This is a very convoluted subject and I don’t know where I stand on it.
If you are biologically male (in a very broad, undefined sense) and competing as a female is that fair?
Probably not.
What if you were born that way?
That’s a valid point…
But what if your biology gives you an “unfair” advantage?
If the athlete has purposely done anything to obtain that advantage then probably not, super athletes have always stood out.
Do both athletes have the right to compete?
Yes
Against what competition?
I don’t know
Semenya’s T count is probably higher than McKinnon’s is that unfair? Who has the advantage?
I didn’t call a single person a name. If you feel that a label applies to you, so be it.
However my comment is in response to all those bigots out there that have trolled RM since her win (from reading an article on the bbc) Luckily there are many more out there that have shown her support.
Maybe you could make that much more balanced position clearer next time then, rather than just offering such a blanket and counterproductive statement? We’re trying to have a civilised conversation here and you throwing around accusations seemingly targeted at no one in particular is really unhelpful
See, folks, this is what we call a strawman argument. The only things you’re missing are a pair of overalls, a corncob pipe, and a straw hat for your strawman.
The idea is that if someone is against transgender competition in sports, that they therefore can’t have an opinion because they also don’t vocally support equal pay for women in said sports. What a crock!
I won’t get into the transgender argument, but will take on the equal pay nonsense.
The reason why women cyclists (and basketball players, and triathletes, and tennis players, and ___) are paid less is very simple: supply and demand. The free market determines that women are paid less, not bigotry. Tour de France riders are paid large purses because it is literally the most watched event in the world. Of course, I would argue that most male cyclists aren’t paid crap for all of the hell they put themselves through, particularly compared to other sports, but that is what the market demands.
During the 21-stage, 90-hour event, upwards of 1.5B people watch at least some of the TdF. Why do you think there were Zwift commercials 5 times an hour during the TdF? Because people watch the sport and the networks can get away with 25 minutes of commercials every hour. Do you honestly think that any woman could descend like Alaphillipe did in Stage 17? Do you think any woman could climb that last half mile of gravel up a 24% grade like the guys did in Stage 6? No.
I can guarantee–absolutely guarantee–that if a woman’s cycling event drew an audience of 1.5B people, and these women could (a) cycle the same course with the same grades in the same time window as men, and (b) could descend or climb with the same level of skill and aggressiveness as someone like Alaphillipe, then I guarantee you that they’d be getting the same pay, attention, sponsorships, and benefits as their fellow male cyclists.
If a 5’3" 110 lb woman could throw a football as well as Aaron Rodgers, read the defense, could take a hit from a 300-lb lineman, and could draw the same fanbase (if not more), I guarantee she’d get just as much salary, sponsorships, and endorsements as Mr. Rodgers.
Case in point, this summer, shortly after the TdF was the eSports Fortnite championship. A 19-year-old kid played through the ranks of a few hundred thousand contenders and won the event with a purse of upwards of $2.5M. Think about that… you play a video game and win $2.5M; you bust your ass in the TdF and win $2M (that you have to share). Do I agree with that? Not in principle, BUT the free market demanded that the Fortnite winner deserved $2.5M, so that is what happened.
But the consumers of sports entertainment are mostly male. In other words, more women might be more interested in watching sports if their gender was better represented and that might change the supply-and-demand equation.
Agree on a lot of this and thanks for offering your thoughts up respectfully.
It seems you and I would align ourselves very closely on the free market, supply and demand etc. However, I’ve been having a thought…
I’m a big fan of cyclocross. The women’s racing has really developed recently and, partly because of the dominance of Van Aert and Van der Poel making the mens race almost a done-deal, more and more people (including myself) favour the women’s racing. So, despite the fact that the women race the course slower than the men, the racing is actually more exciting because it is closer fought and less predictable. I wonder how this might play out in the future. For sure, women would struggle to compete with the strength and athleticism of men in most sports, but when competing within their own sex, it may not always be the case that their physical disadvantages negatively affect the entertainment value.
