Type of spurious reasoning which ignores other effects of a counterfactual

Question

Consider a male athlete who is a reasonably skilled 100 metres sprinter, with a best time around 10.3 seconds. Probably not enough to make a career in track and field, but faster than the women's 100 metres record of 10.49 seconds, enough for him to declare:

What a shame I was not born a woman, for then I would have been a record-breaking champion instead of an amateur.

This reasoning is clearly flawed because if he had been born a woman, he would not have run 10.3 seconds.

I think this mode of spurious reasoning, in which the side-effects of a counterfactual are ignored, is reasonably common in practice, but is there a name or expression which describes it? Either the technical name of this particular fallacy, or a phrase or idiom which alludes to it, would both be welcome.

Answer 1

This seems to be specific fallacy of inconsistency that is labeled false equivalence:

a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

The false equivalence is in the assumption that being born a woman is the same as being born a man, when in fact there are many genetic, physiological and sociological differences that would have an impact on the outcome.

The syllogism:

100 m in 10.3 s is an amateur time for men

I ran 100 m in 10.3 s

∴I am an amateur.

Has no logical equivalence to:

100 m in 10.3s is a world record time for women

I ran 100 m in 10.3 s

∴I am a world record holder.

The false equivalence, generates a false minor premise, because it was a man who ran 100 m in 10.3 s.

You cannot change your past, but if you could, it would change your present.