Dr Rachel McKinnon has defended her right to race ahead of the UCI Masters Track World Championships in Manchester this weekend. McKinnon became the first transgender athlete to win a world title in any sport when she took the 200 metres world title in the 35-44 women’s sprint category last October.
McKinnon took silver in the 500m time trial earlier this week and set a new world best time in qualifying in the sprint earlier today.
However, she has frequently faced arguments that she should not compete in female competitions.
Earlier this year, she responded to comments made by Sharron Davies by tweeting a photo of the former swimmer, suggesting that if it were posted alongside the question “Do you think it’s fair for this trans women to compete in women’s sport?” a lot of people would be calling Davies a man.
“There’s a stereotype that men are always stronger than women, so people think there is an unfair advantage,” McKinnon told Sky News. “By preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you’re denying their human rights.”
A recent study by Sweden’s Karolinska Institute suggests the impact of hormone treatment on the leg strength of women who have transitioned from being male is almost negligible.
Asked if she accepted it was possible that transgender women retained a physical advantage, McKinnon replied: “Is it possible? Yes it is possible. But there are elite track cyclists who are bigger than me.
“There is a range of body sizes and strength. You can be successful with massively different body shapes. To take a British example, look at Victoria Pendleton, an Olympic champion with teeny tiny legs.
“In many Olympic disciplines the gap in performance is bigger between first and eighth in a single sex event than it is between the first man and the first woman.”
McKinnon says that sport is central to society, “so if you want to say, ‘Well, I believe you’re a woman for all of society except this massive central part that is sport,’ then that’s not fair. So fairness is the inclusion of trans women.”
Asked whether trans inclusion was more important than retaining a category for women in sport, McKinnon replied: “I think what you’re asking me is, ‘Is it more important that trans people are included, than it is to retain fairness in sport?’
“My point is that trans inclusion is fairness: it is unfair to exclude trans women. This is much bigger than sport in that it’s the proxy for all of trans inclusion in society. Talk of bathrooms has shifted into sport by people who don’t care about sport, so I think it’s clear that this issue is bigger than sport.”
44 thoughts on ““Trans inclusion is fairness” says Rachel McKinnon ahead of Masters Track Cycling World Championships defence”
I like to consider myself
I like to consider myself fairly liberal and certainly don’t have issue with trans but until a female who has transitioned to male starts beating males I’m not entirely convinced on this argument of it all being fair.
McKinnon is also extremely agressive to anyone who doesn’t whole heartedly support her doesn’t exactly help her case.
I think McKinnon has been
I think McKinnon has been quite open to all media and interviews on this subject, of which you’d have to agree she knows more than most laypeople. Aggressive is perhaps an unfortunate word to use, she’s ‘named’ a few manly looking women in her defence previously which may be to what you’re referring to, regardless if you give her the benefit of the doubt, you may have been defensive also if you’d taken similar abuse.
The sad fact of this ‘issue/argument’ is that when you boil it down to the bare facts, science, social complicity and sport cannot agree that fairness is possible.
peted76 wrote:
She’s also tweeted that people who disagree with her should burn in grease fires… So there’s that 😐
peted76 wrote:
The good Dr doesn’t understand fairness, nor understand basic biology/physiology, or is being deliberately ignorant of those basics, so as a lay person I would say I, and indeed many other lay-perons have somewhat more of an understanding of the matter.
Yes sport by definition is ‘unfair’ some people have a NATURAL advantage, their gentic makeup that they are born with, some just train very hard, are more dedicated, have the right guts and mental will to succeed over others who do have a superior genetic makeup.
However one cannot ignore the facts at hand, being born a male, have gone through at the very least puberty as a male will and does give you a genetic/phsyiological advantage that only a ridiculously small number of people who were deemed to be females may have anywhere close to, Caster Semenya for instance who is intersex. However she was born that way, she had absolutely no say in the way she was born or deciding what ‘sex’ she was nor, yes I will say it, gaining an UNFAIR advantage over others.
There are an awful lot of
There are an awful lot of issues between people that can be resolved with tolerance and understanding. Who you love, who you pray to, how you want to dress, which loos you would rather use, basically how you would wish to be respected as a person going about your everyday pursuit of happiness. I would hope that any civilised society actively embraces and celebrates difference.
