|
Originally Posted by OBoile
(Post 21190511)
<strawmen and moving goalposts deleted>
|
When I was in high school, my best 100m dash time as a senior was 1 second slower than the world record at the time. My best time as a senior was 1.7 seconds faster than my best time as a freshman. That last 1 second to get to world record level would have been exponentially harder than the 1.7 seconds I shaved off from freshman to senior years. Similarly comparing the difference between men's and women's world records to the distance between McKinnon and her nearest competitor is not meaningful. Gains diminish at the pointy end.
|
Originally Posted by Miele Man
(Post 21189435)
Why not start a new classification and call it "Transgender Class"? Then the transgender people can compete against other transgender people.
Cheers Same thing I've posted many times - no gender or age classes will work best. Every time I see a big race cater to the money loosing classes the next year, that race takes a break. See ToC this year. I've posted my list before. Race everyone in grades 1-10 whatever they are. Those that race to get the prize, won't race. I'd rather not have them anyway. Also repeating - no where near as unfair as junior's having gear limits when racing adults, but we ignore that. Folks tend to care about fairness when it affects them. |
I liked this one https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcyc...jZ1CqdCl19gAbk
|
|
Originally Posted by markwesti
(Post 21201059)
The friggin' world has gone mad. Can't believe the crap that we're "asked" to accept. |
Originally Posted by OBoile
(Post 21188679)
Based on the many comments comparing men to women it would seem that most people here don't get it. That or they insist on stating the obvious.
True. And, as I've said above, how much of an advantage a trans woman would have likely varies considerably based on the sport/event in question. Also true. Unfortunately, sports is (a "light switch dichotomy"). Having a specific category (or multiple categories) for any unique gender likely isn't feasible in a practical sense, and also would lead to a whole host of political issues. Why? I mean, I get that things will likely never be perfectly equal. But do you really think it isn't possible to make them "close enough" so as to not really matter? Many things already aren't equal. Funding, equipment, age (IIRC this category is 35-44, and you can't tell me a 44 year old isn't at a disadvantage against a 35 year old). Do you not think there could be restrictions on trans athletes that make their advantage less than, or comparable to all of these? Or just get rid of "men's and women's" and you race with your matching chromosome identifiers. Don't like any of the options? Wonderful, ride with your local riding group that has no classes. Ya can't get everything you want in life. |
Originally Posted by Doge
(Post 21191051)
Because it is often hard to fill a podium with gender / age classes.
Same thing I've posted many times - no gender or age classes will work best. Every time I see a big race cater to the money loosing classes the next year, that race takes a break. See ToC this year. I've posted my list before. Race everyone in grades 1-10 whatever they are. Those that race to get the prize, won't race. I'd rather not have them anyway. Also repeating - no where near as unfair as junior's having gear limits when racing adults, but we ignore that. Folks tend to care about fairness when it affects them. |
Originally Posted by KraneXL
(Post 21232588)
No, he's right. They already have their own bathrooms. If there's only one then that ONE wins the contest. Besides, the handicapped have their own separate category.
But as the cost of a road, and police and schedule and officials is close to the same for 3 rider fields as for 100 rider fields, unless those lower attended categories want to pay giant fees and have small prizes, it just does not work out for the promoter. As a fan of the sport of cycling, I want to see larger fields like the pros have. There are more places to hide and more of the dynamics of the sport come into play. I think this is a reason fondos are so popular where hundreds, or thousands are "competing". So having a separate category on anything is fine to me, if it meets a min field size where the promoter is making a profit. There were a number of examples in now canceled road races where the prize payout was a multiple of the entry fees. That does not consider the cost of the venue. I wish the promoter was allowed to just host profitable races, and leave it to the racers and sponsors, fans to make sure enough show up, or that class is canceled. As it is, public pressure and now CA law make it easier to just fold up - or do a fondo. |
None of this is simple. An estimated 170 LGBTI athletes have competed in the Olympics. Gender is often not obvious even without modifications. See:
https://www.thenation.com/article/pe...bti-olympians/ Here's a good story which I remember reading about real time, back when my sport was skiing with a little cycling in the summer. This is another "it's not always obvious" story, the woman who skied like a man: https://www.skimag.com/uncategorized...hamp-was-a-man. |
Womens cycling itself is a bit of a joke. If not for the transgender issue bringing it into the news, nobody would give a crap about womens cycling.
I'll start to take notice when trans starting to win marathon and Olympic weightlifting, which they're not. Perhaps the REAL issue with womens cycling is a total LACK of competition? |
Originally Posted by aclinjury
(Post 21233842)
Womens cycling itself is a bit of a joke. If not for the transgender issue bringing it into the news, nobody would give a crap about women's cycling.
