USA Cycling accused of "transphobia" after individual pursuit medallist stripped of national championships medal

sparrowlegs wrote:

You linked Biker Phil's use of the word woke to Nazis. You know what you were doing, where you were going with it. It's your default position. 

So you admit that your previous statement about Biker Phil disagreeing with me was false and disingenuous, then?

Can you be clearer about what you perceive to be my 'default position'? I'm curious as to how you're interpreting my many thousands of posts.

So you admit you were comparing Biker Phil's use of the word woke with people that are racist, sexist, Nazi sympathisers?

sparrowlegs wrote:

So you admit you were comparing Biker Phil's use of the word woke with people that are racist, sexist, Nazi sympathisers?

Personally, I think that the use of the word 'woke' is misguided as it's a word that seems poorly defined and it's typically used in a divisive manner. It's far better to be more specific rather than carelessly use such a blanket term. Similarly, people who describe themselves as 'woke' are also guilty of using it as some kind of membership card, although I suppose it's used to signify an attitude than anything specific.

I wasn't trying to pigeonhole Biker Phil into any particular label, but was pointing out that his choice of words wasnt making his point clear and certain words do get associated with political leanings. If you like, I was questioning the message, but not the messenger (I'm pretty sure I've agreed with him on many previous topics).

The problem is that by people throwing divisive terms into a discussion, it muddies the water and a sensible debate ends up with people just making declarations of their beliefs and not engaging with the ideas that are being discussed. I'd like to refer you to Rowan Atkinson's fine speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU

What we need is more discussions about how society treats minorities and not just shoe-horn opinions into 'woke'/'anti-woke' boxes.

Interesting. You seem to take a little umbrage to my use of the word woke, a term used by wokes, and 'invented' by them. But then you post a link to Rowan Atkinsons fine speech which I have watched many times in the past. 
I am exercising my rights and freedom of speech to use the same term used by the people themselves. 
So I'm a little confused why you initially questioned my post. Especially to refer to me as a Fox News, Daily Mail idiot? 
I am neither a watcher of Fox News, nor a reader of the Daily Mail. 
Nor am I an idiot either my friend. I am of an age where I look around me and see what the vocal minority groups are doing in their quest for.....I don't know what they're trying to achieve. 
To end your post by assuming I am an idiot who doesn't understand treating people as people. Well that sums up the wokes completely, doesn't it? They don't like history, good or bad, we learn from it. So they pull statues down. They don't like people being uncomfortable with biological men competing against and beating biological women in competition, so we're all labelled as transphobic. The wokes made famous by JK Rowling didn't like her stating only women have wombs, so they set about relentlessly destroying her. 

My head is hurting. 
 

biker phil wrote:

To end your post by assuming I am an idiot who doesn't understand treating people as people. Well that sums up the wokes completely, doesn't it? They don't like history, good or bad, we learn from it. So they pull statues down.

I assume you're referring to the Colston statue in Bristol. The entire point of pulling down the statue was AFAIK to recognise history and that Colston's riches and philanthropy were the result of the slave trade. It was a failure of the democratic process that it wasn't removed previously (The Merchant Venturers had a part to play in that) but it was a literal monument to profiting from human misery.

Yes. Good or bad, it is history. There are much worse countries than this for the treatment of slaves. Many towns and cities in this country would not exist if it were not for slave traders building schools etc, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But it is history.

How many universities have benefitted from slave traders bequests? Many who have educated the very people who want to destroy them, I suspect.

Are these people also boycotting Japanese products because of Pearl Harbour? No.

Are they boycotting chinese products because of Chinas human rights record? No.

Are they boycotting German products because of Hitler? No. Just look at any road and count the Audis, BMWs, VWs etc.

So anything bad in the past must be destroyed? Are the people who don't like the history of, Colston, for example Holocaust deniers too? No.

Using Colston as an excuse is just that, an excuse.

