Nice job, little one
Across the U.S. and in many places abroad, transgender athletes are breaking barriers in high school, college and pro sports and being embraced by teammates and fans. But resentments can still flare when transgender women start winning and dominating their sport.
Well now what do we mean by “barriers”? Not all barriers need breaking. If you have a barrier between you and the local grizzly bears, you don’t much want it broken, do you.
And they’re not really breaking “barriers” anyway, because there are no “barriers” labeled “No Trans People Allowed.” What they’re doing is breaking the rules, which doesn’t sound quite so progressive. People with male bodies are breaking the rules to play against women and girls, leaving a little heap of injured women and girls in their wake.
Transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon holds hands with Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen during the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Carson, California, in 2018.Craig Huffman / via AP file
So touching and adorable, but look how massive McKinnon is next to Van Herrikhuyzen. Maybe not really so adorable after all. McKinnon is looking down at her as if she’s a puppy.
The AP solicited and received a comment from McKinnon, then went on to accuse women who want to compete against women of “vitriol.”
Helen Carroll, a longtime college athletic director, basketball coach and LGBTQ-rights activist, said many trans women athletes train extra hard to offset hormone treatment and face undeserved skepticism when they excel.
“As long as trans people are losing and are not the best, everything is OK,” Carroll said. “As soon as they start winning, that’s when the vitriol comes out about how they’re really still a man.”
The vitriol can surface even at the high school level. In the track and field community in Connecticut, the dominance of transgender girl sprinters Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood has stirred resentment among some competitors and their families.
Yes, and? Why shouldn’t it?
The AP never manages to explain.
I’m seeing a finely honed athlete who works hard on her physique. And a dude who, like me and thousands of middle-aged non-entities, hits the beer and ice cream as hard as he hits the gym.
Physique is a thing in sport. And McKinmon is not obliged to work on hers the way her competition does.
Sea Monster, my partner competes in (serious) amateur swim and cycle events. I know what her body looks like after hard training for months. She has lots of friends, male and female who do the same (40’s to 50’s). While a couple have body fat that shows under lycra (not the kindest of clothing choices it has to be said), the vast majority of them look very trim, even in 150 microns of stretchy synthetic. McKinnon looks like me. I occasionally ride to work and enjoy a wine and cheese (too much). I’m not saying they don’t work bloody hard, I’m saying they don’t look like a world champion of either sex in their age group.
Oh, the look on the face of the cheated women above trying to play “good little loser” high-five! while the giant dumpy man gloats down at her. There is a world of “yeah, congrats, you cheating jerk” in that grimace!
The more I read about this sports debate, the more I get a sense of vague unease about it. It’s obvious from looking at that picture (and the ones from that Connecticut track meet, etc.) that these are not fair races. But to point that out – to make the case that male bodies are naturally bigger, faster, stronger, more powerful than female ones – seems to tread dangerously close to the conclusion that female people are inherently inferior to male people, that we’re less capable than male people in all things, and that any separate spaces or support structures we set aside for ourselves are just undeserved special privileges designed to compensate for our natural lack of ability. In a truly fair society, we would deserve less, because we’re less-than.
Obviously I don’t believe that’s true, nor do I believe that the one implies the other – but a lot of people do, or at least are open to being persuaded of it.
I don’t know what the solution is. (It’s certainly not to shut up and let the McKinnons of the world have everything they want.) But if what we’re witnessing with the trans rights movement is indeed a deliberate, coordinated effort to undermine feminism (which from where I sit looks at least plausible), then one wonders if these folks are playing a long game that will bring some unpleasant surprises down the road.
Your comments are odd. You go out of your way to describe yourself as new to the subject, dipping in a tentative toe, etc…yet you’re strangely interested and informed. I’m finding you unconvincing.
I’m sorry for coming across that way. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on this matter lately, because I do find it interesting (and very important), and I’m finding myself with a lot of opinions that I’m not quite sure what to do with.
If your suspicion is that I’m commenting in bad faith, I’m not sure how to respond except to say that that’s not the case.
Ok. Sorry to be suspicious, but I have had people play strange games via commenting in the past. On the other hand I don’t really see what commenting in bad faith would get anyone, so I’m not much worried about it.
About the physical differences issue – feminism has never relied on claims that women are physically comparable to men. The point isn’t that we’re physically the same but that being physically smaller doesn’t give bigger people the right to dominate. As far as I know feminists have never objected to sex segregation in sports. We’ve campaigned for more resources for girls’ and women’s sports, and more promotion, attention, respect, but not for folding them into boys’ and men’s sports.
Ophelia @8, yes that’s my understanding as well. The exception has been for sports/activities that are based on skill rather than physical attributes. Horse racing and eventing, chess, aeronautical pursuits etc.
That’s silly. The case that male bodies are naturally bigger, faster, stronger and more powerful than female ones is an obvious fact, and feminism isn’t opposed to facts. Feminism would be unsupportable if it was. Feminism says in some contexts it’s equitable to differentiate between women and men (sports, medicine, etc.) and in other contexts it’s not (jobs, pay, etc.).
Here’s an interesting paper, first published in the New Zealand Law Journal by a Senior Counsel at the Crown law Office.
https://speakupforwomen.nz/transgender-ideology-and-the-law/
Only if you think “Better at X” means “Better in all things.”
Once some people have a motive for perceiving others as inferior (i.e. they want to exploit them in some way) they will, and they will find ways to rationalize it.
But in order to perceive women as inferior or “weaker” than men, male supremacists have to ignore the ways in which we are stronger. Females are weaker than males in terms of brute strength. We also live longer, apparently survive extreme stress better, and can give birth. And we can compete against males, and win, ultramarathons. (Little is known about why, but the longer the race, the better women do. As these things become more popular and more women win them, we may learn more about women’s strengths as compared and contrasted with men’s.)
In other words, females are stronger in some ways. Males are stronger in some ways.
https://youtu.be/b81Cr97ANrk