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.

  • You might be better off asking this on Philosophy rather than EL&U. Though I do believe we have a [rhetoric] tag...
    – Dan Bron
    Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 13:17
  • 2
    Take your pick: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 13:19
  • @Dan Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about posting on Philosophy, but I'd be quite happy with a non-technical answer that expressed the same idea - I wouldn't be surprised if there were an idiom for it, for instance.
    – Silverfish
    Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 13:22
  • @KevinWorkman Thanks, that's one of my favourite Wikipedia lists (another is the list of cognitive biases) but I can't see what I'm looking for on there. Although I might have missed it, or more likely, not noticed how it is a special instance of one of those listed.
    – Silverfish
    Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 14:09
  • 1
    I feel like your assumption that he wouldn't have run 10.3 as a woman is sexist. Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 17:07

1 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.

  • (+1) I am still thinking about this answer. The situation I described does not seem to fit in to quite the same mold as "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog" or "We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other", which are clear examples of false equivalence. I wonder whether there is a more specific name for the "ignoring other effects of a counterfactual" as it is a fallacy I see regularly.
    – Silverfish
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 0:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.