McKinnon’s superficial point is that the woman evinces traits which are stereotypically masculine (e.g., a strong jaw and thick neck). And indeed, the woman in the photograph would be (almost certainly *has been*) accused of being “mannish” and “unfeminine”, and will have faced undue barriers because of people’s attitudes toward those superficial characteristics.
McKinnon’s implicit point is that trans women are *no different* from women who happen to have these superficial traits, and that discriminating against trans women in sport is as bigoted and superfluous as discriminating against “mannish” women in sport. McKinnon is saying, essentially, that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes, Seth, I understand that, but being mannish is not the same as being called a man; in fact, it is categorically different. Being called a man is not mannish; being a woman who exhibits traits that are stereotypically associated with men are known as mannish, so the very act of calling someone “mannish” and “unfeminine” is a tacit admission that the individual is, indeed, a woman.
I have been called mannish…and feminine…and ball buster…and nice…and…but no one who is talking with me face to face or sees a picture would call me a man. (On the phone, I do get that, because my voice is not high and squeaky). So I repeat, why would we call her a man? The “mannish” is designed to make her feel bad about herself (but may not have that effect) or to make everyone doubt her legitimacy as a person, not as a woman, because women aren’t fully people, and if they are not feminine, they are even less of people.
Find a pic of McKinnon in the same position (forward facing the camera, shoulders up) and compare it with this real woman. The differences in skull structure are easily seen — the real woman does not have the male skull structure that McKinnon has.
I think part of what’s going on here is another relatively subtle aspect of misogyny–that anything that isn’t clearly coded ‘woman’ is by definition for men. For example, if women get pink, and pink-adjacent if we’re feeling generous, every other colour is implicitly for men–so babies wearing blue are called ‘he’, but so are babies wearing green or yellow. Women are allowed to have/use pink tools, or other specifically ‘women’ coded objects, but any object not coded for women is implicitly for men. In this image Sharron isn’t wearing pink, and doesn’t have bright red lips and long lashes; her hair is long, but not carefully styled. Therefore, she is not presenting ‘woman’, so she must be a man. This is related to Hofstadter’s ‘slippery slope of sexism’ (anything not labelled ‘f’ is automatically ‘m’) and to the idea that ‘men are people, and women are something else’.
That FondofBettles blog is interesting a fact packed. The 10% performance gap stated is interesting. As a matching and current bit of annecdata, over breakfast this morning my partner was looking at the finish times for a serious amateur swim group she belongs to. They held their last open water race of the season last night. I asked her what the time difference was between the fastest man and woman. 12%. As a kicker she described the woman as really really fast. There were a lot of men faster than the next fastest women. This group includes known endurance athletes and retired professional multisport athletes as well as fitness freaks like my beloved.
No one has suggested women who look like men shouldn’t compete against women. That’s just misdirection on McKinnon’s part.
If you have male physiology and the associated mass and strength it’s questionable whether you’re suitable athletic competition for women whether you have the manliest or most feminine face in the world. Whether you look male or female has no relevance to anything.
For what it’s worth, ganders have longer and thinner necks and (female) geese have a rounder belly and a flatter head. Now we’ve cleared up the important issue, we can get back on topic ;)
It’s the combination he called big, which is true – tall and not-emaciated=big. Not an insult. Big is good in most sports. (Women’s gymnastics is the rather creepy exception, resulting in a lot of eating disorders and other miseries.)
5’11″is undeniably tall for a woman. 150lb at that height makes Davies slightly on the slim side. Given that Davies is an athlete, and probably has a higher muscle to fat ratio than most of the population, I suspect that accentuates that slimness, but obviously with the stance and manner that comes with fitness.
And having just googled images of her (should have done so before starting this comment), that’s exactly how she looks. Davies does have a square jaw (which seems to be what McKinnon was poking shit at), but that’s not that uncommon in women and then she also has a tapered chin and pretty much everything else about her physique shouts ‘woman’ at you.
Yeah, I guess. As someone 5’10”, I tend to be sensitive about “big” references, because I was mocked for being too big when I was 100 pounds. I was actually tormented by so many people, that I tend to jump quickly on the suggestion of “bigness” (partially because I suffered from anorexia, and I hate that women are made to feel wrong about themselves so much).
I do realize she is taller than usual for a woman, and I retract my comment. ;-)
Why would we call her a man? Because Rachel McKinnon thinks she looks like one? So now McKinnon is also the arbiter of what my eyeballs see?
McKinnon’s superficial point is that the woman evinces traits which are stereotypically masculine (e.g., a strong jaw and thick neck). And indeed, the woman in the photograph would be (almost certainly *has been*) accused of being “mannish” and “unfeminine”, and will have faced undue barriers because of people’s attitudes toward those superficial characteristics.
McKinnon’s implicit point is that trans women are *no different* from women who happen to have these superficial traits, and that discriminating against trans women in sport is as bigoted and superfluous as discriminating against “mannish” women in sport. McKinnon is saying, essentially, that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
That last, I think, is a bridge too far.
