Round Up: Women's MTB Wednesdays - Issue 5

 @downtimepodcast It was a great episode!
I tried to like your post on my phone and accidentally hit the wrong arrow

 @corinneaurora: no worries, I'm glad you enjoyed the episode with Emilie!

 @corinneaurora: we've all been there

 Young ankles

 And, judging from the comments below o-zone article, all 20 are Bros.

 @mi-bike: the threads were embarrassing for our community

 @Manutheshredder: yes, but this thread is refreshing and reassuring

 @all-knowen: it is indeed

 I've got a buddy whose a filmmaker. Turns out film making is just a bunch of carrying heavy gear around and very occasionally filming something

 That was a soothing voice

 Zanny Venner, She's a boss!!

 As a women, I like these articles, it’s nice to see some people I can identify with more. I’d say the majority of videos and articles are very male dominated, but I will also say that I don’t have a problem with that as that’s the main demographic.

 The way I see it, 90% of the content that PB usually posts on riders features male athletes by default. It's not by design, but you do notice no one bats an eye when an article is male focused. However, PB posts a woman focused article it seems to irritate people.

Just my observation. Do with that info what you will.

 @dualcrownscottspark: but shouldn't the goal be to make all articles better instead of adding women specific articles?

 @Mac1987: better articles? On pinbike? Seriously??!!.. )

 @dualcrownscottspark: The same senitment extressed with a hypothetical: "As a white basketball fan, I like these articles on white players, it’s nice to see some people I can identify with more. I’d say the majority of videos and articles are very n***** dominated, but I will also say that I don’t have a problem with that as that’s the main demographic." NB the above is not my actual view, I just posted to make a point and dont want people to get the wrong end of the stick, for clarity I want to make it absolutely clear that in reality I have no interest in basketball.

 @Mac1987: I think most of the articles are fine. Imagine that mountain biking was female dominated and you almost never saw a guy. It’d feel pretty daunting to anyone male starting out in the sport! So, that’s another reason these articles are good, it helps let women, and especially those new to the sport feel a little more welcome.

 @haighd2: gotta say, I see your point, and I think what you’ve said is quite unnecessary and I’m not really sure that it correlates that well.

 @dualcrownscottspark: sorry what do you mean correlates? To be clear I’m saying my hypothetical is analogous to your comment. It shows how you probably disagree with your own morality when its applied in another context.

 @haighd2: Ummm... You were ok until you felt the need to use that slur. In what way did you feel that was needed? Where in any of this discourse did people throw around slurs of any kind?

This really showed your frame of mind is...

 @dualcrownscottspark: O I totally understand and agree. I personally would just prefer the main articles being more balanced instead of a 'forced' male-only article. But that's a personal preference. Like I said, if women truly feel this is the way, then I have no problems with it and I do enjoy the articles themselves (even if my comments get downvoted into oblivion. I don't react for the votes though).

 Harsh crowd

 @TrailFeatures: Your right it wasn’t needed to demonstrate the point but it does make the point more effectively. After all being a classless nagger, does in some peoples minds, seem to be intrinsically linked to basketball culture. "Definitions of nagger. v.tr 1. To annoy by constant scolding, complaining, or urging.
2. To torment persistently, as with anxiety or pain.
v.intr.
1. To scold, complain, or find fault constantly: .
2. To be a constant source of anxiety or annoyance."

 @haighd2: If the only way you can make a "point more effectively" is to insinuate the use of that slur, then you need to work on your writing.

There is no justification for the use of term you have decided to imply the use of. It does not make your point- you have swapped out the under represented group with the group that has dominated global discourse for years and then replaced the group that usually receives the majority of coverage with a marginalized group. Your attempt to "demonstrate the point" doesn't work if you swap out groups and individual words with no regard to the intended meaning.

Not to mention that you choose to continue participating in the marginalization mentioned above. Don't even bother trying to spin this by saying you were talking about "nagging". You chose a word that you felt the need to censor.

 Actually I really enjoyed this round up focused on women's progression in MTB. IMO it is one of the more exciting things happening in the sport at the moment. I definitely don't have any feeling of the "vibe" that you are connecting to it. It gets me stoked to see these humans pushing boundary's and getting the recognition they deserve for it.

 @Quinn-39: I said nagger, censored by *s you assumed I said n*gger because of your own preconceived ideas. That is very much the point isn’t it? and shows the value of being able to use the words we actually want to use without being censored. Your response betrays your own bigotry, I’ve given you some rope and you’ve hung yourself. Epic self own.

Also black people and women are not marginalised victims don't be so patronising.

