Several people have turned down their nomination for Cycling UK’s annual 100 Women in Cycling award following the charity’s decision to exclude trans women and non-binary people from consideration, citing a Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling, delivered earlier this year, found that the word ‘sex’, as defined in the Equality Act of 2010, referred to biological sex rather than “certificated sex” and that trans people were protected from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment rather than their sex.
And now, the far-reaching implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in April have been felt within Cycling UK’s 100 Women in Cycling, the active travel charity’s annual awards list which recognises and celebrates the contributions of women, from all backgrounds and abilities, who promote and encourage cycling.
Cycling UK says that women from “all walks of life and every corner of the cycling world” make up the list, “from mountain bikers and endurance cyclists to community group leaders, cycling school-run mums, and industry entrepreneurs.”
However, the charity has confirmed that, following the Supreme Court’s decision, this year’s edition will feature only biological women, after Cycling UK “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 list.
Cycling UK’s decision to exclude trans women from its 100 Women in Cycling list has attracted criticism from the charity’s own nominees. Several cyclists have publicly declining their awards in recent days, including Dr Sarah Ruggins, the current outright record holder for riding from John o’ Groats to Land’s End and back.
“I will not accept recognition from a committee that has chosen to align with the Supreme Court’s definition of “woman” as sex at birth”, said Ruggins in a statement posted to Instagram.
“This stance excludes trans women and other minorities, denying them the dignity, inclusion, and opportunity they deserve.”
Megan Joy Barclay, the head of Women’s Development at Herne Hill Velodrome, also declined the award, saying in an open letter to Cycling UK: “I hate the majority of policies in place but also don’t have the expertise or influence to implement the racing world I’d like to see.
“But I always saw these awards as a celebration of grassroots and community power in the face of gender marginalisation – hateful laws have no place here.
“I hope you will reconsider how these awards are run next year to ensure all women and non-binary people are included as we work towards better representation in cycling.”
More nominees also announced they’re declining the award in separate posts on LinkedIn.
Athlyn Cathcart, founder of the Bristol-based mentorship program Roll Models, wrote: “I am deeply saddened that the 100 Women in Cycling Award has taken such a stance. Supreme Court ruling aside, it is Cycling UK’s choice to include or exclude. Bikes are machines for freedom, and no one should be shut out.”
A few hours later Claire Sharpe, founder of All Terre Adventures, said: “Cycling is about freedom, connection, and belonging. Exclusion doesn’t belong in that story and it’s not what All Terre Adventures is about.”
In a video uploaded as part of her LinkedIn post, she added: “If they don’t wanna ride with all women, it’s not the kind of ride I wanna be on anyway.”
Meanwhile, Green Party councillor Saskia Heijltjes also posted on Bluesky that she had asked to remove her name from the awards list.
> Abuse and unsafe infrastructure preventing more women from cycling, Cycling UK report states
The Supreme Court ruling in question refers to a decision made in April earlier this year, after a gender-critical campaign group brought a legal case challenging Scottish Government guidance relating to gender recognition. The case hinged on the interpretation of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act of 2010, and the consideration of trans men and trans women in relation to that definition.
In his ruling, Lord Hodge wrote that the judgement was made on a technical point of legal understanding and was not “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.” The ruling was welcomed by both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
The court did not adjudicate on whether trans women are considered women in non-biological contexts (for example in a recreational cycling club), or consider the status of intersex people who, according to a UN definition, are born with biological characteristics that do not match “typical binary notions of male or female bodies”.
Despite this, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, interim guidance was issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission recommending that schools, workplaces, and sporting bodies ban trans men and women from single-sex facilities matching their gender. The guidance also recommended that trans men and trans women should be barred from gay men’s spaces and lesbian spaces respectively.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, British Cycling announced the creation of an ‘Open category’ of its elite racing that would consolidate the men’s category whilst retaining a separate women’s classification that excludes transgender and non-binary competitors.
In a statement following this week’s backlash, Cycling UK defending the decision, saying that they had “received legal advice that very clearly says that for our awards to comply with the law we can only feature biological women.
“However, we’re very keen to stress that Cycling UK is absolutely dedicated to bringing the joy of cycling to everyone.”
The charity’s Chief Executive Sarah Mitchell added: “This update to the rules doesn’t alter our strong commitment to supporting all those who cycle, including transgender and non-binary people.
“We truly believe cycling is for all, and we’ll keep working towards that goal.”
Cycling UK are one of the oldest cycling charities in the world and trace their roots back to 1878. They have run the 100 Women in Cycling competition every year since 2017. Last year’s nominees included former world champion Emma Pooley, Bikeability Trust Chief Executive Emily Cherry and Rouleur magazine writer Rachel Jary. This year’s nominees are expected to be publicly announced later this month.
42 thoughts on “Several winners of Cycling UK 100 Women in Cycling prize decline award due to exclusion of trans women”
? 1 / 0 x – y ?
? 1 / 0 x – y ?
Is this an equation or an
Is this an equation or an inequality? I can’t see =, > etc.?
1+1=2 would be understanable
1+1=2 would be understanable and is an ummutable fact!
Woman or man, ditto.
Woman or man, ditto.
Well done to the four women
Well done to the four women who made a stand against this award for which it’s now deemed only cis women are eligible. This is exclusionary and based on flawed legal advice.
The ruling is about single-sex spaces, and 100 women from around the country are not in one space. Nor does Cycling UK actually know who’s trans and who isn’t. Did they ask each woman that question specifically? If so, it’s an invasion of privacy. If not, then they may as well have not made their trans-exclusionary statement.
I’m very disappointed in Cycling UK, of which I’ve been a member for decades and even received one of these awards many years ago, before the current nonsense about trans women was even thought about. I hope I’d have been as strong-minded as these women are, but it’s brave to stick your head above the parapet on this issue.
What are your views on the
What are your views on the other 96 women who don’t seem to garner your praise?
What are your views on the
[quote=IanMunro]
What are your views on the other 96 women who don’t seem to garner your praise?
Irrelevant whataboutery.
The men identifying as trans
The men identifying as trans qualify for the mens awards, so how is anyone being excluded?
There is no ‘mens award’ –
There is no ‘mens award’ – the whole point of this award is to highlight contributions that would historically have gone largely ignored because of the marginalisation of the people involved.
Thanks mdavidford for
Thanks mdavidford for pointing that out. Women have been (and continue to be) marginalised for far too long. Which is why men should respect the restriction of the award category to adult humans free of Y chromosomes, formerly known as women.
Bill H wrote:
…and if you were to look for groups that have been more marginalised, trans people would be pretty high up the list.
Except the award never has been so restricted before, no-one appears to have put forward any argument why it makes sense to so restrict it, Cycling UK have given no indication that they think it should be so restricted, and they’re only so restricting it now because of what looks like a complete misreading of a court judgment.
I am surprised that you
I am surprised that you consider trans men to be more marginalised than women. It is women who have to go to court to have their rights upheld, not vice versa.
Even then organisations such as the London Mathematical Society publicly support the use of facilities that align with identity rather than biology.
I am surprised that you
I am surprised that you consider trans men to be more marginalised than women. It is women who have to go to court to have their rights upheld, not vice versa.
Even then organisations such as the London Mathematical Society publicly support the use of facilities that align with identity rather than biology.
Bill H wrote:
Er, it’s not an either/or. Trans people certainly have had to go to court to protect their rights. And historically they haven’t had the opportunity anyway, as the legal system was more likely to be a tool of their oppression than it was to offer them protection, which is often a factor in the marginalisation of groups.
Can you please provide an
Can you please provide an example of where men who claim to be women in the UK have gone to the law?
Bill H wrote:
I’m sure you’re just as capable of using Google as I am. And to be honest, citing court cases back and forward would be an entirely irrelevant sidetrack that would waste everyone’s time, since it doesn’t tell us anything about who is a marginalised group in the first place.
Well said!
Well said!
As others have pointed out,
As others have pointed out, the ruling on single sex spaces is not relevant to an awards, which I assume to be pretty arbitrarily given, and nothing to do with ‘woman who recorded the fastest time …’ or similar. In which case, it seems a bit of a cop out to refer to that ruling.
As the awards have no equivalent for men, it is reasonable to assume they were created with the intention of ensuring that women, who have been traditionally overlooked and under-represented, do get a chance to shine, and that the judges stop admiring the men already in the limelight and put the effort into appreciating the achivements of women. If any of those women happen to be trans, then so be it and IMO should be included.
It is, however, possible the organisers wanted to avoid the kind of situation that Pink News found itself in a few years ago. I’m not sure of the precise numbers, but I believe one year their selected ‘lesbians of the year’ consisted of three trans women and just one cic-woman. Meanwhile, their ‘gay men of the year’ were all cis men. There is also the recent case where Glamour (?) magazine had their lists of ‘women on the year’, and chose to put a group of about ten transwomen on the cover as if they were the pinacle of the best women that year. Whilst done with the best of intentions, you do wonder how come no-one thought ‘is this actually helpful?’
BUT, to avoid these sorts of situations, they’d just need to do a quick check that the number of transwomen in the final list was broadly in keeping with the general population and to ensure that those who did make it onto the list had done something that would be considered worthy of making the list if they’d been cis.
I agree with most of what you
I agree with most of what you say, but Cycling UK cannot check, and has no way of knowing if the 100 women they’ve chosen are cis or trans. And of course, it doesn’t matter either.
It would be an infringement of privacy to ask each and every woman on the list whether she considers herself cis or trans, what her chromosomes are, what her original birth certificate said, or even what her genitals are! It’s all so totally irrelevant. If she’s presenting herself in society as a woman and achieving something great in the cycling world, then she’s eligible for this award. After all, it’s not competitive, is it?
Btw, lesbians can be trans women, and ‘women of the year’ can be trans women, because they’re all women, no matter how they got there.
And trans men can be gay men.
And trans men can be gay men. If your organisation thinks most of the the best lesbians are trans women, but there aren’t any trans men in your short-list of the best gay men, then you should be asking yourselves questions about bias in your selection process. Considering there were other trans specific awards, there wasn’t a particular need to stack the lesbian category if the purpose was to ensure trans people were included.
It’s the same mentality that meant we’ve had so many all male (and white) panels, with their defenders (usually white men) genuinely puzzled by what on earth can be done about it, because they believe they are based on merit and nothing to do with systemic sexism. Unconcious bias is real, which is why it is considered good practice for those organising panels, or lists, to ask themselves if their choices represent society or their friendship group.
CyclingUK awards are not the Olympics and there’s no need to overcomplicate things. There’s no need for invasive questions if the point is to avoid performative over-representation of any particular group. There are lots of awards that are for specific sections of society and they don’t require invasive questions or the provision of certificates.
FionaJJ wrote:
This reminds me of the U.S. anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) push by the current U.S. administration. They apparently oppose DEI practices as they want the most qualified candidates to be hired irrespective of race/gender etc, but then they clearly give high profile jobs to their friends and supporters (e.g. Fox News personnel) who are uniquely unqualified to do their jobs. This is why DEI is important – to stop all the jobs going to white, male friends of the hirers.
Have you read 1984 or Animal
Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm? Reducing individuals to their backgrounds always ends badly, just look at Soviet USSR, NAZI Germany, Mao’s China, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, etc, etc.
… or the policies of a
… or the policies of a Senator McCarthy, or apparently some of the views of Reform UK Ltd (certainly as espoused by some of their folks who keep getting ditched for racism, antisemitism etc)…?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62541w6548o
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/reform-uk-drops-candidate-accused-of-antisemitism-ncrna9qg
These also seem to be those most exercised by D&I – but of course correlation isn’t causation.
Arbitrary? Only the trans
Arbitrary? Only the trans argue from the arbitrary’ point of view. Sex is observed several weeks before birth, not assigned as the trans lobby would have you believe.
I will say that it’s a bit
I will say that it’s a bit weird of them to cite that ruling on sex as the line in the sand as to what defines a woman. Because there’s gender too, which nowadays has a different definition. If this was a discussion from a competitive cycling organisation I would concede that yes biological men have a competitive advantage but Cycling UK has shit all to do with competitive cycling. The point of their organisation is to encourage general utility/leisure cycling. So why does this award need to be based on sex instead of gender. It feels like a very ideologically based decision that that looked for that supreme court ruling after the fact to justify it.
thrawed wrote:
Looks to me more like the kind of ‘elfin safety gone mad’ stories, where someone has taken an extremely risk-averse decision based on an alarmist guess at what the legal consequences might be, rather than a sober assessment of what their obligations really are.
OTOH although we only have
OTOH although we only have the ones that actually went public with a “not me” protest … there were only 4 of the women that did say “this is not on”.
Perhaps women in general aren’t so worried about this?
Was this misdirected? Looks
Was this misdirected? Looks like more of a response to the IanMunro/alchemilla exchange?
“To whom it may concern” I
“To whom it may concern” I guess.
I’m disappointed with Cycling
I’m disappointed with Cycling UK (I’m a member) as I thought they were an open-minded, progressive organisation looking to improve the environment for cyclists. They should be celebrating the individuality of cyclists as we’re not all the same.
Personally, I thought the ruling on single sex spaces was ridiculous as it doesn’t meaningfully improve women’s safety if they’re now going to be challenged (by other women) if they don’t fit in with some ideal of femininity. It also means that they are more likely to be sharing women’s spaces (e.g. toilets) with bearded transmasc people which may well end up triggering women who have lived through abuse. It also seems to me that single-sex spaces now require some kind of genital inspector, or maybe people have to carry their birth certificate around?
Can someone reboot this timeline please – we’re heading in the wrong direction.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I guess the idea of a genital inspector could be sold as a public health win? “Thanks, no problems there madam, just go on through to the loos – but you might want to book a visit to the clinic ASAP…”
Also – isn’t everyone sending pictures of their genitals to everyone else nowadays? And I recently discovered there is a TV dating show that involves appearing without clothes now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09qqmfz/animals-with-cameras
chrisonabike wrote:
You speak for yourself, Christopher!
“Wanna see my nuts?”
“Wanna see my nuts?”
Rendel Harris wrote:
I was just thinking about our lords and masters… Possibly had in mind the recent appearances of Mr. Gormley also, putting the pubic in public.
As an award for ‘contribution
As an award for ‘contribution to cycling’, does gender/sex matter? Not really.
If it was in a sporting context then it would mean a different set of considerations becasue cycling is recognised as a gender affected activity.
Just imagine that instead of
Just imagine that instead of spending the money on legal advice to justify the exclusion of trans people, you spend it on changing the title & rules to keep it inclusive
Jess Baker (of Loop
Jess Baker (of Loop Bikepacking) also turned it down, as well as Jane Davis (of Lewisham Cycling) returning her awards from 2018 and 2019.
I dare say the ‘guidance’ of
I dare say the ‘guidance’ of the Equality and Human Rights Commission actually goes against the spirit of the ruling from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme court was stating that trans people are protected by the equality act as trans/enby/inter are part of a different protected characteristic group than sex at birth. The EHRC shat all over that ruling by intently pitting different protected characteristic groups into opposition against each other forcing an implication of hierarchy amongst them, something the Supreme court was specific in avoiding.
If Cycling UK want to stay true to their commitment to trans and non-binary in this instance, and by inference to all protected characteristic groups, they should challenge the discriminatory “advice” given by the EHRC
‘member when the bigots were
‘member when the bigots were only “concerned about women’s safety”? ‘member when all that motivated them was a desire for “fair competition”? ‘member when they had no desire at all to stop trans women living dignified, authentic lives and any suggestion they were just using the least-bigoted sounding arguments they could find as a wedge to begin driving trans people out of society was ridiculous nonsense cooked up by Wokeists to smear them? Those masks slipped right off the moment they got cover from the terfoids at the EHRC huh.
Honestly I cannot wait until the ECHR hears the appeal and quashes the judgement, watching all those hateful, bile-stuffed scum absolutely lose their minds is going to be sheer joy. I may even take a picture of myself smugly smoking a cigar.
Those pesky XX women, putting
Those pesky XX women, putting their safety in front of men’s preferences eh Yodhrin?
Bill H wrote:
Gather round everyone. Here amongst our midst, see the finest specimen CyclingUK are tying themselves in knots to appease, the living embodiment of whattaboutery that the EHRC have been popping rage-boners over.
Comments are now closed here.
Comments are now closed here.