Councillor for Oxford City, Emily Kerr, and Councillor for Lambridge, Bath and Northeast Somerset, Saskia Heijltjes, have announced that they have asked for their names and faces to be removed from Cycling UK’s publicity.
On BlueSky, Councillor Heijltjes said, “Like many others, I am disappointed and angry about the decision by Cycling UK to change the eligibility criteria for Women in Cycling 2025 to exclude trans women.
“Trans women are women🏳️⚧️”
I am a little late to this, but I have also requested my name and face to be removed from @cyclinguk.bsky.social publicity due to the decision to remove trans women from their awards. Trans women are women, gender is on a spectrum (and I did a genetics degree), and cycling is for everyone. 🏳️⚧️🚲❤️
— Cllr Emily Kerr 💚 (@emilykerr36.bsky.social) 7 November 2025 at 13:42
The announcement has led to several women who were nominated or selected for the award to publicly declined or withdrawn their names in protest of this decision.
Other members of Cycling UK have admitted to cancelling their memberships.
Fredfelt.bsky.social commented on Cllr Kerr’s post: “I’ve just cancelled my membership. I understand that the reason may have been based in their seeking to comply with a dubious ruling, but I’d expect better from this organisation.”
Cllr Kerr responded: “So my honest guess is the legal advice is probably sound, cos that’s what the Supreme Court ruled.
“However, I would have liked to see more imagination in response: cancelling the awards for 2025 or delaying them and coming up with a different format to stay inclusive.
Cycling UK said they “received legal advice that very clearly says that for our awards to comply with the law,” transgender or non-binary cyclists could not be included in the 2025.
The Supreme Court ruling, delivered earlier this year, found that the word ‘sex’, in the Equality Act refers to ‘biological’ sex only.
60 thoughts on “Councillors ask to be removed from Cycling UK publicity after decision to exclude trans women from Women in Cycling award”
I doubt the legal advice. The
I doubt the legal advice. The issue of which toilets trans cyclists use is immaterial to CUK, nor are the awards directly related to cycling prowess. These are discretionary awards made made by a committee using opaque and subjective criteria. CUK can almost certainly award anyone with anything it likes with no risk of legal redress.
I suggested as much on the
I suggested as much on the initial thread. CUK could easily state that they define their awards as being based on gender rather than sex, or even an outer join of both definitions, which would include all trans people and cis women, and be clear of the ([I]ironically [/I] discriminatory) take of the EHRC misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s judgement.
I suspect you’re right and
I suspect you’re right and that someone has taken fright unnecessarily. While the Supreme Court ruling dicates a narrow, though important, point of law, CUK needn’t fall foul of that here. Given that the Awards are about inclusivity and not about the physical performance issues that have reasonably been scrutinised, I think they’ve called this one wrong.
(of course, they’d be criticised whichever way they went…)
I’ve just emailed Cycling UK
I’ve just emailed Cycling UK to express my disappointment with them and that I shall consider whether to renew my family membership when it comes due.
I’ll send them an email
I’ll send them an email saying it’s understandable and a supported decision and to ignore emails like yours. Just for balance
Good on them. After I left
Good on them. After I left British Cycling for their unethical sponsorship deals, I got the impression CyclingUK agreed with my political views pretty much entirely. Now they’re getting involved in this culture war bullshit. Deeply depressing. Where are trans-ally cyclists supposed to go now?
I believe once someone has
I believe once someone has declared a culture war, you can’t not be involved. Isn’t the idea that this is a “for us or against us” thing, on points of principle – or at least a view is erected and any others declared incompossible?
Or … you could disagree with their particular take for this particular issue, hope they’re persuaded differently in the future (it’s an opening to start a conversation?), and ride on, I guess? Although “agreeing with my political views entirely” does seem less of a desire than a requirement these days…
Alternatively there are likely local cycling groups (deffo noted some in Bristol, there are the Infra sisters in Edinburgh…) who may be ticking more of your boxes.
I help run a local cycling
I help run a local cycling campaign group. We’re affiliated with CyclingUK though, and there aren’t any other national options (at least of the same scale).
Ah, i didn’t realise this was
Ah, i didn’t realise this was in the context of a cycling group rather than just you!
It seems to me this does fall
It seems to me this does fall squarely within the ruling of the Supreme Court decision, which – if you remember – was brought by For Women Scotland to establish that a board appointment reserved for women was open only to biological woman. Not about toilets, not “culture war bullshit”, but, going back to the terms of the Equality Act, where the *only* legitimate basis for sex discrimination is to provide a single sex service or single sex job role for women, where that’s a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate end.
