Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Lol. I see you are trying the Aurora tactics.

No - that is the corollary to your assertion. Your entire argument is that women you disagree with should be quiet and just put up with it.

 

[monkers]

No - that is the corollary to your assertion. Your entire argument is that women you disagree with should be quiet and just put up with it.

From memory there have been three women telling Aurora to sit down, and none telling her to stand up. Is that a majority that suits your definition better?

 

[multitool]

The eloquent reply of someone who has no counter argument. My case rests.

You flatter yourself in thinking that I should be bothered to counter your post, icow. If you can't be bothered to follow a thread, why should I bother to explain it all to you.

No - that is the corollary to your assertion. Your entire argument is that women you disagree with should be quiet and just put up with it.

You've done another Aurora, icow.

 

[matticus]

From memory there have been three women telling Aurora to sit down, and none telling her to stand up. Is that a majority that suits your definition better?

"our survey of some people arguing on an unmoderated internet forum for (self-declared) cyclists said: "

 

[classic33]

Why do they officially record times, course records, your sex and age, at all if it's just a fun run? Why publish any results? You could time yourself on your watch if you wanted. If they are going to record times and publish results, it should be done with fairness taken into account surely.

Well, for starters if you run a particular one on a regular basis, it can help you keep track off your times. You'll then know if you're getting quicker or slower. Maybe even if your time remains fairly constant, but you find it's easier now than when you started.
You might even be running against a group of workmates on a regular basis. Official timing is a better marker than each keeping their own time.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova, Sharon Davies, Bette Midler, Macy Gray, Kathleen Stock, Margaret Atwood, Adele, Judy Blume etc, all weirdo obsessives and believers in conspiracy theories.

You could add scientists like Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston. Atwood and Judy Blume have recanted though. Who can blame them, really, noone needs the abuse they were facing at their age for saying some fairly mild and not at all controversial things.

From memory there have been three women telling Aurora to sit down, and none telling her to stand up. Is that a majority that suits your definition better?

Hmm. You think women who disagree with others, regardless of their sex, should sit down? Seems a bit authoritarian of you. This is a discussion forum after all, made up of random individuals, all entitled to their views. I've never suggested anyone 'sit down'.

In fact I welcome your verbose posts because they bring gender nonsense to a wider audience. They are perfect examples of the gymnastics required to justify male inclusion in female spaces.

You must long for the old forum where the histrionics we see on here could get this topic shut down pretty quickly.

 

[monkers]

"our survey of some people arguing on an unmoderated internet forum for (self-declared) cyclists said: "

Exactly my point.

People who conduct surveys know about the bias according to the passion with which a belief is held. If they are straight up honest people they work to neutralise it, or otherwise account for it. If they are dishonest they exploit it.

A poll of Daily Mail readers when asked about same sex marriage said ... (predict!)

 

[monkers]

Hmm. You think women who disagree with others, regardless of their sex, should sit down?

No I think that women who speak bigotry but claim they speak for women like me should sit down ... BECAUSE YOU DON'T.

No one elected you to speak for women. And stop telling me that I obviously don't care about women and girls, you utter fool.

 

[theclaud]

We don't know your views, Claude.

I refer you to the answer I gave last time you claimed this...

[farktons of actual opinions completely ignored by Aurora] I think a lot of other things, but a) I don't want to use up the whole internet, and b) whatever I tell you I think, you'll carry on as if I think something entirely different

I've always come at this subject from a second-wave feminist perspective, not from a Trans Rights one - gender essentialism, biological fundamentalism and social/institutional segregation are damaging to women, whether or not you are including trans women or trans men within that term in a given context. Every time you post you drive a wedge between people whose interests have hitherto been compatible or at least mutually intelligible. But of course that's the point. Those with any sense intuitively understand that solidarity with LGBT people in the face of a reactionary assault on their rights and those of women is a no brainer. Those who have already jumped the shark become more obsessed and monomaniacal, and move further right, ignoring the writing on the wall and amplifying the toxic politics of Posie Parker or Matt Walsh or Jordan Peterson.

Yes, please link to the post where I say 'I sanction genital inspections on school kids'. I might well have said a doctor's note would suffice if there was someone who would not divulge their birth sex, or a cheek swab and a 20 minute wait

Gotta LOL at this. Ohio Republicans only removed the bit about 'external and internal examinations' when it became clear to them that they'd said the quiet bit out loud. You're giving a whole new lease of life to the term Useful Idiot.

 

[Ian H]

A small digression about 'level playing fields'. We went to a talk by Michael Hutchinson the other day (intelligently entertaining, if you get a chance). He made the point that his inate genetic advantages (an extra litre or so of blood and huge lung capacity) gave him the physical ability to perform as a top-level professional cyclist. Should he have been banned from men's sport or put into a separate category?

 

[monkers]

A small digression about 'level playing fields'. We went to a talk by Michael Hutchinson the other day (intelligently entertaining, if you get a chance). He made the point that his inate genetic advantages (an extra litre or so of blood and huge lung capacity) gave him the physical ability to perform as a top-level professional cyclist. Should he have been banned from men's sport or put into a separate category?

Yes, and riders of Giant bikes should be made to ride in a special to them 'outsize' category - Aurora's rules.

 

[Ian H]

Parkrun is only as competitive as some people choose to make it. Of the five I've volunteered in make happen, those who make it competitive are a tiny minority.

The times are just times, no medals are handed out, no prizes, it's all about inclusivity.

I do know some people like to compete in non-competitions. Some even claim to have 'won' an Audax event (they know who they are).

 

[matticus]

A small digression about 'level playing fields'. We went to a talk by Michael Hutchinson the other day (intelligently entertaining, if you get a chance). He made the point that his inate genetic advantages (an extra litre or so of blood and huge lung capacity) gave him the physical ability to perform as a top-level professional cyclist. Should he have been banned from men's sport or put into a separate category?

What did Hutch think? Did he say he should have been banned? I find him a shrewd thinker, so I'm interested in the answer ...

 

[AndyRM]

I do know some people like to compete in non-competitions. Some even claim to have 'won' an Audax event (they know who they are).

It's strange, isn't it? To be honest I was never really fussed about the runners who took parkrun as a race, generally they'd hammer it and be off without a fuss.

To keep things on at least a vague gender tangent, at the one I was mainly involved with, the course "record" was held for some time by a woman. I was lucky enough to be marshalling the final corner on the day she set it, and saw her firing up the straight towards me before heading to the finish. I've never seen anyone run so quickly in my life.

 

[Ian H]

What did Hutch think? Did he say he should have been banned? I find him a shrewd thinker, so I'm interested in the answer ...

He didn't address that point. I did ask him about the 'arms race' in amateur testing. He thought the new road bike* category would soon succumb to the same phenomenon.

I was surprised to see entries for my ten categorised as TT or road. I've ignored it, having already listed the prizes. Also: Effing CTT website!