Transgender cyclist Austin Killips has responded to Donald Trump and accused the president of using fear around the idea of trans athletes “invading women’s sports” to “fixate hate and attention” on them, while “doing nothing at all to elevate, fund or support women athletes”.
The comments come in an opinion piece published by the Guardian, Killips calling the article her “response” to Trump having “singled me out” as “someone ruining women’s sport”.
Killips’ victory at the UCI 2.2 Tour of the Gila in 2023, as well as wins in cyclocross and ultra-endurance races, sparked much debate and scrutiny from politicians, the press and wider public. Her situation has been comparable to that of Emily Bridges in the UK, both trans cyclists subject to vast media attention and comments from politicians who have questioned their right to race in women’s events.
In July 2023, two months on from Killips becoming the first trans cyclist to win a UCI women’s stage race, the sport’s governing body banned transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from competing in international women’s races.
Killips has continued to compete in gravel events and other endurance races and was this month mentioned by Trump as the newly inaugurated president announced his Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports executive order. Trump said Killips is “a male cyclist posing as a woman” who “competed in the 800-mile Arizona Trail Race – a very big deal in cycling – and obliterated the women’s course record by nearly five and a half hours”.
Pointing out that she took the record from a male athlete, Alex Schultz, Killips went on to explain in the Guardian piece how Schultz himself had previously beaten female ultra-distance legend Lael Wilcox’s record, the event’s “co-ed leaderboard” what “spurred” her interest in the event in the first place.
“Not that it got me anywhere, financially,” Killips wrote. “It failed to secure me anything meaningful like industry sponsorships – tangible support that would have made my pursuits in sport tenable. Instead, my wins only served to generate more artifacts for the right’s culture wars, while I remained unable to garner even a sliver of the institutional recognition that friends and fellow competitors with similar palmares have found.
“Transgender people lost the inclusion battle in sport ages ago. International governing bodies for competitions in running, cycling, chess, swimming, darts and more have repeatedly caved to pressure and helped shift the Overton window to exclude trans people from public life more broadly. The world’s least gracious winners insist on kicking sand in our eyes.
“Trump’s executive order is a perfect scam: he and his acolytes get to talk endlessly about the fake spectre of trans athletes ‘invading’ women’s sports, while never putting any of their attention, immense political cache and funding access towards things that would meaningfully elevate the state of women’s sports. Instead, they get to fixate their hate and attention on every transsexual woman who dares show up to a rec T-ball league with her friends. Meanwhile, the women who simply want to compete and labour as athletes are left in the cold.”
Killips says conditions for female cyclists looking for a team or a race “are the worst they have been in the last decade”.
She continued: “Consider this: when you watch a professional race, it’s common for an announcer to regale spectators with the resumes of the women on the start line. Many of them are record-shattering athletes and also hold full-time jobs as doctors, researchers or investment bankers. These remarks always come in good faith, but as a means of contrasting us against the men – who usually have enough money and support thrown behind them to make a living as athletes – they speak to the sad state of affairs in women’s sport.
“And soon, things for women’s sports will get even worse. Because it bears repeating, as clearly as possible: their project contains no measures that help female athletes at the professional level as labourers, and certainly nothing that even gestures towards new investment opportunities for girls pursuing their dream. It’s a free market that devalues women’s labour at every turn.
“In fact, the only action items referencing funding simply establishes a precedent for rescinding money from organisations investing in women and girls who have given their lives and bodies to sport. In this new reality, all women lose. In fact, everyone loses – except for the people cashing checks and amassing political power.
“They found a scapegoat, and all they have done is enrich themselves with five-figure speaking fee tours, while taking the oxygen out of the room. The only lane they’ve made is one that encourages women to quit competing for a life of news appearances and college campus speaking tours. They are, for lack of a better word, cowards who don’t want to do the actual work of empowering and supporting athletes.
