RE: transgender women racing against women.

[GVFTA]

The fact a moderator is allowed to participate in this conversation and accuse people of phobias is crazy. What is KB going to do next? Hand out bans for using gender specific pronouns. This place is getting nuts.

 

[GVFTA]

King Boonen defined exactly what he/she/they mean by "transphobia".



That's a long, long way away from your "I hate trans women" example which I (or anyone I think) would agree is hate speech. Permanently banning someone for using the wrong pronoun is an extreme position IMO, whether they did it intentionally and repeatedly or not. Some people simply do not regard trans people as the new gender, particularly in a discussion about sport. In general it's a dumb position and disrespectful, but in the specific context of sport and fair competition, it's an entirely understandable view. As stated, I would entirely agree with Poly that this position by KB is "Wrongthink", and stifles reasonable discussion in favor of a view which is entirely debatable. I agree with you that it's not a left/right thing, it's simply an attempt at controlling the narrative in favor of a point of view. A terrible development for public discourse and free thought.

While I respect the right of the mod team to make rules, I don't respect this ruling. Respectfully, I think it needs more consideration.

Homophobia, transphobia, etc. are words people use to attack others. If you want to get someone to see the point of view that we're all humans and all deserving of the same kind of respect, making up phobias and assigning them to people isn't the way to engage. It's inaccurate, divisive, and counter-productive. Unless the intent is to degrade the target.

Exactly this.

 

[Red Rick]

Aren't like all studies based on the effect of testosterone alone?

 

[King Boonen]

Semantics is a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning and logic. Probably worth getting those two things right, and use of "phobia" in this context is pointedly incorrect. I would have hoped that would matter to you, and you might recognize your use of the term "transphobic" comes across as an attempt to attack those who disagree with you. Dismissing this as "semantics" only reinforces that impression.



I agreed with the part that I didn't quote and didn't have anything else to add. Nothing was meant by not including it other than point granted. I'm a male by the way, so you can call me "him" instead of "they". Regarding the latter, as I've said, your forum and your rules. I do agree this not only skirts the boundaries of what's been said isn't allowed, it seems clearly and specifically not allowed, unless one suggests this was started by staff.

I was almost certain you were a Male, it was more making the point although I do try and default to they/them if I don’t know.

Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue.

It’s not my forum, or my rules. It’s Cycling News’ forum and their rules. I’ve not said whether I agree with them or not (inferred implication is always an issue on forums, especially when trying to be concise), and I don’t think any of the mods have, but we are asked to enforce them. A point was made about existing threads in the discussion about the closing of the politics thread. We’ve interpreted it as existing threads which run up against this rule can stay as long as they relate to cycling. If they say the thread needs closing then it’ll be closed.

I included the part of the article I wanted you to see and linked the article's full text. I've left nothing "behind". Let me suggest that what you so far think are my views, seem to be rather off. I'm not looking to confirm anything, I'm looking to have a discussion. I agree that testosterone plays a role, that seems incontrovertible so I am not including that bit or debating it. But you seem to be ignoring the points made about muscles being able to rebuild faster, and about simple size of heart, lungs, and musculature.

I’ve not said anything about your views I don’t think (again, inferred implication is a problem here). You made a claim that we are seeing an unfair advantage. The data does not show that.

Cece is an anecdote. One does not make policy on anecdotes, but on groups as a whole, or trends, or bodies of evidence. Of course there will be trans women who are smaller. What point does that even make?




I think your focus solely on testosterone does not address all of the facts in the situation. The claim of "no evidence" rings false to me. We have physiology and performance data, which is clearly evidence. You have not addressed the fact that some advantages, such as their bigger bone structure, greater lung capacity, and larger heart size remain, you have simply repeated your assertion that testosterone is all that matters. I agree it matters. It's the only thing? I am as yet unconvinced. Not even close, actually, but I'm certainly willing to hear an argument why muscular performance, bone structure size, lung capacity, and heart size don't matter.

You have evidence linking specific physiological traits to specific performance gains and data on these for trans women showing that these are higher in this group than cis women? Great, let’s have a link. I’m not saying these things don’t matter, I’m saying that you’d need to prove these specific advantages are always applicable to all trans women and are always greater than seen in cis women. If they’re not, they’re not trans specific, they’re athlete specific. That’s where the discussion over the phenotype algorithm enters the article.