Unfortunately biology doesn’t play by the same rules. Some people get born with attributes which simply give them an advantage at certain things. Some people get looks, some brains, some get physical attributes that allow them to develop talent at elite levels of sport. Some lucky bastards seem to get everything. It’s not fair, but don’t blame Darwin he didn’t invent evolutionary genetics. Want to run a top hedge fund? – shouldn’t really matter what sex you are, were, will be or currently identify as, same with being a surgeon, or a cub scout leader, bus driver or whatever but sport is pretty much unique in that how you are physically put together very much affects your ability to compete and win. I’m really struggling to see how someone who starts as male, gets all the characteristics of testosterone fuelled body development at an early age and then takes some hormones later on to identify as female is not at a fundamental advantage over those who developed throughout their lives under a female hormone regime. In terms of base body muscle mass if nothing else.
Some sports are sort of isolated from ‘unfair’ competition by means of weight categories, a small number are or could be gender neutral, but these are hardly practical distinctions for all sports. Maybe a classification system of Male / Female / Other, but then you are denying someone the right to identify as the person they are. Outright banning transgender athletes is simply not fair or ethical. Would it really matter if most of the competitors in elite women’s sports events are females who used to male? Would it be fair that if you are born female in a female body you may as well give up any hope of competing at elite womens sport in events dominated by women who previously existed in male bodies?
For now, If anyone actually asked for my opinion, I think I’d have to come down on the side of womens sport being exempt from political correctness in this instance, that the needs of the many do actually outweight the needs of the few at this point in time. Personally I don’t see this as any kind of thin end of the wedge argument about not accepting Trans people in pretty much any other (I really cannot think of any other circumstance outside womens elite sport) walk of life.
It’s not remotely a level
It’s not remotely a level playing field for a biologically born female competing against someone who was born male and developed into adulthood as a male.
In social terms I couldn’t care less, but in competition terms it matters. It’s simply not fair to those biological women who have dedicated their lives to the sports. Fiddling with hormone levels doesn’t do the trick. It’s like me taking a 1000cc race bike into the 600 class and then saying well I’m running on lower octane fuel and messed around with the ignition. It’ll be right.
What I see in the photo is a
What I see in the photo is a man with a woman on either side. Are we going to see this at Wimbledon? What about womens football and rugby? In my view the whole thing is an absurdity and damages women’s sport and the opportunity for real women to achieve.
hobbeldehoy wrote:
I saw a woman in the middle who could transition to a man an give a few of the chaps a good kicking.
McKinnon is a cheat.
McKinnon is a cheat.
McKinnon is a man.
McKinnonn has a penis.
Women have worked so hard for years to improve their rights and access to the world.
100 years of sufferage … down the drain because any man can say ” Im female’ … and expect the whole world to support him. Women get pushed out of sporting success to allow men who feel the need to cheat to push their agenda and political programme forward.
McKinnon is a cheat, a man and a disgrace to sport everyehere..
landsurfer74 wrote:
Chill out mate.
It’s Masters 35-44 track worlds.
Jackson wrote:
It’s Masters 35-44 track worlds.
— JacksonNext time it could be the Olympics.
Although IMHO that’s not reason for us all to get hot under the collar. As a male, I don’t feel qualified to offer a strong opinion. I think it would be better if the discussion was led by women, as it is they who are affected.
Simon E wrote:
Agreed.
I’d also submit that allowing trans folk (male>female) to participate in female competition kinda makes a mockery of why we make the athletic distinction the first place.
I would also suggest that maybe we need to open up mens’ competition to anyone who can hold their own. I’m sure there are more than a handful of female riders who could hold their own in the mens’ peloton.
chuckd wrote:
What do you mean by holding their own, is that soft pedalling in the middle of the pack or on the nose as a domestique putting pressure on a team/individual, keeping a high tempo or even chasing down a break or even making a break themselves?
IMHO and with all respect to your opinion I cannot see how that could possibly be true at elite level, the average speeds simply say no, the race distances both length and number of days of individual events and days racing over a season say no, the elevation gained says no.
Compare the lantern rouge of this years TdF Lawson Craddock to Annemiek van Vleut, he would absolutely slaughter AvV, on the first day of a world tour race as soon as the pace went up, she would get swamped, she’d lose places sprinting out of corners, small ramps etc and spat out the back.
That’s no disrespect to the ladies, it’s just a simple fact of outright ability due to sex, elite men will beat elite women EVERY SINGLE TIME, and this is wthe problem with allowing participants who were men before, to compete with women as a women, physiologically they are not in any way like other women, even intersex women.