“So my argument is quite simple. Maybe you take umbrage with trans people in sports, and in turn me (whatever, you won that battle). But if you purport to care about women’s sports, about girls getting a fair chance at competing, you need to ask yourself why, at the height of a historic moment of sweeping and unchecked austerity measures, the loudest and wealthiest people in the room have built a movement that culminated in this: an executive order that establishes a precedent to strip funding away from women in sport.”
Prior to the UCI’s ban on transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from competing in international women’s races, Killips raced numerous high-profile events, including finishing ninth in the United States’ national championships road race in 2023 and competing in several rounds of the UCI Cyclo-cross World Cup in Europe.
Following her win at the Tour of the Gila, the UCI said it would make an “eventual decision” on its transgender policy and “take into account all elements” of heated debate. That decision banning transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from women’s races came in July.
A couple of months earlier, British Cycling updated its transgender policy and introduced a new “Open” category to run alongside the women’s category and which transgender women would be required to compete in.
> British Cycling’s transgender and non-binary participation policy: a cyclist’s experience
Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges claimed the announcement amounted to trans women being “banned” and called British Cycling a “failed organisation” which “takes money from petrochemical companies and engages in culture wars”.




















50 thoughts on ““Trump singled me out for ruining women’s sport”: Transgender cyclist accuses president of “fixating hate” on trans athletes instead of working to “elevate, fund or support women athletes””
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Are you saying you are in
Are you saying you are in favour of ‘othering’ people you don’t like? Because that is one of Trump’s tactics to spread irrational hatred of people.
Protecting biological woman’s
Protecting biological woman’s rights isn’t irrational or hateful .
It’s not about protecting
It’s not about protecting rights, it’s about othering groups of the population. His EO states that there are only 2 sexes which is scientifically incorrect.
If you are unable to see the extremism and hatred being stirred up by the current regime, I despair.
Hirsute wrote:
In the interests of scientific correctness, could you name one of the other sexes please?
XX
XX
XY
XXX
XXY
X0
people born intersex
The prefered term now is
The prefered term now is Differences in Sexual Development (DSD) rather than intersex, but putting that to one side none of the examples you’ve listed result in a sex that isn’t male or female..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dd8Ow8bA-Q
So back to my question, could you name one of the other sexes rather than list some chromosome combinations.
How are you defining sex then
How are you defining sex then ?
The way science does.
The way science does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
BTW Don’t think for a moment that I believe Trump and the rest of his hangers on are anything other than a complete cesspit of humanity, but on this point they are scientifically correct – they’re are just two sexes. Any other conjecture is just the scientfic equivalent of flat earth beliefs.
But the fact that there are just two sexes, mostly shouldn’t place limitations on how people want to view themselves, or express themselves to others.
But (despite using this in
But (despite using this in argument) I don’t think that is really what most people are arguing about. It is (at least in part) an “argument from nature” but people are not really that interested in the nature part – more a particular human view of the same.
I think the “sciencey” bit is not that interesting to people – or rather I think it’s trumped by our “intuitive biological thinking” – which seems to be “essentialist” (informed by culture of course – perhaps it’s mostly OK in your culture to have 3 categories rather than 2, for most purposes?).
As others have pointed out sport – at least at higher levels – seems to be all about extremes, tiny minorities but also arbitrary rules anway (speaking as someone who sometimes rides a recumbent)…
Yup I agree (and I’m not
Yup I agree (and I’m not arguing with the points people are raising in that greater argument), people tend to conflate sex with sexual traits, gender roles, , and gender expression and then it get’s messy.. And conversations about gender or gender expression are complex, and require nuance which can be difficult online – and for that reason I tend to stay clear of them.
I just get triggered when people assert things that are just scientifcally incorrect 🙂
IanMunro wrote:
Yeah … although if you’re too triggered by the latter then much of the internet will not a safe space for you!
Pretty straightforward:
Pretty straightforward:
A woman is an adult human free of Y chromosomes.
A man is an adult human with Y chromosomes.
