View Single Post
Old 10-21-18, 11:37 PM
  #2172  
brawlo
Senior Member
 
brawlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 57 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton
I beg to differ.

The #1 qualifier in the event declined to race. It's my understanding is that she did this to protest McKinnon's entry. The bronze medalist in the same event (the woman on the right in the podium photo) also spoke out against this on Twitter and in the press. She has since accepted the results but has also vowed to push for a rule change though official channels.

How more direct can it get?
BUT WHY? The No.1 qualifier, to my knowledge hasn't actually publicly declared her reasoning for withdrawing. I have seen a lot of speculation, but nothing that has come from her directly. Also the bronze medal rider has said "It's definitely not fair", nothing more that I have seen. What I want to see is the reasoning for this. There are rules in place and SF competed within those rules. If the rules are unfair then petition to have them changed (good luck with that). Why, if noone else seemed to pull out of the competition, didn't Fader get out there and race? On paper she had the legs to beat SF. If she had beaten her would we be hearing as much protest? SF isn't the first trans athlete to compete and do well and win medals, yet you would think from all the press and protest that this has never been done before.

I don't like subjective reasoning and try to maintain an objective attitude to most things that I do. I find emotion can land you in the poo more times than not. I qualify my stance with this reasoning. Science tells us that long term transitioning results in reduced bone density and reduced muscle mass, to the point where some particularly solid athletes can be at a distinct DISadvantage.
Originally Posted by brawlo
Science rules above emotion and the scientific facts are that there should be no issue BUT there are qualifications for that to be so IMO. The science behind a transitioned male is fairly solid in longer term examples. I think the original IOC stance was close with full transition required, but I think that was a touch heavy handed. Maybe not fully transitioned, but definitely a longer term exposure to the transition process should be required.
Originally Posted by carleton
Since you mention you and your daughter, how would you and her feel about this respectively?
I think my daughter is too young to have to worry about such woes of life, but it is something that will have to be tackled in her teen years without a doubt. Reading of trans athletes competing in high schools and college means that you don't have to be masters age to have this experience. I am taking my time in formulating my opinion and I like to think that it is a fluid transition and open to change. I will admit that when first confronted with gender transition I was definitely not as accepting as I am now. It was new to me and strange and confronting, but even moreso for my friend who enabled me to gain my insight. Over the years I now have no issue with it. Re the situation now, being objective, there is no issue. SF ticked the boxes and won legitimately. It's all new and weird for a lot of people, but it's by the rulebook. I feel that there are loopholes there that need closing to increase the fairness of a situation that likely won't change - that being transgender inclusion in competition.

I teach my children not to fight the system, but to beat the system. The system allows them to compete, so look at them like any other gifted athlete and beat them!
brawlo is offline