Do these advantages overcome the specific disadvantage of altering their hormones? Is it a wash? Are there other disadvantages to being a trans woman that cis women don’t have? This is a much more complicated question. I’m not ignoring it, but you’ll have to provide the evidence for this rather than asking me to prove a negative. The evidence we have, trans performance based on population, suggests that there is no trans specific advantage. Trans women don’t outperform their population percentage. If anything they underperform based on current stats. This may change, but that’s what the current data says.

You say "All this"? All of what? I'm sure I didn't suggest anything about the NBA or advocate for any particular policy or action. Very odd. Trans men? Of course people ignore trans men, because for most people this discussion is about unfair advantages, not about excluding trans people because they're trans.

Removing someone’s fundamental rights seems a pretty big deal. That’s effectively what this thread is about. It’s seems a reasonable assumption that, if they have an unfair advantage you’d support them being removed from competition. Apologises if that’s too much of an assumption.

Trans men are essentially doping. Is this fair?

 

[King Boonen]

The fact a moderator is allowed to participate in this conversation and accuse people of phobias is crazy. What is KB going to do next? Hand out bans for using gender specific pronouns. This place is getting nuts.

If you have an issue with moderation then please feel free to contact the administrators.

Edit:

And if you could point out anywhere I’ve specifically accused a user of being transphobic then please do that. I’ve tried very hard not to do that or imply it.

 

[King Boonen]

Aren't like all studies based on the effect of testosterone alone?

There isn’t a huge amount of data, unsurprisingly. Most of it is looking at Male and female athletes and drawing conclusions. There’s one, possibly a few studies showing that an athletes testosterone level gives no indication of performance. That’s not hugely surprising either though.


Most of the data is epidemiological, essentially do trans women outperform their expected level based on the percentage of the population which is trans. All that data says no, they don’t, they underperform.

 

[GVFTA]

KB: "Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue."

You should not get to decide who is misgendering or simply using the language we were taught with no offense to anyone. You obviously have the right to do that as a poster, but I hope your mod hat is off when participating in a discussion of potentially political nature. Especially when you've made it very clear where you stand on it.

I appreciate your opinions and that is just what they are in the long run.

 

[FrankB]

KB: "Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue."

You should not get to decide who is misgendering or simply using the language we were taught with no offense to anyone. You obviously have the right to do that as a poster, but I hope your mod hat is off when participating in a discussion of potentially political nature. Especially when you've made it very clear where you stand on it.

I appreciate your opinions and that is just what they are in the long run.

After much thought, and with a strong desire to avoid misgendering anyone, I first thought I would use IT, as in " I would hope IT wouldn't hand out bans based on misgendering someone."

On further reflection, I've settled on A$%&ole as my pronoun of choice for everyone I encounter. It's gender/identity neutral, everyone has one, and in many cases entirely fitting.

 

[Pricey_sky]

It’s quite easy to not cause offence when talking about transgender people.

I’m a homeless support worker and at work we’ve had two transgender people staying with us, you don’t have to say ‘he’ or ‘she’ just a simple ‘they’ or ‘the person’ if reporting about a specific incident.

Of course a genuine slip of the tongue and mistakes can happen, however deliberately going against a persons gender beliefs can be considered a hate crime. In a fairly serious incident we had to deal with, a person was arrested over threats and transphobic comments (deliberately abusing the person, talking about them as male when they referred to themselves as female), so it is a serious issue.

Even going by the crown Prosecution Service it reads:
The term 'hate crime' can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

In summary, and in my experience in working with law enforcement around this issue, it’s always best to stay neutral, even if your personal beliefs differ. You should never purposely go out to cause offence to a transgender person and you can’t simply say ‘I’m just using the language I was taught’ it’s a criminal offence, simple as that.

 

[GVFTA]

In summary, and in my experience in working with law enforcement around this issue, it’s always best to stay neutral, even if your personal beliefs differ. You should never purposely go out to cause offence to a transgender person and you can’t simply say ‘I’m just using the language I was taught’ it’s a criminal offence, simple as that.

No one on this forum is talking directly to an individual whom has identified how they would like to be addressed. If you are going to threaten someone with law enforcement over the use of pronouns, you have lost your mind. Send the F*n crown service to Boulder, CO and have them arrest me. Or did I miss the part where this forum was declared a safe space.

 

[Pricey_sky]

No one on this forum is talking directly to an individual whom has identified how they would like to be addressed. If you are going to threaten someone with law enforcement over the use of pronouns, you have lost your mind. Send the F*n crown service to Boulder, CO and have them arrest me. Or did I miss the part where this forum was declared a safe space.

There was absolutely no threat on behalf of my post, if you believe that, you are sadly mistaken.