If in doubt, look at the human who gave birth to you, she is a woman. Not all women are identical, some may not be able to conceive for example, but as a guide your mother is a good analog.
It’s not that simple: https:/
It’s not that simple: https://bsky.app/profile/christopher664023.bsky.social/post/3lahwh7u6rk2t
If I recall, HP posted an
If I recall, HP posted an interesting diagram that covered some of the science on this.
I believe the scientific terms for sexes hinge on what gametes are produced by the sexually reproducing organism (assuming heterogamy – the case for humans, although I believe there are a (very) few documented cases of fertile human hermaphrodites. It gets more complicated in other areas of life). Anyway – humans here I think – so presumably male, female, sterile(?) if incapable of producing gametes and we can’t pick some other definition?) and (very) rare hermaphrodite?
(Not that this likely helps – people have their own ideas about how they want to think of the world. In at least one sense it doesn’t matter how well or even if those align with how science slices and dices biology…).
Sexes in this sense might be
Sexes in this sense might be a bit boring when it comes to sport because AFAIK while they are generally correlated with e.g. performance that’s not a perfect link (of course, then rules come into it). And also not perfectly correlated with what scientists term “what bits you’ve got”.
The particular sport may make a difference: for some time one of the top rock climbers in the world was female. Of course that may also reflect upon the development of the sport (probably “popularity”).
Hirsute wrote:
Their bodies still either produced AND responded to testosterone; OR their bodies did not. They end up either with the male or female phenotypes (modulo developmental disorders of 1 or 2 of the sex organs).
Hirsute wrote:
Hatred, aye its a one way street isn’t it? Only trans people get hatred, right?
So, abuse by trans supporters doesn’t happen?
We’ll just start with the term TERFS and the slogan all terfs must die.
You talk about othering but ignore what happens to real women. Bravo.
What is trans? Does it include when a male puts on a dress and demands to be know as a woman?
All sorts of people are
All sorts of people are subject to hatred and othering under the fascist, nazi regime of trump and musk.
I’m sorry I did not give a exhaustive list.
Male ,Female and what ?
Male ,Female and what ?
I’m interested to know what else you believe .
There is intersex people born with both though they are assigned one of the above 2 at birth .
Intersex is generally a
Intersex is generally a completely different thing to trans. It is also _incredibly_ rare – being “trans gender” is something of a niche (circa a % or so of the population), while genuine intersex conditions are at least an order of magnitude lower again. At circa 0.01 to 0.1% (max) of the population.
Further, intersex conditions do NOT result in some “in between” person. Intersex people continue to develop as either 1 sex or the other. Their bodies either produce AND respond to testosterone (and they are male), or they do not. Their bodies generally are EITHER male or female, bar potentially some developmental conditions relating to the sex organs.
Yeah, not your battle – or
Yeah, not your battle – or maybe even “about time this wokery is abolished”?
But … aside from Trump so apparently it’s random from day to day, one consistent thing is a fondness for bringing (right-thinking) people together by kicking the ‘others’ – as Hirsute notes.
Who’s to say he won’t decide that any women cycling is an affront? Or that anyone cycling is anti-progress / doesn’t present his business pals with another opportunity to make billions?
“But US so what do I care?” … Indeed – but currently it seems they’re quite happy leaning on anyone (including their “friends”) to change stuff they don’t approve of. Plus his tech-bro (currently) pals operate the world’s biggest
magaphonesorry, megaphone.FWIW it seems that the US is now (a bit like Russia) being run by “angry grandpa”.
I’m not really sure exactly
I’m not really sure exactly what I think about the fairness of transgender folk in sport but I do know that hating them is not an option and where I’m out of my comfort zone that’s my problem to deal with.
There is also a real danger to women with the rise of christian nationalism as part of project 2025 and the patriarchal society – https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/missouri-bill-pregnant-women-registry-eharmony-b2700495.html
You might be a risk so we have to monitor you.
well said a few old rich
well said a few old rich white males thinking they have some kind of right over womans bodies.
