Rachel McKinnon wins Worlds gold at UCI masters track cycling

robyntmorton

terrydel wrote: »

Suggesting she shouldnt be competing and calling her a cheat are not mutally exclusive. I dont wish to deny anyone their human rights, but if she is biologically a man, and she is, then I dont think she should be competing. Sport has rules, and well defined categories otherwise it would be a free for all. Personally I believe that the rules around this should be stronger and it should not simply be a matter of taking certain medication etc as outlined in a previous post. Either you fulfill the biological criteria for your category or you dont. As someone else said, the testosterone levels will become a target, as the haematocrit levels did with epo.

"I don't wish to deny anyone their human rights"
"I don't think she should be competing"
"Sport has rules, and well defined categories otherwise it would be a free for all"

Interesting things you have said there. Sport does indeed have rules, to stop it from being a free for all. I agree with you there. Jillian Bearden knew the rules, the event directors knew the rules, and under those rules she qualified to enter the competition that she did. She entered, she won. If she came fifth or sixth this conversation would not be happening.

The tie in between I don't wish to deny anyone their human rights, and I don't think she should be competing sounds very much like an exercise in Doublethink. Denying someone their human rights is bad, but it is alright to deny someone the right to compete as per their legal gender, in compliance with the rules set down. (Whether those rulles are correct or not is a different matter that will take a lot of time and data to figure out, and is a completely different side to the argument).

The final thing about testosterone levels, is that I came across an interesting article about Jillian Bearden this afternoon, which tells me that her testosterone levels are actually controlled at approximately half that of a cisgender female. The article also says how she has become friends with a lot of her competition. If it is easy enough to accept her for those on the inside, who have more to lose, why is it so difficult for those spectating on the outside?

Obviously though, a lot more research is required to be done. This is not an easy situation to be in, for those wanting to compete, those (potentially) in competition with them, and those overseeing each sport, who have to make and amend the rules to suit the knowledge that is there at the time, possibly making or breaking someone's dream. It is an emotive subject, and it is easy to get into spirited, occasionally heated debate, but none of us here are truly expert on the subject. If we were, we would be working with IOC/UCI/WADA/IAAF et al. on the subject, and not be here on boards arguing about it.

RiseToMe

A lot of the conversation on there is around male to female athletes, focusing on that they should compete against men.

I'm a transgender male, ie. Female to male, my Testosterone levels are in the normal male range, my estrogen levels are also in the normal male range, however if we take judo for example, do you all honestly feel like I should compete against women?

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

A lot of the conversation on there is around male to female athletes, focusing on that they should compete against men.

I'm a transgender male, ie. Female to male, my Testosterone levels are in the normal male range, my estrogen levels are also in the normal male range, however if we take judo for example, do you all honestly feel like I should compete against women?

Again, I'd say that instead of male and female sports, it might be an idea to change to a range of competitions based on size, musculature, etc.

RiseToMe

I also find it interesting that people are concerned about ringers, people transitioning in order to get the gold, I think people vastly underestimate the sheer volume of psychological evaluation required in order to undergo medical transition.

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

I also find it interesting that people are concerned about ringers, people transitioning in order to get the gold, I think people vastly underestimate the sheer volume of psychological evaluation required in order to undergo medical transition.

…and hard, grinding physical work needed to get a gold :P

RiseToMe

Chuchote wrote: »

…and hard, grinding physical work needed to get a gold :P

Lol true that, but i presume the other posters were relating to athletes who are already Olympic bound transitioning to "increases their chances" of gold.

I can see on paper why people have concerns around the subject, but as somebody who has been through the process and am currently in hospital, in a world of pain, facing a minimum of six weeks off work as part of this journey. It's not an easy road to just opt into.

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

Lol true that, but i presume the other posters were relating to athletes who are already Olympic bound transitioning to "increases their chances" of gold.

This sounds like the plot of an Australian comedy, tbh. Or Klinger in M*A*S*H, of course.

bucketybuck

robyntmorton wrote: »

Firstly, I would have to say that yes, this is a victory for equality.

Do you think the women trailing behind felt any equality? That they had competed on a level playing field?

RiseToMe

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do you think the women trailing behind felt any equality? That they had competed on a level playing field?

What aspect of the playing field wasnt level? They raced against a transgender woman who's Testosterone levels are controlled to be less than half that of an average woman.

robyntmorton

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do you think the women trailing behind felt any equality? That they had competed on a level playing field?

Yes and yes. Bearden played by the rules set down. It is most likely not the first time she has competed since transitioning either, and as has been said by myself and others, if she finished anywhere other than first, this would be a non event.

Remember that the difference between her winning and losing was 1 second. It can't be that unlevel a playing field.