In your reply to KB you said that they do not get to decide who is misgendering and who is using the language you were taught.

That is correct, it’s the law that decides.

I merely pointed out what the law was and that it’s better to remain neutral regardless of people’s beliefs. It costs nothing to give and take a little kindness and repect to others.

 

[GVFTA]

better to remain neutral regardless of people’s beliefs. It costs nothing to give and take a little kindness and repect to others.

I completely agree with this. Have a good day.

 

[GVFTA]

Pricey, good on you for working with the homeless. It's a very important issue that needs not only professional services but volunteers also. Unfortunately, more people are interested in saving animals than people around my part of the world.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Pricey, good on you for working with the homeless. It's a very important issue that needs not only professional services but volunteers also. Unfortunately, more people are interested in saving animals than people around my part of the world.

Than you, working in this sector for over a decade has certainly broadened my horizons over the years.

Trying to stay sort of on topic it was fascinating to work and help people who were transgender, and understand the mindset and attitudes both towards, and from certain people against, their beliefs and values.

 

[GVFTA]

Almost on topic. A couple of paragraphs from a review of a study that looks at the fairness angle. The last paragraph is nuts. If this is where we are headed, it will no longer be sport, but a social experiment.

"Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport."

They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status."

 

[Pricey_sky]

Almost on topic. A couple of paragraphs from a review of a study that looks at the fairness angle. The last paragraph is nuts. If this is where we are headed, it will no longer be sport, but a social experiment.

"Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport."

They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status."

Yes that last paragraph is crazy. I just don’t see how they would be able to measure all of those aspects.

It’s such a wide variety of parameters, I mean, how do you measure socioeconomic status in terms of performance that would be fair?

 

[nevele neves]

KB: "Transphobia and misgendering. Hanging on to a specific definition of a word (or in this case a suffix) doesn’t make it correct, we’ll trust others on this and the widely accepted view that deliberate misgendering is transphobic. We can even just go with it’s being deliberately offensive and the consequences will be the same. That’s why I said I’m not going to debate semantics. It’s a diversion from actually discussing the issue."

You should not get to decide who is misgendering or simply using the language we were taught with no offense to anyone. You obviously have the right to do that as a poster, but I hope your mod hat is off when participating in a discussion of potentially political nature. Especially when you've made it very clear where you stand on it.

I appreciate your opinions and that is just what they are in the long run.

opinions we all have them. and you know the rest.

 

[King Boonen]

Yes that last paragraph is crazy. I just don’t see how they would be able to measure all of those aspects.

It’s such a wide variety of parameters, I mean, how do you measure socioeconomic status in terms of performance that would be fair?

I'd guess it's actually pretty easy. Socioeconomic effects are routinely measured in all walks of life (to keep within the rules lets avoid discussing other examples) and are very good indicators of performance. How well a population-wide statistic is going to translate to individuals is harder though. See below.

Almost on topic. A couple of paragraphs from a review of a study that looks at the fairness angle. The last paragraph is nuts. If this is where we are headed, it will no longer be sport, but a social experiment.

"Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport."

They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status."

It's going to be difficult to discuss this due to the nature of any examples that could be drawn, but we can try. Socioeconomic status is widely measured and used in deciding a range of things. It certainly has an impact in sport. As it's specifically related I think we're ok to discuss that one example. From what I remember total GDP is the best predictor of a countries Olympic success (it's far from perfect but the correlations are very large). How they would propose to reduce that down to individual athletes I have no idea, and how they would take into account changes in socioeconomic status I don't know.

Phenotype separation is already used in a lot of sports. The obvious ones are combat sports. I think rowing has light weight divisions, maybe some other sports do this too. Their suggestion is an extension of this. The most obvious negative of this is it generally creates a multi-tier system where one is seen as superior, because they would generally outperform anyone in the other tiers. It's also quite hard to apply this in team sports, as different roles usually call for different phenotypes.

I have two big issues with their suggestion (I actually have lots but these are the headlines). We currently don't know what combination of genetic (and social) factors will most likely generate results for a single individual. While it may work as a general trend across populations, that doesn't always mean you can reduce it to a single person and it will still be applicable. The effect of this would be to handicap some people unfairly and the reverse.

Secondly, whatever you decide to use would have to be measured in anyone taking part in competitive sports to properly class them. Where does this begin? Genetic testing and categorising kids? I'm assuming they had just started watching Gattaca but didn't finish it?

