UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas

Seriously.  Oh my god.

Dear road.cc admins - any chance you could just silo this off so the main players on here can just fight among themselves?

brooksby wrote:

Seriously.  Oh my god.

Dear road.cc admins - any chance you could just silo this off so the main players on here can just fight among themselves?

Thunderdome?

They definitely need to step in and do something. A line has been crossed when the Flying Spaghetti Monster's name is being taken in vain.

That...was quite the pun. Bravo. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

For anyone discovering this thread in 2023 tell our loved ones this is as far as we got:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBOj8YxV-hg

 

i take exception to that....

Quite right, I take that back. Optimistic outlook, allow more time.  It'll be spring before you know it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqh-javSXE

I think the "fault" lies in trying to maintain a binary split for no other reason than we've always had one (for a sufficient value of "always")

lit was a crude measure back when women were just banned from competing in toto and it's hopefully obvious to all it's an increasingly unworkable idea going forwards. 
 

As ever, define the problem you seek a solution for first,  then deign your solution. Trying to tinker around with a broken system leaves you with a broken system

You don't think trans women may or more likely will have an advantage over non trans women?

sparrowlegs wrote:

You don't think trans women may or more likely will have an advantage over non trans women?

I don't think you understand what I posted.

I understood perfectly, then replied with another question. You're blaming the "system" for us being where we are now.

So I'll ask again, do you think trans women have an advantage over non trans women when it comes to sports?

sparrowlegs wrote:

I understood perfectly, then replied with another question. You're blaming the "system" for us being where we are now.

So I'll ask again, do you think trans women have an advantage over non trans women when it comes to sports?

I don't think that question has any relevance compared to what I posted, which is why it seemed like you didn't understand.  It's like saying "I like oranges" and your response is to ask "but what about carrots?"; there's a disconnect  

It is also the usual reductionist 2 dimensional nonsense of a question that doesn't help advance the discussion. You have the same issue as rich, of lacking any nuance. 
 

I do wonder why you're restarting this, claiming yiu didn't offend, but if memory recalls you did the usual tripe of "but trans women don't have cervices" which I'm sure, as ever, by reducing women to a mere body part must be greatly received...

Ah yes, here's your "gem" from page 7 or so.  Say again how you weren't here meaning to offend...

sparrowlegs wrote:

I've gone away, done a bit of research, or, at least tried to but bloody Google must be broken or something. I'm hoping you can help me out here. 

I googled "how many transgender women have had cervical cancer". 

Stupid Google kept bringing back results for transgender women having testicular cancer and prostate cancer. I'm like, FFS Google! That's not what I asked!!!

I think Google is broken. That's the only option surely?

So basically you won't answer it?

You'll deflect and dodge but basically will not answer if trans women should compete directly with non trans women?

You'll use pretty words to talk about nuances and gradations but you won't answer the direct question posed to you?

sparrowlegs wrote:

So basically you won't answer it?

You'll deflect and dodge but basically will not answer if trans women should compete directly with non trans women?

You'll use pretty words to talk about nuances and gradations but you won't answer the direct question posed to you?

see my answer abive about your common problem you share with Rich

bye. 

So that's a no then? You won't answer the simple and direct question? Do you think trans women should be competing directly with non trans women?

If you refuse to answer then I think we are done here. 

Indeed, it seems you are done. 

Don't want to answer the question but want to have the last word yeah?

Or, maybe you do want to answer the question, do you think trans women should compete directly against non trans women?

I think that's 4 times I've asked you and you still haven't answered it. 

"I don't think that question has any relevance compared to what I posted, which is why it seemed like you didn't understand.  It's like saying "I like oranges" and your response is to ask "but what about carrots?"; there's a disconnect  

It is also the usual reductionist 2 dimensional nonsense of a question that doesn't help advance the discussion. You have the same issue as rich, of lacking any nuance. "

Not so long ago, I read a that a study by the American military showed that even years after gender realignment, trans female soldiers still showed to be much faster and stronger then their colleagues who were born in a female body

Jimwill wrote:

Not so long ago, I read a that a study by the American military showed that even years after gender realignment, trans female soldiers still showed to be much faster and stronger then their colleagues who were born in a female body

Strava or it didn't happen...

Oh FFS, you've done it now. Said something without showing receipts. Even if you do provide links to proven studies that once puberty has happened nothing can erase that, it doesn't matter because again, it doesn't fit their narrative.

Go on, post a link to Leah Thomas destroying the non-trans women in a swimming race. It won't matter.

Even quoting Caitlyn Jenner got me nowhere because she's not the right type of trans woman apparently.