To be fair Nodgedave, not all
To be fair Nodgedave, not all Trans women are old rich males. Some are just rich white males.
I am almost certain that it’s
I am almost certain that it’s not fair for transgender women who went through male puberty to compete in female sports…but I’m very certain that it’s a very minor issue in the major scheme of things and that it’s being used as a shitty stick with which to beat all transgender people. There needs to be further examination of the issues by experts, negotiation and compromise as appropriate, certainly all this screaming “look at that tall woman with big hands” is doing nothing but promote hate and encourage discrimination.
I am absolutely certain that
I am absolutely certain that it’s not fair for trans-identifying males who went through male puberty to compete in female sports… and that should be the end of it.
(Check out how 14 and 15 year old boys perform ‘against’ elite women if there’s any doubt about how transformative male puberty is for sports).
That there are other issues to be addressed does not erase the inherent unfairness of male bodies in female sports: at the top level, taking prizes and recognition from female athletes; at other levels standing in the way of the development of women and girls aspiring to reach elite level. Fairness and inclusion are, in this instance, opposing ideals.
Also, while we should never jump to conclusions, we still need to be realistic about how males and females differ in their physical development and how this affects sporting performance.
(Not mentioned in your post but… Killips’s point about governing bodies, I think, is very much back to front – it was pressure from activists that bent the rules out of shape to include male-bodied athletes in the female category. That some of those sporting bodies have belatedly revisited their policies to ensure that female spaces are for female bodies is only a return to what should always have been the case).
Rendel Harris wrote:
TIMs are greatly over-represented on podiums in amateur sport – cycling particualrly for some reason. It might not be an issue for any man, nor for the vast majority of people who simply aren’t doing competitive sport (men or women), but 1 TIM is going to be pushing 100 to 1000+ women down. Which simply isn’t fair.
There are many many experiments (from monkeys to 6 month old human babies) that show a sense of fairness runs deep in primates, and transgressions of that sense provoke strong reactions. The situation with TIMs in women’s sport is simply not fair – as you recognise yourself.
If you care about trans-people, and care about removing that hate you perceive against them, then addressing this obvious source of unfairness which is (rightly) causing friction is very likely to help _smooth_ the way for trans people. As such you – and trans people, and all other supporters – ought to support _sensible_ policies of _fairness_.
Your analogy is utterly
Your analogy is utterly preposterous .
Which analogy? I see a couple
Which analogy? I see a couple of metaphors there (‘megaphone’ – doesn’t seem to be much preposterous about that; ‘angry grandpa’ – I don’t think you we’re meant to take that particularly seriously) but no analogies.
You are going to have to
You are going to have to explain what analogy you specifically refer to and why it is ‘utterly preposterous’.
Men competing as women 》No
Men competing as women 》No women’s cycling at all .
When you must take it to nonsensical extremes to try and make a point it’s preposterous .
chrisonabike wrote:
I believe he’s already started on your second sentence with his determination to force New York to tear out its cycle lanes. As for the first, he’ll probably get round to it, he’s only been in office a month…
This is another dumb leap
This is another dumb leap .You want to go
Men competing in women’s sports 》No women in sport ,with the first step being cycle lanes in new York being removed .
Ive no idea why people take trump so seriously and hang on every word ,I find that as disturbing as anything he says .
Oh dear, it’s quite the irony
Oh dear, it’s quite the irony with you accusing other people of taking Trump too seriously and at the same time deciding that everything people say on here must be taken seriously instead of being able to see when people are making a joke (albeit one with a kernel of truth).
As for why people take Trump so seriously, he’s president of the United States of America and in just one month he’s already imposed a whole raft of fascistic measures on the USA and he’s spreading his tentacles out into the world, more or less leaving Ukraine at the mercy of Russia and supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine amongst other things. We can’t afford not to take him seriously, regarding him as just a blarophant clown who won’t follow through on any of his threats is a huge mistake and something that enables him.