Councillor Kerr’s response: “However, I would have liked to see more imagination in response: cancelling the awards” would see all women excluded from the award for the sake of some political posturing. I support Cycling UK continuing with an award for biological women.
robjordan wrote:
These awards never did either of those things, so if you believe that they fall within the scope of the judgment at all, that would appear to imply that should never have existed in the first place and legally ought to be cancelled.
Wow, you guys in the comments
Wow, you guys in the comments really hate women eh? why on earth should men, pretending to be women, be allowed to win a competition for women? I can’t win black person of the year award by painting my face, nor should I, its wrong, and so is this. Cycling UK – thanks for protecting women and womens sports.
alexuk wrote:
A quid says that despite this protestation if anyone complains about someone using blackface alexuk moans about woke protesters making a fuss about nothing and says it’s just a bit of a laugh.
alexuk wrote:
How black is black?
What is black?
alexuk wrote:
You seem to think that trans people are just acting on a whimsy and how it’s a simple choice for them, like how you would choose a breakfast cereal. It’s obvious that you are clueless about this topic and are just being provocative.
alexuk wrote:
It’s not a competition, and no-one ‘wins’ it.
Trans-women don’t just stick
Trans-women don’t just stick on a pair of fake t!ts, tuck their penis between their legs and shout ‘I’m a woman!’
The process takes years. And will involve much consultation with medical professionals. And we’ve been performing gender affirmation care on the NHS in the UK for 60 years.
How many trans-women have been winning all the sports? And this debate has actively been harmful to women in sport. Imane Khalifa? Caster Semenya? Both treated awfully because of transphobic attitudes.
Just accept that biology, neurobiology, and the complex societal issues around gender are clearly too challenging for you.
> Imane Khalifa? Caster
> Imane Khalifa? Caster Semenya? Both treated awfully because of transphobic attitudes.
Caster Semenya is genetically a male, has testicles that produce testosterone like any male, went through full male puberty, always wore male-gendered clothing, played with the other boys in school, has married a woman (biological and identifying), and has fathered children with his wife.
Imane Khalifa almost certainly is also a male. If he is not, he’d just need to consent to the simple cheek-swab test to establish that, but he refuses to.
Paul J wrote:
Quite a lot to unpack there. First of all, she was assigned female at birth and raised as a female. Being a tomboy does not make her a man. Yes, she has testicles (internal, undescended). She also has a vagina. She has not “fathered children” with her wife, as she says herself: “contrary to what many people think, I do not produce sperm. I can’t biologically contribute to making new life.” Her children with her wife were created through artificial insemination using a donor. Hers is an incredibly complicated case and in many ways tragic given the abuse and constant scrutiny, including numerous invasive medical examinations, she has had to endure. Deliberately misgendering her and repeating half-truths and downright untruths about her is not only unhelpful, it’s petty and spiteful.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The DSD he has would mean he does not have a vagina – no matter what he says, and it appears to be public record that he does not have a uterus or ovaries… so.. He does have testes, and would have a penis (if reduced) given the DSD. It is simply impossible to have testicles and a vagina. Even with DSDs, embryos still develop into either one sex or the other, perhaps with some abnormalities to some organs – but it’s one set of organs OR the other. Never some mix.
Caster has 5αR2, which means he is developmentally male.
Caster’s children were conceived with IVF, and there’s no suggestion I can find there was a sperm donor. Which would imply it was his sperm. His DSD means he would probably produce sperm, but in low counts, and I guess IVF allowed that issue to be overcome.
It’s unfortunate for Caster in terms of the sports career he chose, but he is a male in biological terms, which is what matters in many sports when it comes to having a *sex* based category to allow females to compete fairly in sport. Caster was not an exceptional, world-class athlete and only got as far as they did because he entered the female class.
Paul J
Paul J
Did you realise a little too late that you posted something you shouldn’t have, and made a hasty full-post edit to cover tracks?
Your presumption and arrogance sickens me. The details of one particular athlete’s genitalia are not yours to discuss in a pontificating manner on a barely related topic.
Yes he has – unfortunately
Yes he has – unfortunately for him I quoted it before he edited, see my comment above (or below).
Rendel Harris wrote:
I didn’t change what you quoted, nor did I change anything of substance. I tweaked some wording and added some more stuff.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
I completely agree DSDs are barely related to “trans” issues.
