Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges insists she has no advantage over rivals

I'm afraid that since you did O level biology the world has moved on. The term gender is no longer considered a synonym for "biological sex" in academic circles.

Thanks IanMK, prehaps, instead of telling me what I got wrong, you could provide the correct information. Enlighten me! what is the presiding wisdom in current academic circles.

Where do intersex people fall in your worldview?

vthejk wrote:

I think that, aside from all of the troubles and challenges Emily has faced in the past few years, the most remarkable thing is that she is facing it as a 21-YEAR OLD.

For someone relatively young to handle this all with grace and poise and to have accomplished so much even as a junior is nothing short of commendable.

and in the face of vile hatred simply for being who she is. 
 

the level of bigotry out there from TERFs and similar is incredible.  She's done amazingly well. 

'Patriarchal' here doesn't just refer to men directly oppressing or undermining women/other genders in the present, but to the systems put in place by centuries of patriarchal government and leadership that cause discrimination by gender in the first place.

For instance, the gender binary (i.e., male and female) is widely recognised to be a product of modern patriarchal Western society too, wherein in pre-modern times gender fluidity was the norm:

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620902442

Yep, it's overwhelmingly a white Christian export to the colonies as well. Awful stuff. 

"in pre-modern times gender fluidity was the norm"

That is absolute bollocks (or ovaries). The roles played in societies by men and women have varied according to circumstance, but everywhere and at all times it has been the (on average) larger and stronger class of humans that has supplied the sperm to fertilise the eggs produced by (some) members of the (on average) smaller and weaker class. 
That is what is relevant in a sporting context: what one chooses to dress like, be called, or even what you really really feel like has nothing to do with it. We have a separate sphere of competition for members of that (on average) weaker class. If that boundary is removed, it will mean very few if any members of that class can win. I don't think that's fair: others may disagree, but they need to accept that is the likely outcome. 

You've quoted but not understood. 
a less strict binary approach eas common in many societies, the easiest spot being among native Americans. 
 

asditonally, the reason for the split in sport along gender lines is as a result of the patriarchy. Have a research sometime. You'd be surprised. 

Your statement is at odds with itself.

Why is it at odds with itself?

Because in its opening it appeals to all sides of the debate but in its close it requires agreement with one side. It is not logical to assume all sides of a debate will agree with just one side of a debate, for then there would be no debate.

Sriracha wrote:

Because in its opening it appeals to all sides of the debate but in its close it requires agreement with one side. It is not logical to assume all sides of a debate will agree with just one side of a debate, for then there would be no debate.

I did debate whether to end without a pronoun at all or with a gender neutral one but decided common courtesy required use of the one she prefers. 
If you dont agree with that you may or may not be anti-trans but you certainly lack manners and courtesy. 

What would have been wrong with referring to Bridges as a cyclist? The common ground you are inviting agreement with is that the situation has been poorly handled to the detriment of those involved, not that Bridges is a woman.

If we're going to get hung up about the simple and courteous use of a pronoun then there's no chance we're going to have reasoned debabate about whether a transgender athlete should be allowed to compete with other women.

"Woman" isn't a pronoun. I'm perfectly happy to call her "her" as a matter of courtesy, but if the question is "is Emily a woman?" then it should not be offensive to answer the factual question with "no". 

IanMK wrote:

If we're going to get hung up about the simple and courteous use of a pronoun then there's no chance we're going to have reasoned debabate about whether a transgender athlete should be allowed to compete with other women.

That's a seductive argument; who can disagree that debate should be reasoned, and bounded by courtesy?

To refer to an adult as "she" is to recognise them as woman. But that is the issue at the heart of the debate. That is asking one party to concede as a pre-condition of the debate.

This is not some dry procedural matter. Language colours thinking; only allowing expression of thought in language that leans towards one view exerts a powerful influence on the debate. Where none is given, crying offence as a means to invoke the bounds of courtesy is a time worn ploy. As a tactic it may well carry the day, but it will leave the issue unresolved.

The comment that started all this wasn't even trying to have a debate. It was explicitly trying to step outside of the debate and just express some feelings for a person. It seems like the whole subsequent argument is rather besides the point

The original comment was "Regardless of where you stand on the debate ..."

Exactly - it was putting the debate on one side.

I don't really want to go round in circles, since I already replied to that opening comment, and so I'll leave it there.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Regardless of where you stand on the debate it's hard not to conclude the way it's been handled has been damaging for this poor woman. 

I can't help thinking that the way she handled it herself was quite damaging, continuing to race (and win) as a man up to February and then wanting to race as a woman in March might have some justification but to those not fully conversant with the intricacies of the arguments (i.e. most of us) it wasn't the best visual. If the problem is, as she states, "a lot of people still view trans women as men with male anatomies and physiologies", going from winning as a man at a reasonably high standard and then wanting to compete as a woman against women less than a month later wasn't going to do a lot to dispel that perception, I feel.

I tend to agree that the optics are shite. But look at it from her point of view - the UCI/BC rules are like a switch one day you're male the next your are female, regardless of the fact you have been transitioning for a year.   If you were targeting a hugely competitive event against the best in the world would you want plenty of actual race fitness?  Moreover if as a woman you had better opportunities to race with men to enhance your edge - wouldn't you take it?

Yes indeed, and she did nothing wrong under the rules as they stood/stand. However, if she is trying to convince people that the hormone treatment means that she is carrying over no inherent advantage into women's racing, winning a national male student championship less than a month before she was due to make the changeover and when she was many months into the treatment is not that helpful to her case.

Which leaves Bridges in a catch-22 position, since there are advantages to not winning.

So she can't compete at all? Or competes but throws it at the last, to not win?

You then get trolls claiming she throws a race just to "prove" that she has no advantages...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So she can't compete at all?

I would've thought that a good option, yes, although obviously I know that would be hard for her as an athlete with a natural desire for competition; once she made the decision that she identifies as a woman and wishes to transition, I would say that was a sensible time to stop racing as a man. Just to be clear, I don't think she did anything wrong and she had every right to race as a man, but winning at quite a high level as a man and at the same time claiming that the hormones have reduced her capacities to such an extent that she is now on a level playing field with other women does seem to confuse the issue somewhat, in my opinion.

It is an option, but for her personally I don't see it as "good". She's in the prime for competing. Being told she shouldn't compete in the only competitions she's allowed to compete in,  because of optics, might be "good" (and I'm not too convinced on that either!) for trans athletes as a whole, but I don't see how it is good for her. 
 

she's navigating an incredibly complex arena, while transitioning, all at the age of 21.