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
Well then, quite a strong response there. Based on presumptions too, since it hasn’t been tried (to my knowledge). What is a fact is athletes will rise to the level of competition they compete in. Maybe not all the way, or maybe they will. But I guess in your world they don’t even get the chance to try.
I would also point to a glaring error in your theory about race design. The races are shorter and the climbs less difficult because men decided it should be so, based on similar presumptions.
Anyway, I just said I’m open to it. It’s up to women to decide if it’s worth a try (and then to convince the men to allow it).
chuckd wrote:
No, no and no. You can’t just ‘raise your mental game’ and somehow transcend physical limitations. If what you are saying is true then women have forever sold themselves short by having segregated sport.
Put it to the test, remove any ‘women’s’ sports and then see if they get into any teams or rise to top of any individual competitions. No more women’s tennis, just tennis. Wonder where the females will end up. I’d say nowhere in the top 100.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Let’s get something straight: men segregated women from mens’ sports, ok? If you think otherwise you’re deluded. That kind of thinking undermines whatever else you have to say. There’s a word for it and it’s “mansplaining”.
And by the way, what I’m suggesting is NOT throwing everyone into the same game or race, it’s providing an opportunity for ANYONE to compete at the male level if they can. I fully acknowledge there appear to be innate differences between males and females athletically.
chuckd wrote:
Not sure that makes sense. The 100m sprint is the same whether you’re male or female, and everyone is just trying to do it as fast as they can. Are you saying that the reason the men are nearly a second faster is that the women are somehow complacent about the competitors they’re facing?
vonhelmet wrote:
Well then, quite a strong response there. Based on presumptions too, since it hasn’t been tried (to my knowledge). What is a fact is athletes will rise to the level of competition they compete in. Maybe not all the way, or maybe they will. But I guess in your world they don’t even get the chance to try.
I would also point to a glaring error in your theory about race design. The races are shorter and the climbs less difficult because men decided it should be so, based on similar presumptions.
Anyway, I just said I’m open to it. It’s up to women to decide if it’s worth a try (and then to convince the men to allow it).
— vonhelmet Not sure that makes sense. The 100m sprint is the same whether you’re male or female, and everyone is just trying to do it as fast as they can. Are you saying that the reason the men are nearly a second faster is that the women are somehow complacent about the competitors they’re facing?— chuckd
You’re presuming I’m saying women are athletically equal to men. I’m not. I’m attempting some foresight to more of these sexually ambiguous situations and how it can be handled. And my suggestion is rethinking how we segregate “men” and “women”. And if the responses here are any indication, there’s little hope of affording women equal opportunity in cycling.
chuckd wrote:
You said women could compete with men on equivalent courses. I offered the most equivalent of courses and now you say that’s not what you actually said?
Men and women are not physically equivalent. Sorry, I guess?
vonhelmet wrote:
Well then, quite a strong response there. Based on presumptions too, since it hasn’t been tried (to my knowledge). What is a fact is athletes will rise to the level of competition they compete in. Maybe not all the way, or maybe they will. But I guess in your world they don’t even get the chance to try.
I would also point to a glaring error in your theory about race design. The races are shorter and the climbs less difficult because men decided it should be so, based on similar presumptions.
Anyway, I just said I’m open to it. It’s up to women to decide if it’s worth a try (and then to convince the men to allow it).
— vonhelmet Not sure that makes sense. The 100m sprint is the same whether you’re male or female, and everyone is just trying to do it as fast as they can. Are you saying that the reason the men are nearly a second faster is that the women are somehow complacent about the competitors they’re facing?— chuckd
You’re presuming I’m saying women are athletically equal to men. I’m not. I’m attempting some foresight to more of these sexually ambiguous situations and how it can be handled. And my suggestion is rethinking how we segregate “men” and “women”. And if the responses here are any indication, there’s little hope of affording women equal opportunity in cycling.
— vonhelmetYou said women could compete with men on equivalent courses. I offered the most equivalent of courses and now you say that’s not what you actually said? Men and women are not physically equivalent. Sorry, I guess?— chuckd
Speak for yourself. You’re either misreading what I said, or you’re twisting my words for your own benefit. Either exposes some personal prejudices.