Less sure on the fascism
Less sure on the fascism precisely but yes – being happy to go with the “pick on minorities” for gain. (Does he personally have much of an ideology other than “what is good for Trump is good for America”?). Certainly interested in loyalty over other attributes. Witness his presidential picks – even Democrats are in if they swear fealty. (A more divided, autocratic US may be a longer term trend, but he has certainly pushed that envelope).
However firing the top black man and woman from the military in pursuit of his “anti-DEI” initiative certainly seems to be putting his words into action! (Probably just coincidence! Plus he fired a white man also – so that’s all fine…)
As you say he is talking down the bike lanes already *, and definitely wishes to get some short term benefit via more fossil fuels, driving etc. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last century it’s that the benefits of mass motoring come with lots of problems. And without very careful management (restriction) it simply takes over – drives down use of other modes, alters places so that active travel becomes less possible or impossible. Then we’re all in the Ponzi scheme of trying to fund the maintenance for ever-further-flung infra by building more of it.
* I mean – he’s correct that “they’re so bad” – and they should make them into properly separated cycle paths, get the motor vehicles out of them – oh and sort out the junctions too.
You’d better tell Merz and
You’d better tell Merz and Trudeau that. Along with all the federal government employees.
What I find ironic is that
What I find ironic is that the Enhanced games are funded by Trump Jr.
Isn’t the simple solution to
Isn’t the simple solution to let transgender women ride and let naturally born women dope to level the playing field, and also let transgender men dope to level the even more unfair situation in the male peloton where transgenders don’t stand a hope in hell of competing?
Why is there never any discussion of how unfairly transgender men are treated in sport? Is there any sport in which they’ve been permitted to find success?
Stop beating a dead horse,
Stop beating a dead horse, people. This story isn’t really about trans competitors but about the elected felon and his autocratic regime, targeting minorities.
Distracting the masses with
Distracting the masses with smokescreen (non)issues (immigration, race, gender, etc) is a very effective way for the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.
This piece also discusses how female sport is kept poor in general, whilst male sport flourishes in comparison.
In December last year Charlie
In December last year Charlie Baker the head of the NCAA was giving evidence. It went like this
“
“How many athletes are there in the U.S. in NCAA schools?” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Baker during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on federal regulations around sports gambling.
“Five hundred and ten thousand,” said Baker, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts who has served since 2023 as president of the NCAA, which governs intercollegiate athletics at more than 1,000 colleges and universities across the country.
“How many transgender athletes are you aware of?” Durbin asked.
“Less than 10,” Baker said. He did not say whether that number includes transgender men. “
And yet there was a need for a presidental decree!
And yet we have multiple of
And yet we have multiple of those ~10 athletes ending up on women’s podiums. Which is statistically completely impossible, if TIMs have no advantage over women – which is overwhelming proof they in fact have a large advantage (as any woman who has tried to compete against even mid-teen or older *boys* will attest to). Which means a large chunk of the women – 510,000/x (2 <= x <= 8 ??? - I'm not sure what at ratio women compete versus men) - had their results affected by this. That's at least thousands of women, potentially more than 10,000 women, possibly closer to 100,000 women. So... this "But it's just 10 out of 510,000" is just gaslighting. It's bullshit, and those spouting it must either know it, or else they are utterly ignorant of how competitive sports works and hence should refrain from commenting on it.
Your numbers seem at least as
Your numbers seem at least as statistically flawed as those you’re trying to criticise. They’re tacitly implying that all those athletes are competing in one big pool, which is clearly nonsense. Without knowing what sports those ~10 individuals are competing in, what the depth of field is in them, how many podium places were up for grabs in each of those sports over whatever period you’re considering, etc., you can’t really say much of anything at all about the probability.
We lack exact breakdowns,
We lack exact breakdowns, indeed. We don’t know how many of the 510k are women, how many of the 10 were TIMs competing in women’s sports (though, likely, majority – males being more likely to enter into sports competition to begin with, and TIMs being much more likely to choose to enter women’s categories than male for idealogical reasons), and how many sports they were in. That said, I’ve found figures on statista.com that suggest 47% of NCAA athletes are female – 229k in total – better than representation in sports seen elsewhere, but then… college is expensive in the USA and sport can be a way to get a scholarship.