Yes, Seth, I understand that, but being mannish is not the same as being called a man; in fact, it is categorically different. Being called a man is not mannish; being a woman who exhibits traits that are stereotypically associated with men are known as mannish, so the very act of calling someone “mannish” and “unfeminine” is a tacit admission that the individual is, indeed, a woman.
I have been called mannish…and feminine…and ball buster…and nice…and…but no one who is talking with me face to face or sees a picture would call me a man. (On the phone, I do get that, because my voice is not high and squeaky). So I repeat, why would we call her a man? The “mannish” is designed to make her feel bad about herself (but may not have that effect) or to make everyone doubt her legitimacy as a person, not as a woman, because women aren’t fully people, and if they are not feminine, they are even less of people.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not sure McKinnon can really be relied upon to tell a goose from a gander….
Find a pic of McKinnon in the same position (forward facing the camera, shoulders up) and compare it with this real woman. The differences in skull structure are easily seen — the real woman does not have the male skull structure that McKinnon has.
I think part of what’s going on here is another relatively subtle aspect of misogyny–that anything that isn’t clearly coded ‘woman’ is by definition for men. For example, if women get pink, and pink-adjacent if we’re feeling generous, every other colour is implicitly for men–so babies wearing blue are called ‘he’, but so are babies wearing green or yellow. Women are allowed to have/use pink tools, or other specifically ‘women’ coded objects, but any object not coded for women is implicitly for men. In this image Sharron isn’t wearing pink, and doesn’t have bright red lips and long lashes; her hair is long, but not carefully styled. Therefore, she is not presenting ‘woman’, so she must be a man. This is related to Hofstadter’s ‘slippery slope of sexism’ (anything not labelled ‘f’ is automatically ‘m’) and to the idea that ‘men are people, and women are something else’.
Depends, how does the gander identify?
swnow, you mean like this one?
Not sure if this will come through, I’ve not tried posting a picture before and might get the hypertext all wrong.
Not that it matters, but Davies looks like a muscular woman to me, not like a man.
Interestingly, Dr. FondOfBeetles describes herself as a gender critical developmental biologist.
That FondofBettles blog is interesting a fact packed. The 10% performance gap stated is interesting. As a matching and current bit of annecdata, over breakfast this morning my partner was looking at the finish times for a serious amateur swim group she belongs to. They held their last open water race of the season last night. I asked her what the time difference was between the fastest man and woman. 12%. As a kicker she described the woman as really really fast. There were a lot of men faster than the next fastest women. This group includes known endurance athletes and retired professional multisport athletes as well as fitness freaks like my beloved.
And now that I’ve had a gander, it seems Dr. FondOfBeetles’ twitter timeline is full of trouncings of McKinnon. Here’s another:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1103115278823636993
Thank you for the pic, Rob. Yes, look at the difference in the bone structure. Even more prominent in this pic
https://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+mckinnon&rlz=1C1GKLB_enUS802US802&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmi9HHpe_gAhXPup4KHaNIBhsQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=hDFDQfTmbchfXM:
Hope the pic posts.
No one has suggested women who look like men shouldn’t compete against women. That’s just misdirection on McKinnon’s part.
If you have male physiology and the associated mass and strength it’s questionable whether you’re suitable athletic competition for women whether you have the manliest or most feminine face in the world. Whether you look male or female has no relevance to anything.
For what it’s worth, ganders have longer and thinner necks and (female) geese have a rounder belly and a flatter head. Now we’ve cleared up the important issue, we can get back on topic ;)
Holms,
Are you sure that isn’t a goose? You wouldn’t want to misgender a waterfowl and scar him/her/it for life, would you?
Hmm. Sharron Davies is 5’11” and has an official weight of 150 lbs. She’s a big, strong, blatantly female woman. There is no comparison to McKinnon.
She’s also a brilliant sport presenter – one of the only ones I can bear to listen to – and a really smart, funny and charming person.
Um, John, 150 pounds isn’t that “big” for a woman, it’s about right at 5’11”.
It’s the combination he called big, which is true – tall and not-emaciated=big. Not an insult. Big is good in most sports. (Women’s gymnastics is the rather creepy exception, resulting in a lot of eating disorders and other miseries.)
5’11″is undeniably tall for a woman. 150lb at that height makes Davies slightly on the slim side. Given that Davies is an athlete, and probably has a higher muscle to fat ratio than most of the population, I suspect that accentuates that slimness, but obviously with the stance and manner that comes with fitness.
And having just googled images of her (should have done so before starting this comment), that’s exactly how she looks. Davies does have a square jaw (which seems to be what McKinnon was poking shit at), but that’s not that uncommon in women and then she also has a tapered chin and pretty much everything else about her physique shouts ‘woman’ at you.
Yeah, I guess. As someone 5’10”, I tend to be sensitive about “big” references, because I was mocked for being too big when I was 100 pounds. I was actually tormented by so many people, that I tend to jump quickly on the suggestion of “bigness” (partially because I suffered from anorexia, and I hate that women are made to feel wrong about themselves so much).
I do realize she is taller than usual for a woman, and I retract my comment. ;-)