Aside: From what I read from people with DSDs, they do not consider themselves trans. While I don’t think gender identity of itself is something hard science can say much about decisively, my own limited understanding is that a person who is both developmentally male and grew up aligned with all the male stereotypes (e.g., wearing male stereo-typed clothing) and /continues/ to align as such, generally would not be considered “trans”. But, matters of “identity” are a matter of “subjective self” – not something a hard science can of itself quantify, seperately from the self. Let everyone be themselves.
Wrt Caster, we know some facts about them that are in the public domain – including the precise DSD Caster has. We also have literature describing what happens with that DSD. We can say what would apply to people with that DSD, including Caster, based on that.
Paul J wrote:
US Government MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia:
Differences of sex development (DSD) is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external (outside) genitals (penis, scrotum, vulva, labia) and the internal (inside) genitals (testes, vagina, ovaries). Intersex is an older term for DSD.
US Cleveland Clinic:
Disorders of sexual development are conditions where a person’s reproductive organs and genitals are “mismatched” at birth.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia:
46 XY DSD: Testes with normal female external genitalia.
Differences in Sex Development (DSD) takes that name because it literally describes people who have a mismatch between their external and internal genitalia. Your hatred appears to have interfered with your ability to make the most basic Google search.
Paul J wrote:
Well, seems like you’re just making up rubbish now. DSD literally means having a discrepancy between the external and internal genitalia; there is a plethora of medical case history about this. Semanya has the type of DSD categorised as 46 XY, described by the US Government MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia thus:
The person has the XY chromosomes (typically seen in males), but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous (ambiguous genitalia), or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent.
So literally completely the opposite of what you claim. In 2009 Semanya was made to undergo a physical examination by a gynaecologist to prove her gender after she won the World Championship 800m, after which she was allowed to keep her medal but told that in future she would have to take medication to reduce the abnormally high testosterone levels caused by her internal testes (it was after this examination that an official made the notorious statement that “it is clear she is a woman but maybe not 100%”). What do we reckon is more likely, that a gynaecologist appointed by the IAAF found she had a penis and testicles but still passed her as a woman, or that you’re just making stuff up that suits whatever fevered point you’re trying to make?
An incompletely formed penis
An incompletely formed penis that might, superficially on the outside, look like female genitalia is quite possible with 5αR2, yes. But it is actually a penis.
Caster’s testosterone levels were entirely normal, for a male, because his DSD leads to male development in utero – just some organs are abnormal.
Again, there IS NO DSD that results in a /mix/ of sexual organs in humans. All DSDs still result in organs following either the male or female developmental pathways, albeit with abnormalities in many cases.
“What do we reckon is more likely, that a gynaecologist appointed by the IAAF found she had a penis and testicles but still passed her as a woman,”
Caster was NOT passed as a female! Caster can NOT race in IAAF races in the female category! Cause Caster is _male_. Caster /could/ race in the male category, but refuses to (cause he’s a good, but not world-class, runner – and hence wouldn’t get anywhere).
Also, note DSD have next to nowt to do with “trans”. It’s just obfuscation to try conflate them.
Paul J wrote:
It’s pretty pointless continuing to argue with you when despite being presented with incontrovertible facts you simply deny them. After she won the world championship 800 metres in 2009 she was made to undergo a sex verification test by IAAF, after which she was allowed to keep her title and she was cleared to continue racing as a woman. So she was indeed “passed as a female”. She was (much) later prevented from competing in IAAF races because in 2018 the IAAF introduced new rules mandating that DSD females could not compete in Semenya’s preferred events unless they took medication to reduce their testosterone levels. She has never been banned from competing on the basis that she is not a woman.
alexuk wrote:
[I]Aah, yes, we all hate women.[/I] /Sarcasm
Including the female Councillors asking to be removed from this TERFist shitstorm? How about the ever increasing number of recipients of the award who are rejecting it after finding out the reduced inclusion criteria, do they also hate women?
Probably don’t want to be
Probably don’t want to be DOXed, cancelled, 100’s of emails calling them bigots etc. Too many Trantifa LARPers around these days so people feel unsafe when the mob turns on them
ROOTminus1 wrote:
No, good point. They just respect all women, which is what I think your point is?
The overwhelming majority of
The overwhelming majority of us experience our sex/gender as entirely binary.
A tiny proportion naturally have physical aspects of both. It’s fascinating and well understood by science. One can have fun assigning groups as arbitrary rules keep breaking down.
