People have claimed that
Dominic Lawson in the Mail part 2:
…the Today programme interviewed Veronica Ivy, born male, but who as Rachel McKinnon (I know, it’s confusing) became the first transgender world track cycling champion in 2018, at an event for women in the 35 to 44 age bracket.
Wait a second, let’s talk about why it’s confusing. It’s confusing because Rhys McKinnon changed his first name to Rachel because he Became a Woomonn, but then he changed the whole thing to Veronica Ivy because ?????? I don’t think he ever said why – it appears to be just another bit of attention-getting weirdness.
Armed with the knowledge that peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrate that, even after the testosterone reduction sporting bodies have demanded of trans women entering female competition, those born male have unique physical advantages, Nick Robinson put it to Ivy: ‘You can’t undo male puberty…do you accept that?’
Peer-reviewed scientific papers along with what we all know because we live in the world.
Ivy responded, astonishingly: ‘People have claimed that, but the scientific evidence does not support that.’ Or perhaps not so astonishing, as Ivy has advocated that ‘in some special contexts, we can lie’.
But when Robinson asked the obvious consequential question, ‘Why don’t we just abolish women’s sport, if that’s the case?’, Ivy repeatedly refused to answer.
Because what would he say?
His childhood pet’s name was Veronica and he grew up on Ivy Street?
It’s interesting that Poison Ivy said that about male puberty because in the past he’s been quite open about the fact that male bodies have sporting advantages over female ones. He’s framed the issue as a human rights one rather than a fairness one.
latsot, I don’t know this, but I sort of suppose he refers to male bodies as being only those that remain male. I would guess he’s saying those advantages don’t remain after hormone therapy.
Of course, he could just be contradicting himself.
Of course, Rhys is not qualified to comment on the science, either: he has no training either in the scientific method* or in any field even superficially related to what might be called hard science. Philosophy is a necessary endeavor, but I would further add that his “experience” of that field is adequately summarized by the title of his dissertation which is (paraphrased) “why you don’t need to know what you’re talking about”.
*Not something one picks up through osmosis, or reading a book, or even a class, but rather through a process of years of specific mentoring.
@4, right. I can teach my students the process of evaluating something scientifically, but then we have to go into the lab and let them flounder until they figure it out. They have me for guidance, of course, but they have to work through it. They leave my freshman level class only marginally more knowledgeable than before.