Originally Posted by
Psimet2001
I understand why people think it should be discussed, but the reality of it is that it can't be discussed currently. We don't appear to have enough of the answers to have that discussion intelligently. Not taking everything at face value has become a hallmark of being trans-phobic. I have seen so many in the industry being labeled as that these last couple of weeks that I know better than to even remotely enter the discussion. I know enough to know that I don't know anything. I don't believe that I am trans-phobic. I also know that due to who I am as a white cis-male that I am liable to mis-speak, be incorrect, etc. Not through intention but through plain ignorance.
Thing is, Dr. McKinnon believes that there are sufficient evidence to have that discussion. For her, being allowed to compete by fiat from a governing agency is nice, but she really wants to argue (without sufficient evidence) that such a fiat is completely backed by science. That is to say, she thinks there is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that no advantage could be carried over. I'm not putting words in her mouth, as she said so as much, on this particular forum, a bit more than two years ago. Anybody with any training in debate or logic can spot the folly in trying to defend that position. But the best part is that someone supposedly an expert in epistemology (viz. Dr. McKinnon) cannot. And oh, one better agree with her view and withdraw all reservations, lest one wants to be labeled as blind to the facts or worse.
I have known a few trans-athletes. I don't know a single one that has just dominated in women's fields. My experience and my meager understanding of what is in play here has shown me that it's just not that simple.
That being said I have heard some friends liken this discussion by cis-males to having men discuss and make laws and policy decisions regarding women's reproductive rights. I personally feel that men have no place in that discussion. I therefore recognize and realize that most likely means I have no place in this discussion either. I'm not attacking anyone else for choosing to participate in it - just hoping to share some thoughts that I found to be poignant enough to make me decide to disengage from it.
As for relying on the UCI - as I am not in the discussion I have to rely on the UCI to make decisions in these situations. If they aren't doing their job in this regard then I will expect to see the women of this sport that I follow and respect to start sharing their opinions and reasoning about that. I think that's the biggest thing about this that I see - the women who I know that compete at that level have only been having an issue with the fact that this seems to be an issue. I personally can't ignore that.
That, too, is logically indefensible. Anyone who hold this view should ask, if that were truly the case (which is to say that men don't get to dictate on policies affecting women, because only women have a say in such matters), how could women receive the right to vote in the first place? Or to draw a parallel, does the civil right and voting right acts have to be legislated and voted on solely by people of color in order to be legitimate? I will grant though, that men should spend more time to listen and understand women's positions in order to realize that there may be blind spots, but a blanket "gag order" would seem quite counterproductive