 

[jmdirt]

Off from the OP, but in line with were the conversation has gone: the significant other of a friend's daughter was identified at birth as a male but has live virtually her entire life as a female. She prefers to be identified with female (she/her), but doesn't care if someone uses male (he/his) because it doesn't change her day. She does however dislike "it". IMO she's fortunate that she just looks like a slightly masculine woman so she doesn't have too many issues I don't think. Obviously if you know someone's name its just best to use their name.

I might have posted this earlier in this thread but there is some interesting research about the XY-XX continuum that might be of interest for this discussion.

 

[Archibald]

I'd guess it's actually pretty easy. Socioeconomic effects are routinely measured in all walks of life (to keep within the rules lets avoid discussing other examples) and are very good indicators of performance. How well a population-wide statistic is going to translate to individuals is harder though. See below.



It's going to be difficult to discuss this due to the nature of any examples that could be drawn, but we can try. Socioeconomic status is widely measured and used in deciding a range of things. It certainly has an impact in sport. As it's specifically related I think we're ok to discuss that one example. From what I remember total GDP is the best predictor of a countries Olympic success (it's far from perfect but the correlations are very large). How they would propose to reduce that down to individual athletes I have no idea, and how they would take into account changes in socioeconomic status I don't know.

Phenotype separation is already used in a lot of sports. The obvious ones are combat sports. I think rowing has light weight divisions, maybe some other sports do this too. Their suggestion is an extension of this. The most obvious negative of this is it generally creates a multi-tier system where one is seen as superior, because they would generally outperform anyone in the other tiers. It's also quite hard to apply this in team sports, as different roles usually call for different phenotypes.

I have two big issues with their suggestion (I actually have lots but these are the headlines). We currently don't know what combination of genetic (and social) factors will most likely generate results for a single individual. While it may work as a general trend across populations, that doesn't always mean you can reduce it to a single person and it will still be applicable. The effect of this would be to handicap some people unfairly and the reverse.

Secondly, whatever you decide to use would have to be measured in anyone taking part in competitive sports to properly class them. Where does this begin? Genetic testing and categorising kids? I'm assuming they had just started watching Gattaca but didn't finish it?

you only need look at the Special Olympics to see mass classification of events and athletes - physical differences being more obvious than the mental ones, but by no means cannot be extended to other 'variations'

 

[King Boonen]

you only need look at the Special Olympics to see mass classification of events and athletes - physical differences being more obvious than the mental ones, but by no means cannot be extended to other 'variations'

Those are pretty different cases and I wouldn't say it's easily extensible, although I wouldn't say it isn't. My biggest issue is the second point I made, but that's getting pretty far off topic.

 

[Archibald]

Those are pretty different cases and I wouldn't say it's easily extensible, although I wouldn't say it isn't. My biggest issue is the second point I made, but that's getting pretty far off topic.

isn't that where the sporting issue really lies - "classification" of the athletes, or which category they should be competing in ?

 

[King Boonen]

Morning hat on:

Political post and reply removed.

Cheers,

KB.

 

[jmdirt]

Morning hat on:

Political post and reply removed.

Cheers,

KB.

Sorry! That was my bad...I replied about transgender legislation in Idaho.

 

[The GCW]

This is and will be a continuing topic.

Regarding the opinion piece in Cyclingnews.com: The UCI should find a new host for the 2022 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships

Opinion: We should all be concerned about anti-transgender laws in Arkansas

The UCI should find a new host for the 2022 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships

www.cyclingnews.com

A number of statements are worth considering and perhaps made accurate.

-Different people have different viewpoints on this subject and Brook Watts is exhibiting His right to protest His stance as other’s have protested the other side of this stance. People sometimes feel strongly one way or the other about this issue…. Him protesting His opinion doesn’t mean His opinion is correct.

-I don’t care for Asa Hutchinson. Don’t care for Arkansas. Don’t care for The political climate in the US which is growing increasingly hostile, toward men becoming women, people being in control of their own bodies and getting medical treatment.

That being said, I understand the concept that it is unfair for a man to become a woman and compete against women: exactly, a transgender woman to compete agains a woman. It requires believing the only difference between man and woman is surgery and lowering testosterone. 2 changes to man does not a woman make.

I commend efforts to not allow transgender women from racing against women.

People, all people, should be able to have and expect proper medical care, without discrimination of any kind and I don’t care for that issue being introduced into the separate issue of transgender women racing against women.

Don’t let separate political issues effect fair bicycle racing.

I feel as though the article shows Brook Watts is attempting to join 2 different separate issues in order to gain support for His viewpoint.

From the GCW. -The original poster.