asking what you think.