Given how the brain develops, a sizeable proportion of us will have confused feelings about sex/gender, science doesn’t yet understand and all the muppets want things as a binary one or the other.
The only thing I know is that the people that get the angriest know the least. If you’re angry it means you care – good! Educate yourself, have a think and then come back and explain to me how it all works.
Moderated by culture, of
Moderated by culture, of course. Some places have eg. 3 or perhaps more categories – even in cultures that don’t appear very “liberal” about gender roles in other ways. For one example (also showing that gender and sex are not entirely in lockstep):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%CA%BBafafine
Across the world and history this is not uncommon. Although it seems only a minority were in these categories and perhaps a very small one.
Of course “it’s complicated” and these people may be seen as lower status or at least treated with some suspicion. That and people being assigned there by society seems some distance from self-identification and the idea that we can *expand* an existing category. And in most people’s minds it does seem there are some pretty strong links between sex and gender even if it’s understood they are not identical (which is where we see people tripping up on genitalia, as it were).
And perhaps as fundamentally there are the systematic inequalities between genders in the mix…
It is great that so many
It is great that so many women feel confident sharing their spaces with men who want to identify as women, more power to their elbows.
But just as some people are vehicular cyclists who do not want or need segregated lanes to ride their bikes, society still needs to provide safe spaces for those who do not want to share space. Those women deserve our respect and should have their rights honoured.
Which has precisely nothing
Which has precisely nothing to do with an initiative to recognise people’s contributions to cycling.
Bill H wrote:
A piece of paper with a list of women who have made a significant contribution to cycling in the UK is not a “space” where women are in need of protecting from anyone and so your comment is entirely irrelevant to this issue.
Well if the awards are for
Well if the awards are for the contributions of women then why is anyone upset by the exclusion of those who are not women?
A woman is an adult human free of Y chromosomes. That does not make them superior to anyone with X chromosomes but it is what identifies them as a woman.
Stop being so belligerently
Stop being so belligerently contrarian, open your ears and your mind, and understand that sex =/= gender.
Additionally, neither sex nor gender are quite as simple as a binary definition of the presence of a diminished or full scale chromosome.
This has been a widely accepted concept across many cultures and throughout human history. Admittedly it has been poorly documented and articulated, not helped by the sensibilities of Abrahamic religions erasing as much evidence of such “scandalous” propositions as they possibly could.
Indeed.
Indeed.
But … we should also note that at “full strength” collapsing the socially accepted categories is *not* a small change, not simply “be polite to people by addressing them how they choose, job done” (although given where we are even that sounds optimistic sometimes…). For example I can’t think of any historical parallels. Indeed even some of those supporting this sometimes still seem to be working through the implications.
That is an entirely different
That is an entirely different debate and one which has been aired more than enough in these comments for anyone to draw their own conclusions. Your comments about safe spaces for women were entirely irrelevant and simply dragging in another issue for no reason other than to provoke.
Trying to make a charitable
Trying to make a charitable interpretation rather than implying eg. provocation (and the other poster can answer for themselves) but is this more of a “fairness” issue for them?
I don’t agree that this is necessarily appropriate here (nor that Cycling UK have the law right either) but is the argument something like:
– we should first ask ourselves why is there a special recognition of women at all here (rather than “inspiring *individuals*”)?
– is the poster seeing a (non-sporting) version of “males have some advantages (not just physical strength) over females currently and not all of those immediately disappear when people transition”? Or just “males taking spaces that are intended for females”? In which case we could ask exactly why the sex matters – if the gender is the same – and how that relates to the goal of the original award?
Well yes, but it is
Well yes, but it is depressingly reflective of the polarisation on both sides in this debate: on the one hand one can’t say that there’s clearly no harm in the achievements of trans women being acknowledged on the same list as cis women without being accused of wanting to allow any man to say “I’m a woman” and walk naked straight into the nearest women’s changing room; on the other hand one can’t say that one understands why women are alarmed at the prospect of that scenario being allowed without being accused of wanting to burn all trans women at the stake. It’s all just getting everyone nowhere fast.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Certainly.
Particularly when it would seem that much of the issue is … some men and their (our) culture. The ones who are the reason that women don’t feel safe (or always have to consider that, or laugh off insults and unwanted attention every day). And indeed why trans people feel extremely unsafe. And the culture whereby men get positive discrimination in many areas of life.
Before the High Court ruling
This was simply a way to recognise that cycling in general isn’t entirely created by men. Perhaps they should name it ‘100 people who aren’t men doing good things in cycling ‘. That’ would probably also upset some of the sensitive blokes who like something to complain about.