I've been called bigot, anti-trans, TERF and genital fetishist. That was a new one but I'm sure I'd seen it somewhere else and then it occurred to me...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385.amp

You can say you agree with trans people having the same rights as the gender they identify as in every way except sports but that's not good enough. 

If people are that bothered its a Google away. Bloke who wrote was called Roberts I believe and it was a study including 49 trans Airforce personnel, after 2 years, they were still 12% faster in a mile and half run.
And I think It was referenced in a article about the swimmer. I would have saved the link if only I'd known how important it was at the time..

And you can also point to the trans wrestler who then didn't go on to win everything as a counter point 

I never said she wasn't the "right type of trans woman", as you well know. That's another example of your argument in bad faith,  I stated that she only stated that position *once she announced her running as a republican candidate, and the GOP is abusing trans people in sports right now as a dog whistle for ignorant voters, because gay bashing isn't working for them any more*. Prior to that she was publicly pro trans people in sport. 
 

hey, yiure the one who narrowed down "woman" to "has a cervix", which is a really gross way to demean a gender. So I'd say bigot is a pretty clear one. 
 

yes, because "seperate but equal" is totally fine with you, as we al know. It's ok to diminish ALL of one of the most marginalised groups in society - a fact you don't care about, clearly - as "colllective punishment" because some of them may want to compete in sport and may be better in some way that is "unfair", yet yiu also seem totally ok with using "science" to keep Caster Semenya from competing as she, despite being a cis woman, has an unfair advantage for her sport. 
 

The alternative is to look at *why* we have a crude binary split - mostly historic - and therefore what are we trying to achieve. That would be an enlightened, progressive way of doing things, but of course, change is bad, apparently... 

What wrestler is this? Can you find me a link or references? You should know by now we don't just accept anecdotal evidence in this thread so cough up.

You dismissed Caitlyn's view because of her political affiliations. Show me when she agreed with trans women competing against non trans women in sport and when she changed this view. 

Also, Caster Semenya is intersex. She possesses the means to produce testosterone way above those of a non trans woman because she has testes. Again, this just highlights the fact that anyone who has or has had access to testosterone will more than likely be at an advantage when it comes to competing against non trans women. See the results of the 2016 Olympic Womens 800m. All the medal winners are intersex. 

I used the example of someone having a cervix to highlight that it's more than likely a trans woman will not have one. There are many physiological and biological differences between trans women and non trans women.

You have not produced one iota of evidence that disproves the stance that a trans woman will have a physical advantage advantage over a non trans woman when it comes to the sporting arena. Instead, you've resorted to name calling and saying "seperate but equal" when "equal but different" would be a better way of describing things. You use nuanced language to trap people and hopefully intimidate them in to silence.

Your demands are hilarious. 
 

Caitlyn - https://www.newsweek.com/caitlyn-jenner-flips-transgender-sports-issue-w.... Took two seconds. You don't do ANY research, do you?  Oddly enough, as someone who cares about trans rights, I've followed her story for a fair while. 
6 years earlier she said  “I also want to acknowledge all the young trans athletes who are out there — given the chance to play sports as who they really are.” So while you cannot prove the two are linked, it is factual that

- the gop is anti trans,

- she ran as. GOP candidate 

- she changed her public stance on trans inclusion after announcing she was running 

Caster is a cis-woman. 
no, you didn't "use the example of"...  the quote is above. You used a crude attempt at humour to try to define some through possession of a cervix. Don't try to row back your bigotry now, that's now how this works. You could apologise, but that isn't going to happen...

stil waiting on your definition of a biological woman. It's been quite a few days now - have you found one yet? You keep referring to but failing to actually, you know, do.  I wonder why that is.  
 

You also fail to understand. Again. I don't have to disprove your contention because your contention isn't relevant. It's based on outmoded crude ideas of a binary split that it's increasingly obvious to everyone just aren't sufficient for the society we live in 

here's an analogy you might understand - SI units. The metre is defined according to an (as far as we know) unchanging physical constant. We've taken what was an approximation (the original metre was essentially an average of other measures, so yiu had multiple metres at one point, same as yiu had multiple inches etc) and defined it. We've used science to work out something

We can do the same with divisions in sport. Same as we have a crude weight classification for boxing we can do the same for all sports where we have a binary split. I, not saying it will be easy, and it might throw up some uncomfortable facts, such as "fairness" in sport being completely illusory (as was pointed out by badger, repeatedly, and you ignored) but it would be a start

So yiure comfy saying "you are a woman except here, where you're not a woman" to someone who is trans? That is absolutely NOT equal.