Inclusive in what sense? Aligns in what sense?
The Mail on that insulting “hey laydeez come race against some men and lose” arrangement:
An ‘inclusive’ cycling race that saw male-born trans athletes trounce women competitors has been condemned by critics.
“Inclusive” means “women guaranteed to lose.”
Gold in the ThunderCrit race at Herne Hill velodrome in South-East London went to Emily Bridges, a trans cyclist who was barred from a woman’s race in March and who had competed in men’s events only the month before.
Because he’s a man.
In second place was Lilly Chant who, despite identifying as a woman, is still designated as male on official records.
Yes but his name is Lilly. End of.
In an attempt to devise an ‘inclusive’ event, the ThunderCrit organisers created two new non-binary races called ‘thunder’ and ‘lightning’.
Its website said: ‘Thunder category is for cis men, non-binary people whose physical performance aligns most with cis-men, trans men and women whose physical performance aligns most closely with cis-men.
‘Lightning category is for cis-women, non-binary people whose physical performance aligns with cis-women and trans men and women whose physical performance aligns most closely with cis-women.’
So Bridges and Chant should have raced in the Thunder category, because their performance “aligns most closely” with men, because they’re men.
I need to find somewhere that I can get a physical performance alignment. Look at all the possibilities it would open up. I could do so many new things, from flying a C-5 Galaxy to winning at billiards. Surely it wouldn’t be any more difficult than getting a suspension alignment on my car, right? I mean who knew? :P
Just goes to show, a little bit of bullshit goes one helluva looooooooooooooooooooooong way. Where one serious bullshitter goes, others pretty soon get inspired and worked up to follow; just as long as they can see something in it for themselves. And before you know it, the world is covered in bullshit so deep that everyone has to get about in Wellington boots, and it’s sufficient to fill all the rivers and ocean basins,.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that something similar was the fate of the Martians, millions of years ago.
This whole “aligning with the performance of” business shows that they know there is a difference between the performance of men and women. But then what? Are they just drawing a line – if you’re faster than this time, you’re a “man”, if you’re slower, you’re a “woman”? Are those the categories now? There will never again be a single woman who is better at a sport than any man, because all the really good women will be promoted to the lower ranks of the “men” category where they will stall because of the natural advantages of their male competitors, while the lower ranking men will be downgraded to “women” where they can suddenly be the winners, or at least do far better than if they stayed in the men’s section? Do these people not think even the tiniest bit about what they are promoting?
@ Catwhisperer #3
Oh, they think about it all right. What you have described is what they *want.* It’s a feature, not a bug.
Hurrican Agatha recently crossed from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico and is now TS Alex.
Our first Transcane.
Or perhaps nonbinerreeee?
The article didn’t post the times. By how much did the men trounce the women cyclists?
I was able to find the event page and official results, but it only lists placement, not times.