That’s what CUK have done,
That’s what CUK have done, and as you pointed out the “sensitive blokes” are complaining
Bill H wrote:
Nonsense. Thats an arbritrary definition. Emily actually quote that in her tweet.
“Trans women are women, gender is on a spectrum (and I did a genetics degree),”
Bill H wrote:
Incorrect. There is no way to define a woman that will exclude trans women without also excluding some cis women.
A person can be born with androgen insensitivity, which means they have female sexual characteristics despite having XY chromosomes. Some can even give birth. So presence or absence of a Y chromosome does not define “woman”.
There are many different ways of defining what is man or woman. I read an article in National Geographic many years ago where a female anthropologist reported that the tribe decided that, “Men must be the ones to give birth where [she] came from, because [she] didn’t know how to wash rice.” More than one culture recognises a third gender. Gender, sex, and sexuality are three different things.
Most people have an innate sense of their gender matching their physical sex. A proportion of the population does not. Perhaps one day we will find the biological mechanism that explains this.
FWIW, my understanding is that the leglislators behind the Equality Act did not intend for the outcome resulting from the Supreme Court ruling. Also, the Supreme Court ruling appears not to require the kind of discrimination being codified into guidance by the EHRC, being purely about how terms should be defined with the Equality Act. I think Cycling UK have been put in an incredibly difficult position, and would have been subject to disagreement and protest either way.
Bill H wrote:
You clearly haven’t read the article or even the title of it – this is nothing to do with safe spaces. Are you just blowing dog whistles for some reason? Are you just motivated by hate of people who are a bit different to you?
Now answer the exam question.
Now answer the exam question. What has what you said got to do with honouring women in cycling.
POLITE REMINDER
POLITE REMINDER
Bigotry, including transphobia, isn’t an “opinion”, “perspective” or a legitimate viewpoint that “deserve a debate”.
You do realise people can
You do realise people can hold different views to you without it having anything to do with bigotry. As for views on biological sex there is plenty of case history to show that not only is it a legitimate viewpoint, it’s a protected viewpoint in law. Not recognising that shows ….. Let me think….. Begins with “b” … Ends in “igotry”
Laws can be bigoted too….
Laws can be bigoted too…. just saying.
My response to CyclingUK
My response to CyclingUK
Hello,
I have moved to write to you after becoming aware of reports that CyclingUK has decided to exclude Trans Women from being nominated for your 100 Women in Cycling awards. People used to hide behind laws to marginalise and unfairly treat the LGBTQ+ community. Thankfully there were plenty of people willing to stand up for gay rights and there are plenty now willing to stand up for Trans rights. With its decision, CyclingUK will, in time to come, find itself on the wrong side of history. I urge you to reconsider your decision and to show some leadership and support for the trans community. In the meantime I need to reconsider whether or not I can remain part of an organisation that exhibits such prejudice.
Regards
What about a safe space for
What about a safe space for men? I have been cycling for 67 years, and over that time, I have been attacked many times by pedestrians, motorists, cyclists (yes, cyclists) and dogs.
Quit the Whataboutery – this
Quit the Whataboutery – this isnt twitter.
Doing something for women, does not diminish or preclude doing something for men, who are almost invariably in a more privilege position that an woman.
You reek of male privilege.
I’m a CUK member and excluded
I’m a CUK member and excluded from the awards…… Because I’m a bloke. I assume trans people identifying as men are in scope for the awards as are non binary biological women, this doesn’t upset me. I support the CUK decision.
Are you neutral on the
Are you neutral on the subject, i.e. not bothered either way or would you object to trans women being eligible for nomination?
I’m a Cycling UK member and I
I’m a Cycling UK member and I think this sends the wrong message. Change the name of the awards perhaps, reflect the intent it began with. Cycling is male-dominated and that’s not a good thing. Cycling overall is changing and I expect they will too – they had these awards for the right reasons and now need to figure this aspect out.
Cycling is male-dominated…
Cycling is male-dominated…
And it still is… when I’m out cycling in the hills, other cyclists are almost all male. However, on the rare occasions I come across Garstang Cycling Club, there’s a higher proportion of females. I’ve been out camping on high Lakes summits a lot this summer, and I would say that about 50% of solo fellrunners (almost all were solo) are female.
Comments are now closed, as
Comments are now closed, as the discussion has digressed far beyond what the article was originally about.