Maybe the highland council bosses could put their hand in their pocket to help finance the assessments…
There paid enough afterall…
The ruling by British Cycling to exclude trans- women is a sad one, but it might be the only way to resolve the issue.
But that is no reason to celebrate the decision. If it is the right decision, then it’s nothing more than the least worst option available, and that isn’t something to be happy about.
4 Likes
People who love cycling are being prevented from competing in the sport they love in the category the believe best represents them. Even if you think it’s the right decision, which on balance I think I probably do, it’s still sad. As I said, it’s the least worst decision when their we’re no good decisions available.
Go on. Show all your famous lack of empathy and basic kindness, and disagree with that.
How about you argue against basic biology? Kindness has fuck all to do with it. Men are bigger and more powerful than women, that’s a fact. Interesting that kindness is a common point of yours on this subject. Noted.
Trans-women are not men, regardless of how binary and tiny your world view is. You want to appeal to biology, fine. Gender dysmorphia is a medical fact. Sorry nature doesn’t package people in two nice, neat divisions you can understand.
My point here is not that British Cycling has made the wrong decision. I think on balance it’s probably the right one, as I said before.
My point is let’s not be dicks about it. There is nothing to celebrate here. Some people have been discriminated against in order to prevent lots more people be discriminated against. It’s a sad situation to be in, with no easy way out. British Cycling have made the least worst decision from a bunch of shit options.
2 Likes
Ha fucking ha. But do you understand what I mean? Do you agree?
No because I don’t think anybody is being discriminated against. A trans woman is exactly that, not a woman. That’s my opinion (oh and scientific fact) and I know it differs from yours. For a change.
Cue “this has been explained to you”
1 Like
I think you’ll find this has been explained to you, you fucking massive transphobe.
It isn’t remotely a ‘scientific fact’.
Yeah, it’s an uncomfortable decision but one that “feels” right.
The benefit with cycling taking this decision is that it’s very much a data driven sport. Performance is measurable and therefore they can through data prove that there is a performance advantage.
However, what that now means for trans athletes is difficult. They’re effectively lost.
1 Like
Amazing that you get so triggered by the subject that you post insults like this. Not considering a person born a man being a woman is not transphobia. You can swear and stamp all you want.
Member of the site team too. Tragic.
Literally and metaphorically?
It really is.
1 Like
I can’t be arsed arguing with you. You’re transphobic, a deeply unpleasant person, and your comments here reveal this.
Yeah, that’s my point, away from the casual, nasty transphobia some people display.
There was no good decision British Cycling could make. This was the least worst.
I’ve always said about the trans issue it’s 99% easy. Just leave people alone and let them be who they want to be. If someone was born a man and wants to be considered a woman, it’s no skin off If people want to use the female toilets just let them. It’s not hurting anyone.
The only two areas where I think there is a problem is competitive sports (where is possibly an unfair physical advantage) and spaces where women need psychological protection from ‘men’. Even those aren’t 100% clear.
Wow.
Really impressive mental reasoning there mate. I don’t know what is more offensive. The idea that the logical conclusion to someone deciding they want to identify as a women is raping someone, or the idea that there are loads of rapists patiently waiting until the law lets them dress as women so they can go do their raping.
Too many people leaping to an immediate reflex without actually thinking.
Such a shame, but then I thought you were done arguing with me last week on another subject?
“A deeply unpleasant person.” Because I don’t buy the modern stance that a person can be anything they identify as? Makes me deeply unpleasant? Today I’m identifying as being an amazing cricketer called Andrew Flintoff. If you call me anything else or don’t think I’m amazing, must make you pretty unpleasant too……
But I’m no freddy and calling me a cricketer is stretching the bounds of credulity.
Ultimately you won’t discuss it because you can’t without getting all shouty and sweary. Not a good look.
I have no problem with people being who they are but i wouldn’t be comfortable with my young children(girls) sharing a locker room at the local swimming pool with trans women.I know genuine trans women are not going to be a danger to my children but there is a possibility that others will take advantage and we are opening the door for them to do so.We are potentially putting our kids in harms way when there is an alternative which is to have a 3rd space for those who are recognised as trans.
1 Like