“Trans rights are human rights,” says Rapha – “all athletes should have the opportunity to race”

JMG DC wrote:

Of course the rights of transgender people should be respected, but that begs the question of whether a transgender woman who transitioned post puberty should be permitted to enter women-only sporting events. Personally, I think it would be fairer to limit women's events to women born with XX chromosomes and transgender women who transitioned before puberty. But if transgender women who transitioned post puberty are to be permitted to enter women's events, then there should be some kind of handicapping system to account for the physical effects of undergoing male puberty.

Look. The science for this is very complex. We need to stop giving opinions based on our own very limited knowledge. Otherwise, Emily and others will continue to feeling like a punching bag.

CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:

Look. The science for this is very complex. We need to stop giving opinions based on our own very limited knowledge. Otherwise, Emily and others will continue to feeling like a punching bag.

I'd agree that biology is more complex than many posters here are aware of.  I've learned some stuff.  However the "science" need not be so complex.  As one suggestion had it, just run the races / events for a period of time and see what happens.  Then you've some data.

But that won't help much of course.  We always want to put people in categories (very few people want "no categories" for sport in general).  Fundamentally this whole debate is about who can be in which category. (Apologies to the few folks who've moved beyond this...)

And would that process be "fair" to everyone involved?  Or indeed anyone?

Define "biological male" in a way that actual scientists would agree with you. 
oh, you can't?  Shock. 

You know very well biological male/female is easy to define. 99% of the scientific community would agree but the issue is they'd have their lives ruined, income removed, reputations destroyed by the trans-radicals.

What people like you do Nos is play in the nuance, use the outliers to support your narrative and hope the tiny amount of exceptions prove the rule. The exceptions being people with DSD, not trans athletes. 

You'll point to 2 spirited tribes, transgender vikings and non-binary pharaoh hoping they'll cloud the issue of sex and gender.

When Emily tried to enter the womens race and overwhelming amount of her competitors were ready to boycott the race. You'll now point to there being full support from her competitors for her but can't provide proof of this.

Emily has been involved in scientific studies showing a huge drop off in performance. Do we have links to those studies? A huge drop off that allowed Emily to win a mens race in February. 

All I'm asking is that the links to the studies are providdd so that people who know how to interpret the results can make reasoned conclusions. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

 You know very well biological male/female is easy to define. 99% of the scientific community would agree but the issue is they'd have their lives ruined, income removed, reputations destroyed by the trans-radicals.

Ok. So define it. Because, like most things in science, there are many ways to measure it.

sparrowlegs wrote:

When Emily tried to enter the womens race and overwhelming amount of her competitors were ready to boycott the race. You'll now point to there being full support from her competitors for her but can't provide proof of this.

Any evidence to support this boycott? British Cycling defined a policy, Emily followed the policy. What matters is not the support, but the process followed defining and implementing the policy. The rest is hear-say unless you have evidence.

sparrowlegs wrote:

Emily has been involved in scientific studies showing a huge drop off in performance. Do we have links to those studies? A huge drop off that allowed Emily to win a mens race in February.

I agree these studies should be available. Maybe, you want to reserve your opinion on Emily results until you have read them?

sparrowlegs wrote:

All I'm asking is that the links to the studies are providdd so that people who know how to interpret the results can make reasoned conclusions.

Do you mean scientists can give reasoned conclusions?

CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:

 

sparrowlegs wrote:

Emily has been involved in scientific studies showing a huge drop off in performance. Do we have links to those studies? A huge drop off that allowed Emily to win a mens race in February.

I agree these studies should be available. Maybe, you want to reserve your opinion on Emily results until you have read them?

Maybe Emily should wait until they have been published and proved her point before she enters another race in the female category?

I don't agree with the way she was treated by the UCI and BC but on the evidence of her race in February I don't believe she should be racing in the female category.

Yawn. Just your transphobic nonsense again sparrow. 
 

no. Actual biologists would laugh at you if you repeated your lie to their face. They absolutely would. How do I know that? I know enough real world research geneticists to know first hand their bewilderment at transohobes such as yourselves uneducated opinions on a complex subject. 
 

You, as ever, are wrong on this topic. Educate yourself. Be humble in what you don't know. 

Yep, me again. One of those unbelievers that think biology overrides ideology. Aka, 99% of the population or non-twitterers.

Could you ask one of your geneticist friends to register on the site and offer real world geneticist insights in to how science has had it so wrong for so long? Or would you rather just sit there flogging mud as most of your kind do?

sparrowlegs wrote:

Yep, me again. One of those unbelievers that think biology overrides ideology. Aka, 99% of the population or non-twitterers.

Could you ask one of your geneticist friends to register on the site and offer real world geneticist insights in to how science has had it so wrong for so long? Or would you rather just sit there flogging mud as most of your kind do?

Science hasn't gotten it wrong. Your under educated opinions on "science" are what's wrong. Your ideas o biology are so infantile it's staggering you keep on spouting such nonsense. 
herp,derp XY XX herp derp

Prove me wrong Nos. It must surely be easy to blow my arguments out of the water by posting actual evidence? Actual science that proves reducing the amount of testosterone in a 6'4" biological males body equates to the same competitive results that a 5'2" biological female will have. 

But no, you and CITA will just sit there clutching your pearls and pointing at the "transphobes". 

In all the threads you have posted in you have not once posted any actual evidence. It's all been hearsay and naysay. 

Yet that isn't what was asked 

Prove your term is well defined. Based in actual science, not your sub gcse misogyny.  
when you can't, for the 15th time, you can actually admit a shortcoming. One that everyone has! It's ok not to know as it's an area we're still learning about. 

or you can continue with your transphobia. Your choice. Grow or stagnate. 

MsG wrote:

Once again much about fairness and inclusion for a biological male and very little indeed about what Bridges' taking part in womens' races would mean to the biological females. Recall that Bridges won the University MALE points race in February.

Fairness. Can you reference any scientific evidence to show this would be unfair. Or is this based on your opinion and not fact?

MsG is a TERF, don't expect proof.  Just vitriol. 

I am shocked. Do you have any scientific evidence to back-up your opinions? Emily was excluded based on a UCI rule, although Emily followed the British Cycling rules. And yes she made a choice, but that does not given anyone the right to make Emily feel like a punching bag.