I don’t know whether this is true or not but I’m open to the possibility that it could encourage some women to be viewers. However, nearly every single runner in the 100m olympics is black, all of the most entertaining gymnasts are female and I still watch them.
Discussions on highly emotive subjects will regularly get “lively” you will always have people that hold polar opposite views. (Living in the UK at the moment, dont I know it)
This does not mean i do not respect those i argue against, far from it. It is good to see people speak out on what they believe… even if i totally disagree with them.
The rules as they stand at the moment are currently making a mockery of the female world sprint titles.
Firstly I personally know of two very talented sprinters who didnt even bother entering the races because they knew Rachel would be competing, and during last week I was told of a lot more who made the same decision.
As the rules stand today Robert Forsterman could reduce his testosterone levels for a year and next year compete as a woman, and then tell me he has no advantage.
My father was diagnosed with cancer two years ago, the treatment he received, successfully ultimately destroyed all the testosterone in his body, and does so to this day, but he most certainly doesnt consider himself to be a woman.
Low testosterone levels do not dictate you being a man or woman.
And thats before we get into the physiological differences being born a man gives you - higher VO2 max, stronger skeletal strength, muscular strength, then keeping male genetalia and still being able to produce higher levels of testosterone still.
Someone did mention last week, trust me this was a huge topic at the worlds, that maybe there should be a grading system similar to para sports whereby you compete dependent on your level of disability.
Unfortunately Rachel does herself no favours. If someone has an opinion opposing her own, she becomes very vitriolic very quickly.
Hopefully this will be sorted out sooner rather than later and the UCi stop hiding their head in the sand.
No. WNBA has been around for 24 years (i.e., nearly 1 generation), and the fanbase and audience has stayed, more or less, flat in that timeframe.
Fencing, as a sport, has been around for several centuries, but you don’t see fencers making $35M a year with millions of endorsements on top of that. Why? Supply and demand. There’s no fanbase for fencing, male or female. The free market (almost) ALWAYS decides.
I should also probably admit that I’m being influenced here by seeing how my wife has gotten in to MTB XC racing and adores Jolanda Neff and watches all the women’s races. She has absolutely zero interest in watching the men’s races and I always have to remind her who Nino Schurter is.
But you’ve presented a hypothetical…so we don’t need the developments to at least start building an opinion. If women really are as oppressed in sport as you think, then women could’ve been saying “what about the female participation?” for at least a hundred years. Have they been doing that?
Can I just clarify that this is masters level racing? I don’t know where to look for top level masters racing results, but McKinnon lost 11 of 13 races to the woman who came 3rd last year - I would be curious as to her level of dominance this year. In Olympic level track sprinting it feels like dominance is a pattern - 3 different women have won the sprint world title 6 times.
I agree that her attitude can lead to her being perceived in a negative light, but given how much abuse many trans people get (in and out of the sporting arena), I suspect she feels threatened and lashes out quickly.
Finally, While the UCI has many many issues it needs to address, I don’t think this one is for the UCI to fix - if you look at the link I posted at the top of this discussion it’s the IOC who are the rule setters, and they have not been able to agree a new standard for Tokyo.
Another issue that people tend to forget here also is that Rachel changes and showers in the Women’s changing area…
Many women refused, as a friend told me it would be showering and changing with a physical and genetic man…
Tbh my, and the view of many, was that the genetic advantages are too great to overlook. Larger lung capacity, higher VO2 and larger muscles are too much of an advantage in sprinting.
I hadn’t thought about the changing issue. It seems like something that could be worked around with some understanding - hell 6 day riders seem to get changed in tents in the middle of the velodrome! However, I appreciate Rachel is somewhat uncompromising.
We need data to legitimately estimate the advantage that you get from all those things, vs the detriment that results from taking drugs to suppress hormones. I’m no sports scientist, but it seems that we have very little data.
In other words, more women might be more interested in watching sports if their gender was better represented and that might change the supply-and-demand equation.