I'll start to take notice when trans starting to win marathon and Olympic weightlifting, which they're not. Perhaps the REAL issue with women's cycling is a total LACK of competition? I think that we put women in the Olympics and those missing limbs in Para Olympics and somehow think they are different is rather silly. Neither, all are not open class. It is good to try hard, but you are among the best of any human - or you are not. And the Nots are not interesting to the public, although maybe to themselves. There are many reasons folks are not the best, from birth, or mishaps, or choice. But they are not the best. I'm not a fan of those that don't know their limitations. Other than CA law, in general, the money shows what matters - for sports. |
|
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21233690)
None of this is simple. An estimated 170 LGBTI athletes have competed in the Olympics. Gender is often not obvious even without modifications. See:
https://www.thenation.com/article/pe...bti-olympians/ Here's a good story which I remember reading about real time, back when my sport was skiing with a little cycling in the summer. This is another "it's not always obvious" story, the woman who skied like a man: https://www.skimag.com/uncategorized...hamp-was-a-man. 1. The vast majority of that 170 will be outside of the T and I categories...meaning that L, G and B would be most common. 2. Even if we leave 70 of the original 170 in the T or I categories, now we take an already insignificant number and make it even smaller. How many athletes have competed in total in the summer and winter games? 400,000? More? So the rules need to be changed for 70 out of 400,000? We're talking about ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT. 3. The skier case is an outlier. It's one thing if we're talking about a statistically significant percentage but the reality is that one long story does not make for norms. |
Originally Posted by Michael Novo
(Post 21246984)
Let's break that number down of "170 LGBTI athletes have competed".
1. The vast majority of that 170 will be outside of the T and I categories...meaning that L, G and B would be most common. 2. Even if we leave 70 of the original 170 in the T or I categories, now we take an already insignificant number and make it even smaller. How many athletes have competed in total in the summer and winter games? 400,000? More? So the rules need to be changed for 70 out of 400,000? We're talking about ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT. 3. The skier case is an outlier. It's one thing if we're talking about a statistically significant percentage but the reality is that one long story does not make for norms. It is too bad that more strong women don't continue to train and win in that one particular age group. OTOH, this society makes it really difficult for them to do so. I hear few complaints about that here. Crickets. They sure as heck better not complain! No one likes a complainer. We cis men OTOH get kudos for complaining. From other cis men of course. We even complain that there's not enough female competition! It'd be hilarious if it all weren't all so sad. What's the he-man complaint about women's soccer? Why it's that male soccer players are much, much better! So those women better not get the wrong-headed idea that they can make a living being crappy soccer players and get back into the kitchen! Here we have all these diatribes against one individual. It's absolutely as singular a case of the "woman who skied like a man." Statistically it's an insignificant problem, just as you say. As McKinnon says, Naturally-produced testosterone is the only natural physical characteristic for which we have deemed women ineligible for competition. And it’s only women that are deemed ineligible, never men |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21247613)
I think your numbers are probably even on the generous side. So what the heck are people complaining about? At my Sunday Worlds, anyone who can ride a bike reasonably fast and safely is welcome. I am shocked, shocked I tell you that there are so many haters on BF.
It is too bad that more strong women don't continue to train and win in that one particular age group. OTOH, this society makes it really difficult for them to do so. I hear few complaints about that here. Crickets. They sure as heck better not complain! No one likes a complainer. We cis men OTOH get kudos for complaining. From other cis men of course. We even complain that there's not enough female competition! It'd be hilarious if it all weren't all so sad. What's the he-man complaint about women's soccer? Why it's that male soccer players are much, much better! So those women better not get the wrong-headed idea that they can make a living being crappy soccer players and get back into the kitchen! Here we have all these diatribes against one individual. It's absolutely as singular a case of the "woman who skied like a man." Statistically it's an insignificant problem, just as you say. As McKinnon says, Remember that Dr. McKinnon's world record was broken immediately after by a cis woman. Oh, what was her name? Insignificant of course, but it was Sarah Fader, the same woman who refused to race against Dr. McKinnon. I don't think we're going to see a large number of men taking the same road taken by Dr. McKinnon. Her twitter feed runs about 3000 hates per one kudo. When I say that it's statistically insignificant, I'm saying that so few trans athletes are a part of it that there should be no exception for them. You can't use the logic of "oh there's so few trans athletes that when one wants to compete and dominate, go ahead and let them". There are so few that you may feel like a woman, but too bad so sad, you race with the men. As for beating records, if the dudes record was beat by a biological woman that's fine. Many women would be faster than I am but that doesn't mean that just because I'm slower than female racers that now male racers should be allowed to compete with them. You've got a man who says he feels like a woman and now it's ok? I don't think so scooter. |
Originally Posted by Michael Novo
(Post 21247640)
I'm not sure I follow your response. <snip> I don't think so scooter.
|
People have gotten hilariously ridiculous with their outrageous line of thinking these days...
|
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 21247881)
Quite so. And insults are always in order. Always good to know who's who.
As for the last line, that's just a closing line from a comedian, Ron White..."I don't think so scooter." Not really meant as an insult. |
Originally Posted by aclinjury
(Post 21233842)
Womens cycling itself is a bit of a joke. If not for the transgender issue bringing it into the news, nobody would give a crap about womens cycling.
I'll start to take notice when trans starting to win marathon and Olympic weightlifting, which they're not. Perhaps the REAL issue with womens cycling is a total LACK of competition? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.