What I did say was “I’m sure there are more than a handful of female riders who could hold their own in the mens’ peloton”. Hope you can see where and why you’re mistaken.
chuckd wrote:
You said women could compete with men on equivalent courses. I offered the most equivalent of courses and now you say that’s not what you actually said? Men and women are not physically equivalent. Sorry, I guess?— vonhelmet
Speak for yourself. You’re either misreading what I said, or you’re twisting my words for your own benefit. Either exposes some personal prejudices.
What I did say was “I’m sure there are more than a handful of female riders who could hold their own in the mens’ peloton”. Hope you can see where and why you’re mistaken.— chuckd
There aren’t. Not one. In the shit 3/4 cat races I do, women compete with men. They get left for dead when it gets fast – and that’s first cat women. Stick an elite female rider in a 2/3/4 Road race with some hills in it and they’d get round and be in the mix at the end. Stick an elite or pro female rider in even a domestic E/1/2 and they wouldn’t have a prayer of a result. They wouldn’t even last the pace of the first real attack on the flat.
This is not unfairly saying that women can’t compete with men because they’re being oppressed. It’s a simple, brutal fact.
chuckd wrote:
Ok, so you’re not going to answer on the 100m question. Fine. Let’s try another, something more relevant. Why do men hold all the KoMs on strava? A lot of those will be set when people aren’t even racing anyone else there and then. All you have is a time to compete against. So why don’t the women ever top the leaderboards?
chuckd wrote:
Women can’t even get close to the average speeds of the males even when riding on shorter courses with less altitude gain nor even with the advantage of superior weather conditions. The WC proved that in spades. Put AvV in the mens race and she’d be absolutely massacred, there’s no presumptions at all, I know for a fact that elite women will not be able to “hold their own” in the men’s peleton, the evidence proves this to us already.
Why don’t you go poll some elite riders and ex pros and see what their responses are as to how they would do riding a season with the men!!
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
Chloe Dygert would’ve come in 12th in the U23 men’s ITT at WC, ahead of a lot of guys going world tour next year.
Jackson wrote:
Different day, different conditions and not Elite- you understand what Elite means right?
The shorter the distance the smaller the gap, we know this in athletics and swimming at the very least. Trying to make the case that elite women could compete at male elite level in pro races by using the time of the winner of the senior ladies TT to a very windy/adverse coondition day of u23s is just ludicrous.
Why do you think over a Marathon course the gap is over 14 minutes between men and women, even a women running with men pacing her?
There has been only one women to beat men on a level playing field in cycling that I know of, but even the greatest female cyclist, maybe the GOAT of all time male/female, and a freak of nature in her own way, would not be able to compete in the pro ranks of the time. Burton was likely to be the closest to being able to hold her own but she often got undone in the ladies sprints, that would have been her undoing in male races, accelerating hard out of corners and going uphill, there’s a gulf and there always will be.
“If you want to say, ‘Well, I
“If you want to say, ‘Well, I believe you’re a woman for all of society except this massive central part that is sport,’ then that’s not fair”
Truth is, I don’t believe you’re a woman. You might believe that (I’m far from convinced that you do), you might crave the validation of others supporting you in that belief, but facts don’t change so easily. I can sympathise with your plight without having to affirm the lie.
The simple solution is to
The simple solution is to base it on DNA. Have an XX category for those with the XX chromosome and an open category for the rest.
If a man want to pretend he’s a woman, good luck to him. But he shouldn’t get to use his natural advantages to cheat real women out of their just deserts.
FrankH wrote:
It’s a simple solution but unfortuantely like most simple solutions it doesn’t work.
This thread has gone a bit Alan Partridge flashback-y. Some of you seem a bit obsessed for some reason.
Jackson wrote:
That article is a travesty that conflates sex with gender and elective non-binary choices with intersex abnormalities. And since it builds on the idea that the science has “moved on”, maybe read the confessions of one instrumental in that early movement:
https://quillette.com/2019/09/17/i-basically-just-made-it-up-confessions-of-a-social-constructionist/
Jackson wrote:
OK, I read that and got as far as “Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.” Which sounds a bit weaselly: “some reseaerchers”, “as many as”. But even taking some researchers’ upper estimate, that leaves fewer than 1% who don’t fit into the traditional man/woman classifications. That doesn’t justify allowing a man, i.e a person with the XY chromosome, to compete as a woman.
As for “Alan Partridgey”, some of us care about fairness.
FrankH wrote:
If only it were that simple. There are women with a Y chromosome and men without one.