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

What aspect of the playing field wasnt level? They raced against a transgender woman who's Testosterone levels are controlled to be less than half that of an average woman.

Her testosterone levels may be controlled, but she still has the heavier musculature of someone born male.

RiseToMe

Chuchote wrote: »

Her testosterone levels may be controlled, but she still has the heavier musculature of someone born male.

It is very well documented that male to female trans women lose a considerable volume of musucle mass and strength on HRT taking them in line with cisfemales. One of the first noticeable side effects is feeling weaker.
Likewise for female to male, one of the first noticeable effects is an increase of strength and ability to gain muscle. In fact, even the bridge of the nose widens in order to facilitate a greater oxygen intake for the muscles.

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

In fact, even the bridge of the nose widens in order to facilitate a greater oxygen intake for the muscles.

Feck! Maybe this is the answer to my ongoing sinus problems! (Hares down to the doc at high speed… as high as compromised breathing will allow, anyway)

Lumen

It feels like we now have a more sophisticated scientific understanding of sex which post-dates the development of gender-separated sport.

What do we really mean by "level playing field"? Is it "be the best that you can be with the genes you were born with?".

Why do we provide for women to compete separately from men at elite level? Is it to give us a more interesting/diverse spectacle or for some reason of fairness?

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

It feels like we now have a more sophisticated scientific understanding of sex which post-dates the development of gender-separated sport.

What do we really mean by "level playing field"? Is it "be the best that you can be with the genes you were born with?".

Why do we provide for women to compete separately from men at elite level? Is it to give us a more interesting/diverse spectacle or for some reason of fairness?

Exactly my point. In lots of sports women are now sailing through records that were considered impossible for men a few years ago, despite less muscle bulk, etc.

If we're going to separate out men and women, maybe we should have separate events for people from mountainous countries with less oxygen, since those athletes will have an advantage when they come down to an oxygen-rich environment…

It would be interesting if there were events based on ability, weight, musculature and so on, in the way there are weight levels in boxing. In some sports it's particularly crazy-seeming - I mean, women's sailing? How is a woman differently able to sail a boat?

magicbastarder

one thing not mentioned - it's tough enough finding the ideal saddle for yourself, without having to deal with the demands of a changing undercarriage.

ford2600

Chuchote wrote: »

Exactly my point. In lots of sports women are now sailing through records that were considered impossible for men a few years ago, despite less muscle bulk, etc.

If we're going to separate out men and women, maybe we should have separate events for people from mountainous countries with less oxygen, since those athletes will have an advantage when they come down to an oxygen-rich environment…

It would be interesting if there were events based on ability, weight, musculature and so on, in the way there are weight levels in boxing. In some sports it's particularly crazy-seeming - I mean, women's sailing? How is a woman differently able to sail a boat?

That doesn't really mean much "in lots of sports" and "a few years ago". Specifically what sports and when are we talking about?

Sailing a boat singlehanded requires lots of strength ( along with a huge varied skillset) that being male probably does have some advantages in terms of strength

Chuchote

ford2600 wrote: »

That doesn't really mean much "in lots of sports" and "a few years ago". Specifically what sports and when are we talking about?

Sailing a boat singlehanded requires lots of strength ( along with a huge varied skillset) that being male probably does have some advantages in terms of strength

Oh, gosh, Ford, I can't think of the search terms to find this. What I mean is that, say (while no woman has yet run a four-minute mile) women are now running sub-4'30" miles, which would have been considered impossible for men before Bannister et al.

Both men's and women's speed and skill have been increasing, so that women are breaking records that men broke before them.

seamus

Lemming wrote: »

And one could be fairly sure that medically qualified people have poured over the requirements for transgender athletes to compete in their chosen fields, as Lumen has already pointed out. TBH, this whole stickybottle article headline is a) clickbait, b distasteful as f*ck and c) prejudice looking for outrage.

They use the word "dominates" while conveniently ignoring the fact that the two lead riders were neck and neck. On a different day the transgender woman could easily have come second and this wouldn't be news except that two women dominated the race, coming in 22 minutes ahead of the rest.

There's no ignoring the physical advantages a trans woman will have starting out, but as shown there seem to be fairly rigorous rules around when they're allowed to enter competitions and the physical condition they should be in.

Obviously there is always the risk of gender "tourism", but there are some rules for that too. Perhaps some kind of rules which prevents competing in International/Olympic events for a set time after being "cleared" for other competitions. And a "change back" rule which retroactively renders all records and medals void if the athlete later reverts to their birth gender?

Chuchote wrote: »

Both men's and women's speed and skill have been increasing, so that women are breaking records that men broke before them.

We do tend to forget just how far behind women's sport is - not just in terms of times and records, but also historically. Men have been running races and throwing javelins since record began. Women have occasionally been brought into the fold, only to be cast back out again. Whereas there has never been a time in human history where men weren't competing against eachother physically, for sport.

