What was that about silly philosophical arguments?

This guy fancies himself a feisty contrarian (which is an amusingly banal thing for a contrarian to do) and yet he’s strikingly non-contrarian on The Orthodoxy de nos jours.


The argument of course isn’t that trans athletes are just like e-bikes. Read the introductory text again, or just read Jon Pike’s tweet again while paying attention.

The argument is that unfair advantage is unfair advantage.

The underlying implication is that people (including relevant officials) are systematically ignoring the fact that being male is an unfair advantage in women’s sports just as riding an e-bike would be an unfair advantage in the Tour de France.


Basic courtesies like not misrepresenting the other party’s argument?

3 Responses to “What was that about silly philosophical arguments?”