 @haighd2: Are you for real? Your intention was to be offensive and divisive- you know exactly what you were insinuating. You're a racist and a misogynist and clearly don't see the problem with that as you've never been confronted with real consequences given your privilege (privilege that I happen to share in as well as a white male- but I'll recognize that fact). This is actually how you wish to portray yourself?

Those two groups have been historically, and still are currently, marginalized. That is fact and is born out in events around the world every single day. You are wrong.

 @Quinn-39: You seem to be ideologically possessed in a way that has resulted in self loathing. I hope you get the help you need. In the mean time you can’t expect the rest of society to go along with your delusion.

The fact is that in the west women have achieved equity and are now treated fairly in our societies. They are not the same as men but on the whole fairness prevails. Most women have manfully lived up to the expectations placed on them by post modern society.

Black communities in western Europe and the former colonies have been treated fairly now for at the very least a generation, perhaps more. Although they’ve been made equal members of our civilisations with the same rights as anyone else they have on average failed to achieve the same as the indigenous populations of Europe and the ethnic Europeans (and east Asians of north America). * This is despite every effort being made for their advancement.

*NOT ALL, yes there are impressive individuals out there but the overall trends exist. For example I don’t judge Elliot Jackson and John McWhorter in the same way as I would view Darrell Brookes and OJ Simpson but the question of who better typifies that community isn’t difficult to answer.

Neither black people or women are generally marginalised. Perhaps your marginalising them personally but you don’t act for the rest for us. If the boardrooms of the future contain many more east Asian men than they do black women we are going to have to admit that it might be because there are consequential biological differences between groups. The unequal outcomes that we see are nothing to do with the actions of white people from yesteryear.

 @haighd2: Oh my. I'm the one suffering with self-loathing?

You are clearly indoctrinated in the racist ideas of eugenicists- they've got you convinced of your own superiority through fear of being "replaced".

Marginalized groups DO NOT have equal footing. To claim that they are faced with challenges perpetuated by centuries of marginalization due to GENETIC/ "consequential biological differences" is beyond despicable. It's racist pseudo-science like this that is at the forefront of burgeoning neo-nazi and other white supremacist movements today.

Those that prescribe to these racist ideologies are just afraid of losing your unearned position at the top.

 @Quinn-39: what would you accept as evidence to change your mind?

 @haighd2: There is no evidence to support your claims of racial difference. It is racist, disproven, pseudo science.

There is no "evidence" to be accepted to support that "it might be because there are consequential biological differences between groups" - just the misguided ramblings of scared racists.

 @Quinn-39: I didn’t ask if you thought the evidence existed, I asked what would it take to change your mind.
For example, I believe in the severity of man made climate change but if a climate sceptic asked me what would it take to change your mind I could tell him. I would expect to see x, y or z demonstrated by scientific studies.

If there’s no evidence that could even potentially exist that would change your mind then you have to concede that your opinion is just doctrine or received wisdom. So what would it take to change your mind?

 @haighd2: Giving such space, even hypothetically, to debunked (time and again), racist, theories flies in the face of the progress being made towards a more just society.

In reasonable circles we don't give space to flat earth theories... why would we treat this differently? Doing so only weakens the progress that has been made, supported by science, in the right direction.

 @Quinn-39: I would not waste my time on him. The man has a chip on his shoulder from a past experience and hasn't worked past it.

 @haighd2: I refuse to yield space to hate.

 @TrailFeatures: I've gotten to that point. Just shocked PB and Outside are going to let such blatant racism stand on their site.

 @Quinn-39: Understanding that there are differences between racial groups is not racism, treating individuals differently and unfairly because of their racial group is racism.

Accusing someone of being racist is actually quite a serious thing, you ought to take the trouble to understand the meaning of the word before you use it. I’m in favour of the free speech but recognise that organisations often reserve the right to censor in thier own domain. If there is there is going to be censorship here it should be levelled against yourself and others who have thrown around baseless accusations fo bigotry without providing evidence to support them.

 @TrailFeatures: translation: "Dont listen to please who disagree"

 @haighd2:

I'll just leave the evidence you want here. None of my own opinions or ideas.

From Britannica: "racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others."

From your earlier posts: "If the boardrooms of the future contain many more east Asian men than they do black women we are going to have to admit that it might be *because there are consequential biological differences between groups*."



And now some other evidence followed by a question for you:

From the European Union: "Racial Discrimination- Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

From your last post: "Understanding that there are differences between racial groups is not racism, treating individuals differently and unfairly because of their racial group is racism."

Did you "take the trouble to understand the meaning of the word before you use(d) it"? Please consider the provided definitions of both 'Racism' and "Racial discrimination' when formulating your response.

 @Quinn-39: Yes I understand it better than you it seems. Basically I don’t accept the new Britannica definition which is social justice infused. If the Britannia version of the word was the actual original definition that people use in real life then I would accept the label of racist becuase it is true that “there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features”. In reality however when people say racist or racism they mean something else.