We cannot erase parts of history that certain soft people don't like. It is history and we learn from it. 

biker phil wrote:

Yes. Good or bad, it is history. There are much worse countries than this for the treatment of slaves. Many towns and cities in this country would not exist if it were not for slave traders building schools etc, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But it is history.

How many universities have benefitted from slave traders bequests? Many who have educated the very people who want to destroy them, I suspect.

Are these people also boycotting Japanese products because of Pearl Harbour? No.

Are they boycotting chinese products because of Chinas human rights record? No.

Are they boycotting German products because of Hitler? No. Just look at any road and count the Audis, BMWs, VWs etc.

So anything bad in the past must be destroyed? Are the people who don't like the history of, Colston, for example Holocaust deniers too? No.

Using Colston as an excuse is just that, an excuse.

We cannot erase parts of history that certain soft people don't like. It is history and we learn from it. 

That's just a ridiculous attempt at a straw-man argument or possibly you don't understand the inherent differences.

Bad stuff did happen in the past and we have to recognise that and move on, but to have a statue celebrating the generosity of a slave trader and to put it on a plinth right in the middle of Bristol is clearly in bad taste at the very least. To then have an unelected group of wealthy Merchant Venturers thwart attempts to either remove the statue or put a plaque to recognise the historical facts, is yet another insult.

I'm pretty sure that a similar attitude would be applied to any German town that erected a statue of Hitler, proclaiming his greatness. Would you agree with such a statue?

As an aside - Berlin does keep plenty of historical artefacts around and they are very informative. The East Side Gallery is a remaining portion of the Berlin Wall, though it's now covered in art/graffiti; there's remaining guard towers and Checkpoint Charlie is still there in the middle of a street.

biker phil wrote:

Are they boycotting German products because of Hitler? No. Just look at any road and count the Audis, BMWs, VWs etc.

I personally won't go to Germany because of all the statues they have up in public places celebrating the life of Hitler, it's a disgrace. Wouldn't bother you though, I presume, because "Good or bad, it is history" and "we can't erase parts of history that certain soft people don't like." Have a word with yourself, for heaven's sake.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I personally won't go to Germany because of all the statues they have up in public places celebrating the life of Hitler, it's a disgrace.

I thought they'd removed most of the Nazi relics from public view, but apparently not: https://forward.com/news/481412/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-germany/

Surprising in one sense given sensitivities over the last few decades.  Maybe not though considering the history.  After WW2 most of the Nazis were still left and to make the bureacracy work most had to remain in post or be recalled to positions of authority.  After all the Nazi state had over a decade to establish itself.

Rendel better not travel too far - might be shocked as I was in e.g. South Korea.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Rendel better not travel too far - might be shocked as I was in e.g. South Korea.

Yeah, it predates the Nazis and originally had a peaceful meaning.

Just seen from the Wikipedia page that "similar shaped swastikas were seen in United States postcards wishing people good luck in the early 1900s".

Just seen that the swastika was used as part of Carlsberg's logo until the 1930s when it became associated with Nazism and Carlsberg quickly dropped it.

Rendel better not travel too far - might be shocked as I was in e.g. South Korea

Well, unless your image has undergone reflection, that one isn't the Nazi swastika- although both clockwise and anticlockwise types appear in East Asian religions

I use the word 'woke' not as a 'right wing dog whistle' because it is the wokes who are destroying our sports, history, what we can say, do etc. Are wokes using the word Transphobe as a 'left wing dog whistle' then? 
In Woke World, anything which goes against their views is met with angry threats and name calling. I have seen this first hand with a nephew, who used to be funny, easy going and laid back. Now, due to his work environment, he has turned woke and is a completely different person now. He is difficult to converse with, he's become a very angry person. He slags off anyone who disagrees with him, it's his way or the highway. He openly admits that he and his wife are woke, and uses that word himself. So is he wrong to describe himself as woke? If that is what he is? 
There is no reasoned discussion with wokes, it's their view or woe betide you. 
Their stance should not be to slag people off for stating that it is unfair to put biological males against biological females and call them transphobic, just as they shouldn't cancel people such as JK Rowling for stating that women have wombs. Woke is another word for bully. 

