|
Aug 2019
2:59pm, 14 Aug 2019
9,002 posts
|
rf_fozzy
I'd like to ask a hypothetical-ish question. I'm not aiming it at anyone in particular, but there was a debate about (particularly) transitioned women (sorry if this is the wrong label, I'm operating outside my knowledge zone) competing in races and I have some thoughts/questions about this.
A person wins a local 10k race. This person (unknowingly to everyone except the athlete) takes banned substances to improve their performance. Is this 'worse' than a transgender (?) woman winning a women's race in the same 10k.
What about if it's an open secret that the person who wins the race takes these substances. But there is no drug testing?
Should we insist on mandatory drug testing on all events?
What about a person (and here is where we enter the Casta Semenya territory) has a "natural" biological advantage that has the same effect as taking certain banned substances?
What about if a transman wins a race outright?
Given that we know that women have a biological advantage at endurace events (such as ultras), does this mean we have to ensure that we have a "1st male" category for those events?
My own personal opinion (and it is just an opinion) is that some of these questions are incredibly complex and difficult, and we should just accept that most of these situations are incredibly unlikely/low incidence and we cannot solve them all overnight. And so, we shouldn't get overly worried about some of them.
When it gets to "elite" competition, this raises a whole level of extra complexity and I'd argue that there are also no easy answers. Which is why I cringe whenever ex-athletes (e.g. Paula Radcliffe) come out with sweeping statements when what actually is needed is more open debate (such as this thread). Basically we all need to be a bit more tolerant until the facts can be ascertained.
I'll get people who beat me in a race and beat other people. And in the end, I'm racing me and my own personal goals anyway. I'll worry about other people only if I have a 'perfect' race.
And with that, my contribution is done.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:03pm, 14 Aug 2019
3,026 posts
|
Raemond
(it stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, and mostly describes people who deny that transwomen are women or insist on dead naming them, but who still self identify as feminists.
There are also SWERFs, sex worker exlusionary femnists, who argue that sex work is so inherently exploitative and harmful that no woman could ever actually consent to it and it must be outlawed, despite the many active sex workers who point out that this does nothing to make working conditions any safer for them)
|
|
Aug 2019
3:11pm, 14 Aug 2019
6,462 posts
|
Jovi Runner
Can someone please get Raemonds comments removed. This is a thread about transgender athletes competiing in athletic events. How dare he imply that sex work is not exploitative of women - absolutely disgusting in the extreme and the most offensive thing I have seen written on this page or indeed on this whole site.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:16pm, 14 Aug 2019
3,028 posts
|
Raemond
Aggresively misgendering me as well as wilfully misrepresenting my comments, a twofer!
|
|
Aug 2019
3:27pm, 14 Aug 2019
3,466 posts
|
westmoors
I see no problem with Raemond's comment. She was explaining an acronym that was used on the previous page and just adding another similar acronym with its definition. In no way was she expressing if she agreed or not with the sentiment.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:29pm, 14 Aug 2019
781 posts
|
Trin
I agree with westmoors, but could we please stop name calling. I don't know what a twofer is either, but it doesn't sound very nice
|
|
Aug 2019
3:30pm, 14 Aug 2019
6,463 posts
|
Jovi Runner
Why even mention the term. It has no place in this forum. This is a running site.
They have previoysly called me a TERF & the post above clearly accuses me of aggressive misgendering! I honestly can't decide if they're a wind up merchant or simply just a very unpleasant person.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:33pm, 14 Aug 2019
6,464 posts
|
Jovi Runner
Should they continue to insult me with these terms (which on Twitter are called out for what they are - hate speech) I shall be reporting to fetch.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:33pm, 14 Aug 2019
2,383 posts
|
ThorntonRunner
The thread is of value if we can increase our understanding of the issues and each other's positions, even when we vehemently disagree with those positions. When, on several occasions it's got overheated, then it's lost its value.
Is it worth making a post which is predictable likely to provoke a reaction?
And is it worth rising to what you perceive to be such a post?
By all means disagree and explain that disagreement, but keep it Fetch-like
|
|
Aug 2019
3:40pm, 14 Aug 2019
3,031 posts
|
Raemond
I have not called you a TERF, Jovi. I used the term in an aside in the context 'we all recognise that terfs are bad just as we all recognise that gravity is a thing' - for avoidance of doubt, I am certainly not now saying that you are gravity.
You, however, have called me nasty, used a familiar form of name without any pretence of being a friend which is a very unsubtle form of insult, and misgendered me in a clearly pretty agressive manner.
|
Gender identity, please help change
Jun 2021