Sport has a long and uncomfortable history of sex/gender testing. Genitalia, chromosomes, hormones… Unfortunately there is no single, simple way of determining a person’s sex; it is a mix of chromosomes, genetics, internal and external genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics and hormones. For many people those all conflict. Then we throw in the difference between sex and gender and we’re left with an unholy mess.
I don’t have a simple solution. But I know that those who do are wrong.
https://app.getpocket.com/read/1334254159
Ricky Gervais made a good
Ricky Gervais made a good point about this:
this argument works ok until the first transgender boxer comes along. Then what. Are we going to be comfortable watching that fight? (For example) mike Tyson could decide to transition and take on any woman in the appropriate weight category. Would people still consider this fair?
Pantster wrote:
landsurfer74, just wondering
landsurfer74, just wondering what this rather complex story has to do with voting rights being expanded almost all men and some women? I don’t see why this issue should lead to anyone being disfranchised.
She was on the Strava podcast
She was on the Strava podcast a couple of months ago and from the bit I listened to she really didn’t come across that well. Honestly I got about 7 minutes in and found her too arrogant and annoying to listen to any more. That arrogance potentially doesn’t attract people to her cause.
She says in the Sky interview “there’s a stereotype that men are stronger than women”, well of course there is, because its true! Sure she might not have stronger legs, or greater lung capacity, or stronger heart, or lower body fat than some of her competitors but she still has a big leg up over the average woman.
Saying “By preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you’re denying their human rights.” is also ridiculous. Their human right to do whatever they feel is right and ignore everyone who thinks it’s wrong? Interesting question, I wonder what would happen if she entered as a male. Would the UCI allow it? Or would they fear being labelled as transphobic.
I get it, it’s hard for her, she wants to compete in sport but she also wants to be a woman. I don’t think that trumps the rights of the other women however to have a level playing field.
What he is forgetting is that
What he is forgetting is that society doesn’t accept this. Some people do.
Many of us feel strongly that messing about with nature is wrong. Very very etc wrong. Personal feelings don’t count. Tough luck. You are what you come out of the womb as. End. Dress how you like but to expect others to bow to your selfish thoughts is wrong.
Human rights. Yeah right. He means human selfishness and greed.
mattsccm wrote:
do you refuse medical treatment for yourself and any children you may be responsible for?
The issue has been made with
The issue has been made with in relation to boxing, a professional male boxer identifying as female would pulverise any female boxer.
Likewise, any of the top 400 male tennis players would beat Serena Williams, considered the best female tennis player ever to have lived. So anyone of those males could become female, win all the competitions for a couple of years, creating records that only another male would beat, pocket millions in prize money, before retiring and going back to being a male.
You cannot get over the fact that males are physically stronger than women (participating professionally in sports), hence the segregation to begin with.
Ludicrous.
Ludicrous.
Even if you lump everyone
Even if you lump everyone together in one race, you would still have results tables by sex, age, etc, much like in some endurance events. And as these categories splinter off into myriad groupings, life will get complicated, as contestants jockey to identify with the grouping most advantageous to their placing.
So in the end you have to say everyone competes in a category of one, against themself; some kind of handicap system? So the first person across the line is no longer the winner. And where’s the fun in that?
Nope, it was the same day and
^
Nope, it was the same day and same distance. I was merely making the point that Chloe Dygert performed at a level equivalent or better than some guys going WT.
You seem upset about something so I’ll leave you to it.
At some level this becomes
At some level this becomes like the urban myth about Mike Tyson wanting to fight a gorilla. I don’t care how good a boxer Tyson was, he’d get beaten to death.
Look at the Williams sisters in the 90s, bragging that they could beat any man outside the top 200. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203, took them up on it. He was 31 at the time against their 16 and 17, and had a reputation as a smoker and drinker. He turned up to play them having played a round of golf and had a couple of beers. He played a set against each sister and beat them 6-2 and 6-1, and said he hadn’t even been trying that hard anyway. Go figure.
There are lots of examples in
There are lots of examples in nature of species where the females are significantly larger and stronger than the male. Humans aren’t one of these species.
But, hypothetically, if women WERE naturally much stronger than men:
after transitioning from male to female, would Dr McKinnon with the smaller and weaker male body happily race against women, knowing that she would come last against the naturally stronger women?
Person who benefits thinks it
Person who benefits thinks it is fair… what a shock