biker phil wrote:

I use the word 'woke' not as a 'right wing dog whistle' because it is the wokes who are destroying our sports, history, what we can say, do etc. Are wokes using the word Transphobe as a 'left wing dog whistle' then? 
In Woke World, anything which goes against their views is met with angry threats and name calling. I have seen this first hand with a nephew, who used to be funny, easy going and laid back. Now, due to his work environment, he has turned woke and is a completely different person now. He is difficult to converse with, he's become a very angry person. He slags off anyone who disagrees with him, it's his way or the highway. He openly admits that he and his wife are woke, and uses that word himself. So is he wrong to describe himself as woke? If that is what he is? 
There is no reasoned discussion with wokes, it's their view or woe betide you. 
Their stance should not be to slag people off for stating that it is unfair to put biological males against biological females and call them transphobic, just as they shouldn't cancel people such as JK Rowling for stating that women have wombs. Woke is another word for bully. 

Your definition of woke is wrong. It's more about having a bit of empathy towards people who are often bullied and marginalised by the right wingers who rule and control the media in this country. That's my opinion, there are others.

biker phil wrote:

I use the word 'woke' not as a 'right wing dog whistle' because it is the wokes who are destroying our sports, history, what we can say, do etc. Are wokes using the word Transphobe as a 'left wing dog whistle' then? 
In Woke World, anything which goes against their views is met with angry threats and name calling. I have seen this first hand with a nephew, who used to be funny, easy going and laid back. Now, due to his work environment, he has turned woke and is a completely different person now. He is difficult to converse with, he's become a very angry person. He slags off anyone who disagrees with him, it's his way or the highway. He openly admits that he and his wife are woke, and uses that word himself. So is he wrong to describe himself as woke? If that is what he is? 
There is no reasoned discussion with wokes, it's their view or woe betide you. 
Their stance should not be to slag people off for stating that it is unfair to put biological males against biological females and call them transphobic, just as they shouldn't cancel people such as JK Rowling for stating that women have wombs. Woke is another word for bully. 

Well, you don't seem to like 'woke' people. Can you provide a good definition of 'woke'?

I can't really comment on your nephew at all.

There's a problem with using the terms 'biological male/female' in that it implies a simplistic view of human biology - a better choice of phrase is 'assigned male/female at birth' as that doesn't carry the false notion that people have one 'true' gender. Using those terms is not by itself transphobic, but it does imply that the person using it holds some transphobic views or is uneducated about the subject.

I'm not aware of the specifics of JK Rowling's woes, but defining women in terms of possession of a womb seems a peculiar stance to take. It's not even a visible characteristic, so not a good choice to base sports categories on.

My interpretation of the problem is that we have an archaic division of sports into male/female and there's difficult trade-offs to be made to include as many people as possible. However, the very nature of sport is unfair so I think we'd be better off creating categories based on height/weight/power etc. which are easy to measure and agree on.

'Assigned male or female at birth'? Good grief, it's not a lucky dip!

There is no false notion, you are either male or female. Fact. What you choose to be is a completely different thing. 

To clear things up a little, a woman is an adult female. 

JK Rowling was lynched in 2020 for stating that 'a person who menstruates' is called a woman. And she is still being pilloried for it by the trans brigade.

I don't agree with your last point. To me there should be three categories.

Men, women, trans. 

biker phil wrote:

'Assigned male or female at birth'? Good grief, it's not a lucky dip!

There is no false notion, you are either male or female. Fact. What you choose to be is a completely different thing. 

To clear things up a little, a woman is an adult female. 

JK Rowling was lynched in 2020 for stating that 'a person who menstruates' is called a woman. And she is still being pilloried for it by the trans brigade.

I don't agree with your last point. To me there should be three categories.

Men, women, trans. 

FFS. You're being deliberately obtuse now, so I shan't bother answering again.

Not at all.

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/professor-winston-stating-biological-f...