That is why I said “at least thousands”. E.g. NCAA swimming has 300+ women competing at the championships, and it seems reasonable to assume there were 2 to 3x that number at selections at the colleges. NCAA athletics are also quite popular, and the number is surely at least similar there. Then there’s also NCAA cycling, which – according to collegesportsamerica.com – has ~400 cyclists competing (possibly lot less selective).
There are TIMs competing in at least those 3 NCAA sports.
So I don’t think “at least thousands” is unreasonable at all, and I’d be surprised if I’m wrong on that as a lower bound on the number of women competing in NCAA sports affected by TIMs.
(You could well argue that sports like cycling, athletics and swimming have different disciplines within them, but then dominant athletes can enter multiple discplines – Thomas dominated in everything from short to endurance swimming once he changed from men to women’s categoties).
I am 100% correct in the conclusion of my comment: “But it’s just 10 out of 510,000″ is just gaslighting. It’s bullshit” – the number is _for sure_ much greater than the 10 trans people. Pointing at 10 as a figure – “oh look how insignificant, why would you even care unless you’re a bigot?!” is definitely gaslighting.
I note you are trying to dispute my ball-park estimates, and muddy the waters, but you provide no better numbers.
Paul J wrote:
Not for me to do, since I’m not making any argument that depends on numbers – merely pointing out yours are as misleading as those quoted originally.
FWIW – I personally think numbers are entirely irrelevant here anyway, since this isn’t an argument about facts, logic, science, etc. – it’s a disagreement over values and beliefs. There is no argument which can establish which view is ‘right’.
mdavidford wrote:
Not for me to do, since I’m not making any argument that depends on numbers – merely pointing out yours are as misleading as those quoted originally.— Paul J
I stand by “at least a thousand”. It is almost certainly _at least_ that (and higher again if we expand out past NCAA). You have provided no argument to counter my estimate, just bluster.
My comment wasn’t directed at
My comment wasn’t directed at the ‘at least a thousand’ bit (though I think there are other issues with that). I was responding to the part of your comment that the numbers quoted made the number of podium places won by trans athletes ‘statistically completely impossible’.
As far as ‘bluster’ goes, I’d say my contributions have been significantly more succinct than yours, but, as with the main ‘debate’ here, that’s inevitably a matter of opinion, to which there’s no ‘right’ answer.
mdavidford wrote:
There are at least 2 athletes who have been on NCAA podiums – indeed both have been quite dominant. To have 2 out of the mere 10 trans people podium, in a pool of 229k is indeed statistically improbable.
I recall there being a US
I recall there being a US survey at the time of the US election which concluded (and I simplify) that two-thirds of Americans support trans rights in broad terms, however two-thirds of Americans think trans women should not be in women’s sport.
So while Trump is without a doubt a terrible person that appeals to the lowest common denominator, those loudly pushing the more absolute argument from either side are the minority viewpoints, and ones which ignores the majority who have a more nuanced perspective.
I’m no expert, but I know enough science and statistic, backed up with years of professional experience of challenging shaky evidence, to recognise that the vast majority of the loudest voices in the debate comes from people who have no other interest in sport (or science) who are searching out and sharing ‘evidence’ to support how they think things should be.
Cutting through that, it seems the more credible evidence still points fairly firmly towards transgender women (and those with certain DSDs) having an advantage over cis women in competitive sport. While I think it’s possible and desirable to accommodate trans women in sport at a social level, for women’s elite sport to mean anything, we should apply the precautionary principle and the default position should be to not allow trans women in women’s elite and contact sports.
But also remember that the precautionary principle means that isn’t the end to the gathering and review of evidence. Depending on your definition of sport, there is likely to be a better case for trans women in sports where strength is less relevant, and I’m very interested to see how trans men progress in men’s sport.