McKinnon’s campaign to get more attention and fraudulent medals and attention is in high gear today. Just 15 minutes ago he announced:
WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY? She says GOLD! Back-to-back world sprint champion!! Way too many people to thank. Thank you especially to the dozens of fans cheering your heads off, and I’m glad to have met a new friend…
Yeah baby! Cheater’s gold! Awesome athlete Rachel – formerly Rhys – McKinnon wins GOLD by racing against women!
There he is, in all his glory, a man who stole a gold medal from a woman.
He has a new pinned tweet, which is a “press release”:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: “DR. RACHEL MCKINNON RESPONDS TO BRITISH CYCLIST VICTORIA HOOD”
Let me guess. Hood suggested that men shouldn’t lie their way into women’s competitions, and McKinnon responded that oh yes they should, at least when their name is Rachel McKinnon they should.
DOCTOR McKinnon doesn’t half think well of himself, does he.
Comments
9 responses to “DOCTOR McKinnon denounces”
It’s not fear, and it’s not irrational. He’s still a male cheater, beating up on women.
Why is it that this dodgy creep is splashed all up and down the headlines while I have to google, scroll, and dig to figure out what Victoria Hood even said?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/50097423
Yes, sorry, I found that for the next post.
The dishonesty in that release is incredible. Victoria Hood didn’t claim to have raced against McKinnon, she simply stated that she competes in the same category – not the same thing at all. McKinnon then further dismissed Hood by stating that she is 40, so not in the 35-39 yrs bracket. True enough now, but I’m sure that Hood was once younger than 40, maybe even recently enough to have fitted the 35-39 yrs bracket. Numbers; how do they work, Rhys?
The worst example of his chickenshit dishonesty is when he states – albeit by framing it as an ‘if’ – that Hood has chosen not to enter this year’s championship because of McKinnon’s participation, despite Hood herself clearly saying that her non-participation is entirely due to injury. Hood did say that other women had decided not to enter owing to McKinnon’s participation – again, not the same thing.
As for his claim that Hood has a fear of transwomen, well, that’s just more bullshit. Hood objects to the participation of transwomen in women’s sports because of the highly rational view of the unfair advantages that come with having male bodies, not out of any irrational fear of the transwomen themselves. Her objections are from a sense of fairness in sport, not from bigotry.
Helluva public intellectual.
No, she has taken a stance against people obtaining special and unequal treatment by declaring themselves trans. As for whether her stance contravenes law, a) I have no faith in McKinnon’s word that that is the case given his track record of dishonesty; and b) if true, that only shows that British law has been infected with absurdity.
False, twice over.
First, the relevant portion of the statement reads “Former British Masters champion Victoria Hood, who competes in the same category as McKinnon” which is not at all equivalent to ‘has directly raced against McKinnon’. You’d think a philosophy graduate, particularly one specialising in epistemology and philosophy of language for fuck sake, would know the difference. Given those qualifications, I dismiss entirely the possibility that McKinnon does not know the difference. So, is this a case of wilful dishonesty, motivated reasoning, or some blend?
Second, that excerpted statement was not written by Hood, but by the BBC author of the article. Again, this mistake is being made by a tenured professor of philosophy, PhD., whose research is primarily about the epistemic basis of assertions.
What the fuck.
And even then – even if Hood had claimed to have raced directly against McKinnon, failing to find evidence of such an event does not warrant calling Hood’s statement a falsehood.
Again, McKinnon is a philosophy PhD. with a research focus on the epistemic basis of assertion, and appears not to know the difference between ‘failure to find substantiating evidence for an assertion’ and ‘proving an assertion false’.
I notice the little catchphrase on his shorts reads as “sport is a man right”. Well yes, it’s been clear that that’s your attitude, you shit.
I also find it remarkable how keen he suddenly is on dictionary definitions of things.
I love how that can be interpreted both ways.
It is pathetic really; nothing for any sensible chordate to be proud of.
Probably not even an octopus.
Should be “what does the skunk say” because McKinnon is the proverbial skunk at the picnic: he wasn’t invited, nobody wants him there, he doesn’t belong there but nobody wants to get skunk stink all over themselves by dealing with him. What a role model for the ages!