Is he being obtuse?

I'm going to end this conversation my friend, this is a cycling forum after all. 

Peace.

biker phil wrote:

Not at all.

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/professor-winston-stating-biological-f...

Is he being obtuse?

I'm going to end this conversation my friend, this is a cycling forum after all. 

Peace.

Apologies - I shall reply to this as I found it interesting.

That statement by Lord Robert Winston was cut short in that link, but I found a longer version here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/torah-for-today-changing-sex/

Lord Robert Winston wrote:

I will say this categorically – that you cannot change your sex, your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body. You have chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of psychological brain sex – they’re all different.

Now, that statement doesn't hold true for rare chimeral people who can be a mix of multiple sets of DNA, but otherwise seems fair enough. The problem is the complexity of the biology, as some babies can't easily be correctly identified as male/female, so are assigned one or other. I'm not entirely sure what he means by "psychological brain sex" but I assume that relates to gender identity.

I'll try to step away from the keyboard now.

Quote:

Lord Robert Winston

*nervously* Er... is he talking about cycling again?

Lord Robert Winston wrote:

[ Something from his own area of expertise sounding sensible ]

Phew!  Looking at the multiple levels of this seems sensible (eg. beyond just mosaicism / chimerism).  Giving a passing nod to "but it's human-created categories all the way down", as we move out from cells and chromosomes to a more "I knows it when I sees it" level the picture gets more familiar but also less precise.  For one we are already manipulating "hormonal sex".  Not new - many women take pills to essentially fool their bodies they're already pregnant.

I'm glad we're at the stage where we're actually (a) recognising there's a lot of detail here and (b) being able to gather data in particular cases.  This doesn't really change my view that the final issue is one of human judgement.  People have to make a call / agree rules (or not).  Although getting people to agree depends on making an argument and their existing beliefs which can be informed by "science".  And sport at top level *is* about the exceptions, the "freaks", the unusual and often "unfairness".

I'm not sure what "brain sex" means either but presumably it's a nod to how the more cerebral types entertain themselves.

hawkinspeter wrote:

the word 'woke' which is just bandied around as some kind of right-wing dog whistle

biker phil wrote:

Are wokes [sic] using the word Transphobe as a 'left wing dog whistle' then?

Often, yes. It's dog whistles all round, sadly.

biker phil wrote:

In Woke World, anything which goes against their views is met with angry threats and name calling.

And then I read about all the pressure put on public libraries to remove books considered by the right wing to be inappropriate (often covering the history of lavery in the US or any relationship which isn't one man and one woman with a white picket fence in the suburbs) and I wonder whether left or right is meant to be 'woke' or which one is more in favour of 'cancel culture'...

sparrowlegs wrote:

Racism, sexism and Nazi's.

And, worst of all, grocer's apostrophes.

The trouble with Nazis was they thought everything was Nazis'.

chrisonatrike wrote:

The trouble with Nazis was they thought everything was Nazis'.

Well, that and all the killing and attempted world domination

Well, alright, yes, there was a bit of that.  You can't hold the attempted world domination against them though, who hasn't tried that?  And they invented motorways and had really natty uniforms.

chrisonatrike wrote:

You can't hold the attempted world domination against them though, who hasn't tried that?

I know I have.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well, alright, yes, there was a bit of that.  You can't hold the attempted world domination against them though, who hasn't tried that?  And they invented motorways and had really natty uniforms.

That Nazi motorway bit was interesting - I did not know about that. I like the way they were initially against 'car only' roads that were just for the rich, but then pivoted when in power, not that they had the spare cash to build them though.

I'm not sticking up for the Fascists but the autostrade in Mussolini's Italy were being built a good ten years before the Nazi equivalent so saying its a German invention is a bit of a stretch.

mdavidford wrote:

sparrowlegs wrote:

Racism, sexism and Nazi's.

And, worst of all, grocer's apostrophes.

I'm all for diversity but... grocers' apostrophes! Or have I missed some irony? It's been a long day.