Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
This is the first year that the $30k prize money has been equal in both the Womens and Mens category.
"Inga Thompson, a three-time US Olympian and five-time national road race champion, who said this is "cycling's equivalent of Lia Thomas", the transgender swimmer who faced similar scrutiny after winning a US college women's title last year.
"This really highlights the issues that are happening to women in cycling," Thompson suggested. "We have more than 50 transgender women in the sport. And what's going on in the background is that women are just quietly walking away. They think, 'Why bother, if it's not fair?'".
Lowered testosterone does not mitigate the residual advantages that a male body gives Killips over female competitors. Even transwoman sports researcher Joanna Harper has now conceded this point.
"Inga Thompson, a three-time US Olympian and five-time national road race champion, who said this is "cycling's equivalent of Lia Thomas", the transgender swimmer who faced similar scrutiny after winning a US college women's title last year.
"This really highlights the issues that are happening to women in cycling," Thompson suggested. "We have more than 50 transgender women in the sport. And what's going on in the background is that women are just quietly walking away. They think, 'Why bother, if it's not fair?'".
Lowered testosterone does not mitigate the residual advantages that a male body gives Killips over female competitors. Even transwoman sports researcher Joanna Harper has now conceded this point.
multitool
Shaman
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5abgXEWQPlI
Pippa York thinks differently. Watch from 18 minutes.
Worth pointing out that in the US nationals a few months back, Killips was beaten by 2 natal women. And what does that signify?
I accept that in other sports there may be advantages for natal males and the issue needs to evolve.
Last edited:
multitool
Shaman
Citation please. I can't find any comments from Harper about Killips.
monkers
Guru
bobzmyunkle
Well-Known Member
Blatantly disingenuous even by Tool standards.
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
York would - they have a vested interest, as does Emily Bridges and Veronica Ivy.
That Killips isn't an outstanding cyclist, but can win against outstanding women because of residual male advantage. That outstanding women still win is not the question. Lance Armstrong didn't win every race he was doped in so it's fine that he was doping? Unfair advantage is measured at the outset not decided once the results are in.
I would think it's pretty clear cycling is one of those sports when you look at the physical attributes it requires.
Retained advantage of transwomen after hrt:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...tment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short
Also shown in Harper's own research:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865.abstract
Hard to believe that Harper's poor quality research and influence - in which subjects have an incentive to sandbag their own performance to produce a desired outcome - was instrumental in informing IOC policy.
I didn't say Harper had commented on Killips specifically. They have conceded that lowering testosterone does not eradicate advantage. Harper has now pivoted to a position of saying transwomen should be allowed in the female category if the advantage can be lowered to one of 'meaningful competition', ie if performance is near that of biological women.
This idea, that it's fair if the advantage isn't that big, makes no sense of course. It posits sex as just one component of advantage (others would be quality of training for example) rather than the overwhelmingly clear and persistant advantage that it is. It's simply a way of including biological males in the female sports category despite advantage, because the 'no advantage' argument has been lost.
Debunked at length here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2023.2167720
multitool
Shaman
What vested interest does a TW in her 60s who retired ftom cycling in the previous century, decades before she transitioned, have?
Did you even watch her? She made it abundantly clear she doesn't really give a shït, but if asked about the effect of HT on her (way after she retired,) she will answer.
I know that doesn't suit your narrative that all trans women are deceptive people out to abuse and predate on other women.
Riiiight
So Killips "retained male advantage" only kicks in when she wins, but not when she loses...which is in every single race bar one.
You don't know which races Armstrong doped for.
You implied that Harper's statement applied to Killip. I think that is your assumption, and not Harper's.
You do know that the Gila features an uphill TT, don't you? Did you even watch it? Do you know anything about competitive cycling? Or is it just a useful vehicle for you to grind your axe?
Am looking forward to you explaining how greater male bone density is an unfair advantage in an uphill race
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
Same vested interest that researcher Joanna Harper, who isn't an elite athlete either, has. To promote inclusion of people like themselves, even if it's too late for them to benefit. I don't doubt that lowering testosterone reduces athletic prowess somewhat. It been proven that it doesn't mitigate residual advantage though.