Next year will mark fifty years since a woman "controversially" ran the Boston Marathon, defying a ban on women runners. Women's sport is barely in its infancy of development, versus hundreds of thousands of years where men have been raised practically from birth, to be athletes.

Chuchote

seamus wrote: »

…where men have been raised practically from birth, to be athletes.

I've always noticed this. Someone brings a week-old baby into the workplace, and if it's in pink it's always "Who's Daddy's little princess, then?" and if it's in blue it's "Hey, tough guy, gotta smile for me?"

I was puzzled at an acquaintance in London addressing my two-year-old as "Killer" - turned out it was short for "Ladykiller"…

Nermal

RiseToMe wrote: »

It is very well documented that male to female trans women lose a considerable volume of musucle mass and strength on HRT taking them in line with cisfemales.

You cannot undo the physical effects of going through puberty as a man.

Even if their current testosterone level is kept in the female range transgender athletes still have an advantage. In elite sport the margins are small enough that normal females won't be able to compete.

The current rules are a product of an ideology that wants to deny biological reality. They will ruin elite women's competition.

nak

magicbastarder wrote: »

one thing not mentioned - it's tough enough finding the ideal saddle for yourself, without having to deal with the demands of a changing undercarriage.

But at least you can choose the appearance of said undercarriage to make it a little more cycling friendly (joking aside gender reassignment surgery looks like a difficult, painful process). Some female cyclists have had surgery to make themselves more comfortable on the bike. Not having periods could be a bonus from a performance advantage.
Female hormones certainly aren't performance enhancing, most professional athletes would steer well clear of hormonal contraceptives. As someone who is on 2 forms of hormonal contraceptive for medical reasons, I feel terrible on the bike a lot of the time - constant fatigue but lucky I haven't gained any weight.

RiseToMe

Nermal wrote: »

You cannot undo the physical effects of going through puberty as a man.

Even if their current testosterone level is kept in the female range transgender athletes still have an advantage. In elite sport the margins are small enough that normal females won't be able to compete.

The current rules are a product of an ideology that wants to deny biological reality. They will ruin elite women's competition.

You appear to have neglected that there was one single second between the transgender athlete and the cis athelete.

In terms of the physical effects of puberty as a man that would be advantageous to a transgender female, what would they be exactly?

Nermal

RiseToMe wrote: »

You appear to have neglected that there was one single second between the transgender athlete and the cis athelete.

I didn't say that every transgender athlete is going to be better than every female athlete.

RiseToMe wrote: »

In terms of the physical effects of puberty as a man that would be advantageous to a transgender female, what would they be exactly?

Skeletal structure, bone density, size. Perhaps years of competition against men, training as a man. A man taking female hormones is not the same as a woman.

Chuchote

RiseToMe wrote: »

In terms of the physical effects of puberty as a man that would be advantageous to a transgender female, what would they be exactly?

Bigger muscles?

RiseToMe

Easiest thing to do is for me to leave this link here

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/debunking_unfair_advantage_myths_about_trans_athletes_partner/

RiseToMe

Chuchote wrote: »

Bigger muscles?

Again not true, mft transgender women lose large amounts of muscle and have lower Testosterone levels then their cis counterparts so find it harder to build and maintain muscle.

Daroxtar

100m 10.72 10.49
200m 21.42 21.34
400m 47.27 47.60
800m 1.49.63 1.53.28
1000m 2.24.39 2:28.98
1500m 3.47.1 3:50.07
3000m 8.20.4 8:06.11
High Jump 2.13m 2:09
Long Jump 6.10m 7:52

The first sets of figures are the Irish U-18 mens records
The second sets of figures are the women's world records.
Parochial Schoolboys v full time international professional athletes.
The advantages of being biologically male are absolutely massive. No amount of testosterone suppression would level the playing field at an elite level.

The reason the Trans cyclist only beat the female by one second is because she was 22 minutes better than her rivals, ie elite

RiseToMe

It's not Testosterone suppression, it's removal of Testosterone from the body almost entirely.

check_six

Daroxtar wrote: »

The reason the Trans cyclist only beat the female by one second is because she was 22 minutes better than her rivals, ie elite

If the race was just a standard road race you can imagine how the finale played out. Two breakaway cyclists hit the final kilometer a *long* way (maybe 20km) ahead of the peleton. Bit of cat and mouse. Sprint winds up and they both go for it. Pulling out a big enough of a lead to have a time gap (even 1 second) in those circumstances is winning by quite a large margin and winning quite comfortably. It sounds superficially like a dominant win, although the scenario above is just speculative from the type thing you'd see in other road races.