Motorcycle that identifies as a bicycle sets world cycling record

[0lga]

babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record

NEW YORK, NY—In an inspiring story from the world of professional cycling, a motorcyclist who identifies as a bicyclist has crushed all the regular bicyclists, setting an unbelievable world record.

In a local qualifying race for the World Road Cycling League, the motorcyclist crushed the previous 100-mile record of 3 hours, 13 minutes with his amazing new score of well under an hour.

Professional motorcycle racer Judd E. Banner, the brave trans-vehicle rider, was allowed to race after he told league organizers he's always felt like a bicyclist in a motorcyclist's body.

"Look, my ride has handlebars, two wheels, and a seat," he told reporters as he accepted a trophy for his incredible time trial. "Just because I've got a little extra hardware, such as an 1170-cc flat-twin engine with 110 horsepower, doesn't mean I have any kind of inherent advantage here."

Banner also said he painted the word "HUFFY" on the side of his bike, ensuring he has no advantage over the bikes that came out of the factory as bicycles.

Some critics say he needs to cut off his motor in order to make the competition fairer, but he quickly called these people bigots, and they were immediately banned from professional cycle racing.

Some mopeds are restricted to 30mph, which is far slower than many racing cyclists. There is therefore no advantage.

Posted that earlier, it's a brilliant article I think. Babylon News is a Christian satire site - might have to keep an eye on their content a bit more!

Brilliant!

😂😂😂😂😂

babylonbee.com/news/always-appeals-to-men-with-pads-featuring-pictures-of-monster-trucks-pro-wrestlers

My issue with this type of analogy is that it presents males as having superior ‘high tech’ hardware and the female version being inferior. Similar to the oft used analogy of man entering women’s sport like being an adult who joins the preschool egg and spoon race. Sets my teeth a little on edge.
Also that the trans vehicle rider can have his motor cut off to make the competition fairer. I guess the comparison is meant to be a man having his penis cut off/lower testosterone levels. But that still doesn’t address the male physique and power that remains when transitioning unlike a motorcycle which would just become a uselessly heavy and cumbersome piece of kit that would definitely lose a bicycle race.

I think it is a great article, and simply points out the absurdity of what is happening at present.

I wouldn’t take it too seriously, SeaWitchy, it’s designed to highlight absurd claims, not to be taken literally.

But if you do want to extend the analogy: bicycles are not inferior, they are different. They don’t need fuel, they are lighter, they can be carried across terrain that neither could ride over, they are quiet, they don't pollute, they don’t require as much maintenance, they kill few people ...

Motorbikes are only ‘superior’ if you measure them in terms that favour the motorbike, just as men are only superior if you insist on measuring them in terms that favour men.

Stunning and brave. Becoming a trans cyclist is a long and hard journey that most of us can't comprehend. Nobody would undertake this lightly or for advantage. Anyone making these claims is a bigot.

My issue with this type of analogy is that it presents males as having superior ‘high tech’ hardware and the female version being inferior. Similar to the oft used analogy of man entering women’s sport like being an adult who joins the preschool egg and spoon race. Sets my teeth a little on edge.

Me too. Sounds like good old-fashioned sexism, actually.

It’s not sexism to point out the obvious biological differences between men and women, it’s sexist to discriminate because of it. In the case of sport, it’s sexist to dismiss women’s biological differences as something that doesn’t matter, can be ignored, and can be ignored to allow men to compete in women’s competitions. Men, on average, are stronger than women. Fact. It doesn’t not mean, however, that women needed to be treated as lesser beings and pointing that out doesn’t mean you’re saying women are lesser beings. In fact, by acknowledging it, you’re allowing women to set their own boundaries, own rules and own competition that is just for women, ie the opposite of sexism.

I agree with NotBad - DD at an age now where her male peers are going through puberty hence why many are now out-running and out-Bowling her. I've told her that this is to be expected and she (aged 13) told me I was being sexist. Nope darl, just stating biological facts.
This is precisely why there are separate men and women sports teams.

Actually feel like I am chasing my tail today (including having to deal with exH misogynistic fuck-wittery).

Sometimes you have to show the absurd to make the point.
The gap between male and female sportspeople isn't as big as motorbike vs pushbike but it does exist. No point pretending it doesn't.
Babylon Bee has produced some interesting satire recently - there was one about a bear that identified as a pro wrestler and another about how republicans have veto'd all war as it might result in the deaths of unborn foetuses. I thought that one was quite clever in pointing out the hypocrisy, given developments in Alabama.

@NotBadConsidering excellent post!

@notbadconsidering if the reason for sex segregation in sports were that men are bigger and stronger, what is the justification for not allowing small, weak men to compete with women? Or just have strength/size categories?

To me it seems like that is not the reason. Maybe it's part of it, but there must be more.

Persuing the analogy: Men are sports coupes whilst women are hatchbacks with extra load space for what they might have to carry.

The vital organs are proportionately smaller because they have to be pushed up and out of the way.

So a weedy-looking bloke will have bigger heart and lung capacity compared to a similarly sized woman.

Or women could be jeeps and men could be motorbikes

There is nothing sexist about acknowledging clear physiological differences between women and men. Minimising and shying away from talking about reality is what has contributed to a lot of the problems that we have today with young women thinking the only reason female athletes don't win against males is because they haven't trained hard enough.

Men are superior in some aspects - more muscle mass, bigger heart and lungs etc which gives the explosive energy.
Women are superior in other aspects - flexibility and endurance. And of course the ability to gestate life and give birth.

However differences between women and men doesn't justify viewing men as more 'worthy' than women or that women should be denied rights or opportunities. That is purely down to sexist thinking because it always assumes anything men can do better than women is significant, while anything women can do better than men should be ignored or downplayed.

It's the placing of a certain value or judgement on the differences that is sexist rather than the differences themselves being sexist.

Or women could be jeeps and men could be motorbikes

How's that then? By training a bit harder?

How's that then? By training a bit harder?

No, I just meant motorbikes are faster but jeeps can carry more. Like, it's the same analogy but less obvious which is the superior one.

It's still got problems though. I grew up with biology not being destiny, which was a powerful message, and that women can do anything they want. So all this sits uneasily with me, although I see the point. I don't want to compete with men, either. I just wish there was a different argument.