A more genuine definition that reflects how people actually use the word can be had from the OED: Racism; "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Note the element of unfair treatment for example by prejudicing the individual based on group characteristics. Think about which definition predates the other and why some in society might have felt the need to try and change it.

If you accept the Britannica definition can I ask, do you even accept the existence of racial groups as a legitimate way to categorise human existence? given what youve said above its clear that you do. Perhaps the better question then is do you understand that there are in fact measurable differences between the groups?

 @Quinn-39: Also please note that producing a radically left wing definition of the word racism that has somehow been adopted by a major institution isn’t a description of the evidence required to change your mind. Its worth noticing that you cant even begin to flesh out what evidence might hypothetically exist that would be sufficient to change your mind. Yet I can do the same in reverse. This is because you are closed minded where I am open minded. You are ideologically possessed where as I am following the evidence. Never the less I’ll ask again, please, what evidence would change your mind?

 @haighd2: Closed minded? You straight up said " Basically I don’t accept the new Britannica definition which is social justice infused". You can't pick your own facts. Doesn't sound very open-minded to me- you're hanging onto the specific parts of whatever serves your needs.

If we want to go with the Oxford Languages definition, lets look at the rest of the definition (remember, you can't pick your own facts). The second part of the Oxford definition (at least the one I can find- I'm open to FULLY examining a myriad of definitions- something which you have just stated you are not willing to do as would not allow serve your confirmation bias) is "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another".

Understanding that there are different groups of people out there isn't racist (people look different)- it's the use of those differences to view one group as lesser, as you have tried to do by calling into question the intellectual capacity of some groups, that is racist.

I'd also like to note that you're painting with a broad brush when you state that "A more genuine definition that reflects how people actually use the word can be had from the OED"- you're assuming that the people you deal with and/or surround yourself with are not indicative of the entirety of the human race.

But I'll humour you. Let's be "open minded" and try some more definitions- if you really think that a written definition from some book or website is the true determinant of the meaning of a term.

Cambridge: "policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race : harmful or unfair things that people say, do, or think based on the belief that their own race makes them more intelligent, good, moral, etc. than people of other races : the belief that some races are better than others, or the unfair treatment of someone because of his or her race".

Note that this one's a three-parter. Just because you need to sit down to tie your shoes doesn't mean you can just pick the one part of the definition that suits your "ideologically possessed" beliefs.

Merriam Webster: "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice"

Dictionary.com (I know, it's not as old as your OED- but you're open minded, right?): "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

Wikipedia (not claiming it's a great source, but you did want to go with "A more genuine definition that reflects how people actually use the word"- so let's be "open-minded" and see what it has to say, after all- what better place to find a "definition that reflects how people actually use the word" then a crowdsourced definition?): "Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded."

Just because you have selected a single definition, or part of a definition, that helps you justify your ideology of perceived superiority over some other groups does not mean the rest of us can't look beyond that narrow scope and understand the world for how it truly is. Are all definitions that don't fit your narrow view "radically left-wing"?

You can keep doing you, but from this conversation it is clear to me that this is not the first time you have found your ideologies being called out. Perhaps it's time to look at that pattern and realize what the common factor is.

If you were trying to espouse radical ideas that would make things better for people and were being drowned out by those looking to maintain the status quo that benefits them at the cost of others they perceive as lesser, then I'd be on board- ready to support. But the things you've been convinced of are the opposite- they're divisive and based on a status quo from our less equitable past- one in which the slur you used that started all of this would be seen as acceptable and one that, thankfully, we are working to move away from. People are amazing and, given TRULY equal, opportunities all groups of people can achieve great things- hopefully together. Let's try to get behind this idea, instead of throwing up obstacles because we're afraid of progress.

 @Quinn-39: I go by the OED definition because that’s what most people mean when they say the word racism. Language shouldn’t be top down it has to be a consensus or confusion ill reign.

Lets try and clear this up. By the OED definition your accusation against me of racism is invalid you would concede that at least I think. Obviously I’m not saying that we need to mistreat people based on their race or that we should judge and individual according to their group metrics, I’m simply saying that racial differences exist and that these differences are consequential.

Your using a different, newer, Britannica, social justice, post modern definition where racist is conflated with racialist. This definition basically excludes you from knowing that races exist and are consequential without falling under the definition of racist. Let me be crystal clear IF this Britannica definition was what most of society understood the word racist to mean I would wear the label. I would in that HYPOTHETICAL say yes I am a racist.

The difficulty for you is that so would virtually all scientifically literate people. Under the Britannica definition what exactly is immoral about being a “racist”? Of course the answer is nothing. Under that definition a racist is simply someone who has noticed or been educated about the biological trends and understands that these trends impact human output.

 @Quinn-39: Again lets notice that you have failed to say what would change your mind, please honestly take a minute before responding emotionally and think logically and calmly about why its is that your world view is unfalsifiable. Have you ever been wrong before? How did you find out you were wrong?

 @haighd2:

It's impossible to break this down with you if you STILL refuse to utilize the entire definitions. You have selected the specific sections of the texts that support your opinion and have disregarded the rest, FROM BOTH SOURCES. Again- you cant have your own facts!

You chose to ignore the last line of the Oxford definition: "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another" Inferior or superior- you're earlier post suggested intellectual superiority based on race. So, if you can manage to read the WHOLE definition I will not concede that accusation to be invalid.

And lets look at the part of the Britannica definition that you decided to ignore- again, it's that last line: "that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others". By fully reading and then understanding this definition you might realize that they aren't saying that recognizing differences between races is racist- it's making a CAUSAL link between physical characteristics and factors such as intellect (here's where we get into that eugenicist bunk 'science') and deciding one group is superior or inferior that is racist.

The only way for these racist ideas to proven (to change my mind) would be for a DIRECT link (not a trend that one gene often shows up in the presence of another) between MFSD12 and brain function. This has to be causation, not correlation- study after study have shown that you can have more genetic similarities with a person considered to be of another race than someone from your own. So the link has to be direct: ie this specific gene affects melanin AND brain development linked to intellect. No proof has ever been offered to support this idea. Eugenicists have chased links like this as if their racist little lives depended on it and have always come up short, grasping at straws.

Besides all that, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to state that definitions ascribed to language must be based on consensus and then come along and decide for everyone else which of those "top down" definitions you think is somehow correct- all based on your opinion that "that's what most people mean". Have you done a study of what MOST people mean? Maybe your opinion is outdated in our modern world. Depends on the circles you travel in- but shouting your ideas into an echo chamber and having those opinions validated doesn't mean they're correct.

Anyway. You repeatedly insist on ignoring half the information, focusing on whatever confirms your bias and making broad, unfounded, statements that whatever you believe is what the majority of people also think (remember that finding your opinion as half a definition in the OED does not mean the majority agree with you). I've laid it all out here and you're going to pick the bits that suit you. Have fun with that- but know that you're wrong. In the meantime, I'll keep calling out racist ideas whenever they pop up- if we ignore them they become normalized, and that's proven to be deadly time and time again.

 @Quinn-39:

I'm only replying because I'm tired of this thread in my notifications. Take it to DM if you want to argue with someone that isn't ready to have these conversations.

Something obviously happened to him in the past, and instead of working with a professional to help him process that event, he is now carrying all that energy with him and projecting it on other groups to get even. You can not reason with a person that isn't thinking reasonably.

Just move on.

 @Quinn-39: Can you not see that its you who is picking a choosing the parts of the definitions that you don’t like. Regarding the OED definition the primary definitions states “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism” one of these 3 is required. I’m not advocating any one of the three.

In a dictionary 1. is often the primary definition and 1.1 is an alternative definition.

Regarding the Britannica definition yes the genetic differences in racial groups manifest in an average differences in performance of that group. This is true in more or less any given metric from IQ to athletic performance and many other things in between. According to that definition knowing that makes you a racist. So is our disagreement actually over whether different racial groups have different abilities? East Asians are innately superior at maths and west Africans are innately superior at sprinting. Europeans are jack of all trades.

Thank you for moving this forward by providing some detail about what would change your mind, unfortunately your standard is laughably over blown:
“The only way for these racist ideas to proven (to change my mind) would be for a DIRECT link (not a trend that one gene often shows up in the presence of another) between MFSD12 and brain function.”

Its as if Galileo is claiming the earth orbits the sun. The church disagrees. He asks what would change your mind and the church elders say make a space shuttle and fly us round the earth. Your standard is way off and weirdly specific. If we took those standards we would be able to know very much.

Why did you jump to brain function and melanin? I mean honestly I know why and its very telling….but we better leave that alone before the name calling reignites.

You need to come to terms with the fact that different racial groups on avg have different abilities. It would be amazing if they didn’t. Two important things 1) none of this means that different racial groups need to be unfairly treated and 2) none of this means that an individual should be judged according to the avg for their group.

To take your example of IQ and melanin its true that east Asians have a higher avg IQ than African Americans but there is also a huge amount of overlap in the distributions. The inverse is true with athletic performance.

Lets try and keep this focused I think the centre of our disagreement is whether or not one racial group is on avg innately superior to another at a given task. Can you confirm what your position is on this?

 Didn’t realise I could be downvoted for geography based race confusion :-)