And the science doesn't suit your narrative that transwomen must get what they want, so you ignore it.
No. Killips has an advantage whether they place first or last. Fairness is not decided by outcome.
Did he only cheat in races he won? If I came last in the Tour de France on an electric bike, did I have an unfair advantage or not?
Perhaps it isn't. But it is one biological component amongst many, most of which do give males an advantage in cycling.Am looking forward to you explaining how greater male bone density is an unfair advantage in an uphill race
Another recent example. Transwoman Cara Dixon took the fastest time in the Womens Category in the Dirty Reiver gravel race at Kielder on 23nd April, which was an hour faster than the next competitor. The same time would have placed them 19th in the Mens comp.
multitool
Shaman
You've got it into your head that all TW are desperate zealots trying to trans other people and promote "gender ideology". They aren't. Many of them are too scared to leave their homes. Watch the video, then come back and tell me you still think that Pippa York gives a shît.
Standard Aurora straw man.
I really don't think you understand competitive sport at all. And definitely not cycling. He didn't ride every race to win.
EXACTLY!!!!
So she didn't perform at the level of the male riders then did she.
<here comes trope about shît male athletes transitioning just so they can win>
Last edited:
classic33
Senior Member
Where did those using electric bikes finish?
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
Lol. And you still don't seem to grasp that fairness is not decided by outcome. A (relatively) mediocre male, who wouldn't win in the male category, but can win in the female category proves they have an innate advantage (that compensates for their mediocrity). God knows how you think that if they come second in the Womens, or would be 19th in the Mens, it proves they have no advantage. Coming 19th just proves their residual male advantage doesn't work against other men.
Also, whilst York claims in that video to have lost 20% of their power, the comparator should not be their current performance v their best performance, but their performance v a biological woman's performance. A 25 year old female cyclist could lose 20% of their performance - you still wouldn't put them in the over 50's female race category. Additionally, fairness and ethics in sport should be based on science surely, not personal anecdotes about how drugs affect performance. These are subjective experiences.
It was a hypothetical question, Classic. Does it only count as an unfair advantage if you win, whether it's doping or an electric bike?
Also, whilst York claims in that video to have lost 20% of their power, the comparator should not be their current performance v their best performance, but their performance v a biological woman's performance. A 25 year old female cyclist could lose 20% of their performance - you still wouldn't put them in the over 50's female race category. Additionally, fairness and ethics in sport should be based on science surely, not personal anecdotes about how drugs affect performance. These are subjective experiences.
It was a hypothetical question, Classic. Does it only count as an unfair advantage if you win, whether it's doping or an electric bike?
Last edited:
multitool
Shaman
Told you this trope was on its way
Killip didn't race the men's race. So it's a counterfactual. It doesn't prove anything.
Funny how the (almost non-existent) wins from TW are always from athletes who "would have been mediocre" in the Mens.
Surely, what with the absolute domination of women's sport by the marauding TW some of them will be excellent male athletes and therefore producing stratospheric performances always, what with their innate advantages lol
Last edited:
classic33
Senior Member
Mine wasn't. Electric bikes were allowed, so some were racing against other than muscle power.
AuroraSaab
Legendary Member
Relatively mediocre. They are still good athletes, noones denying that, but the reality is they have a retained advantage. Whether they come first or last doesn't matter.
The wins aren't 'almost non existent', certainly not in cycling. However, we don't overlook unfair advantage because it didn't result in a win or because there's only one example of it. That simply isn't how ethics in sports works.
Edit: Looks like trans voices do get heard. India Willoughby was on Radio Scotland today talking about Joanna Cherry. Willoughby refused to appear if anyone was also given the opportunity to put the other side:
So they played a recording of Cherry instead lol.
The wins aren't 'almost non existent', certainly not in cycling. However, we don't overlook unfair advantage because it didn't result in a win or because there's only one example of it. That simply isn't how ethics in sports works.
Edit: Looks like trans voices do get heard. India Willoughby was on Radio Scotland today talking about Joanna Cherry. Willoughby refused to appear if anyone was also given the opportunity to put the other side:
So they played a recording of Cherry instead lol.
Last edited:
