Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Emily Bridges: Documentary on transgender cyclist to be broadcast on ITV next week

'Race To Be Me' will tell the story of Bridges' unsuccessful battle to compete in the 2022 Commonwealth Games...

Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges is to be the subject of a new documentary on ITV that will be broadcast on Tuesday 29th November. According to PRiDE OUT, 'Race To Be Me' will tell the story of Bridges' attempt to represent Wales at the Commonwealth Games this year, in which she "found herself at the centre of an international storm."

Bridges came out as trans in 2020, but after she became eligible to compete in competitive women's cycling events earlier this year - just weeks after winning the men's points race at the British Universities' championships in Glasgow - a media storm ensued. 

While some current and former elite female cyclists expressed concerns about Bridges' participation - with 2008 Olympic gold medallist Nicole Cooke calling for a separate category for transgender cyclists in April - Bridges herself was not breaking any rules, with her testosterone staying under the permitted level for the required period to race with women as per British Cycling's policy at the time. 

Subsequently, though, Bridges was barred from making her competitive debut at the National Omnium Championships in March of this year by the UCI, which meant she was unable to meet the criteria to be eligible for a spot on the Welsh cycling squad at the Commonwealth Games.

British Cycling then suspended its transgender policy, saying the situation at the time was "unfair on all women riders and poses a challenge to the integrity of racing", which meant Bridges was effectively "dumped by email" according to her mother Sandy Sullivan.

In June, Bridges told ITV: "It was incredibly difficult because I knew that my main goal for the season, the Commonwealth Games, was then out of the question because I couldn't race this event, and it was unlikely I was going to be able to race any international events during the Welsh Cycling's set timeframe for the selection. So the Commonwealth Games were gone. I feel a real pride about being Welsh and I wanted to represent my country at the highest level.

"Things were looking really good and then it seemed like someone leaked my participation, my potential participation, in the Omnium to the press and then it kicked off.

"So obviously it came at very last minute, but I'd say that there's potentially a lot of public pressure to stop me racing."

> Emily Bridges says Boris Johnson’s comments on transgender athletes led to threats of physical violence against her

British Cycling has now issued a new guidance document for transgender and non-binary participation, setting itself a deadline of spring 2023 to finalise a new policy.

On social media, Bridges' mother Sandy Sullivan claims that in a "coincidence" British Cycling has now contacted her daughter to be part of the consultation on its new transgender policy, despite allegedly making no contact with Bridges between the suspension of the previous policy and this week. 

Sullivan added: They've [British Cycling] set a deadline of 28th Nov, the day prior to documentary for a response.

"I've spoken to other trans cyclists. None seem to have been contacted so have I become that cynical in believing that their communication is nothing more than a PR exercise."

British Cycling would not comment on specific details of who it had contacted for the consultation, but told road.cc: "It is important that this working group considers the views of those who will likely be affected, including female race licence holders and members of trans and non-binary communities.

"This consultation process has begun and will conclude in the New Year. The feedback that was submitted during our previous consultation will also be evaluated as part of the review."

Arriving at road.cc in 2017 via 220 Triathlon Magazine, Jack dipped his toe in most jobs on the site and over at eBikeTips before being named the new editor of road.cc in 2020, much to his surprise. His cycling life began during his students days, when he cobbled together a few hundred quid off the back of a hard winter selling hats (long story) and bought his first road bike - a Trek 1.1 that was quickly relegated to winter steed, before it was sadly pinched a few years later. Creatively replacing it with a Trek 1.2, Jack mostly rides this bike around local cycle paths nowadays, but when he wants to get the racer out and be competitive his preferred events are time trials, sportives, triathlons and pogo sticking - the latter being another long story.  

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
crymble | 1 year ago
2 likes

I'm of the opinion that British Cycling and other major sporting organisations have missed a chance to answer a lot of the questions that people have, that being "What happens to performance and the physiology of an elite athlete when they transition from Male to Female?"

I watched a very interesting inerview with Pippa York where she described how her body and strength changed as she transitioned meaning that after a certain period there was no way she would have been able to compete against men. Another missed chance for this change to be studied. 

If there were more studies in this area then a lot of questions could be answered and the 'fair' time between starting transitioning and being able to compete fairly could be worked out. I'm all for trans people competing, but, for arguments sake, 1 week after starting transitioning is ovbiously unfair. 1 month probably still. 6 months, I don't know, a year, no idea! But until we have good scientific data to show that, say, after 6 months Emily competing against women is fair then the bigots will carry on being bigots.

Good luck to her!

K

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 1 year ago
4 likes

Sometimes there is a need to consider potential harm to others before pushing your own "rights". Emily literally cannot win here. If she wins then the fact she was once male cannot simply be ignored. If she loses then she isn't winning at competitive elite level sport, which is sort of the point.

The harm to others comes if she does start winning and transgender female athletes start to dominate certain female sport categories. A triumph for their rights under gender recognition inclusivity but what message would that send to those born biologically female? Don't bother at elite sport? Gender identify as male through puberty, build a hormone fuelled male body and then decide at a later date that you've changed your mind and want to be female again for competition purposes? And before anyone says that is ridiculous then I would refer you to the actions of certain state actors in "conditioning" their athletes for international competiton and the ever more sophisticated ongoing efforts required to detect pharmaceutically enhanced athletes at many levels in many sports.

Avatar
mark1a | 1 year ago
4 likes

Here we go again...

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 1 year ago
2 likes

There are two biological sexes male and female.

If a man or woman wants to alter their bodies. That's upto them. don't expect to use your biological birth advantage in competition

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to CXR94Di2 | 1 year ago
4 likes
CXR94Di2 wrote:

There are two biological sexes male and female. If a man or woman wants to alter their bodies. That's upto them. don't expect to use your biological birth advantage in competition

I think you meant to say that there are at least two biological sexes: https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/

Also, the term 'biological sex' seems to be misused, so I'd recommend that you should put your definition if you want to say something definitive about human biology. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/

Avatar
The Accountant replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
2 likes

An interesting fact is that around 1-in-1000 babies are born with an extra finger. But it's still an accepted fact that humans generally have 5 fingers on each hand, isn't it? And how many people with 5 fingers claim to really have 6?

Just because the odd baby is born with a genetic sex chromasome anomaly doesn't give people who don't have the same issue the right to claim they are something they aren't. Does Emily Bridges have an anomalgous genetic makeup? If she doesn't, why are you citing this?

The question then remains why someone with a man's body is allowed to compete against women in a women's race.

Avatar
MsG replied to The Accountant | 1 year ago
3 likes

Apparently because men's feelings are more important than fairness, safety and respect for women.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
4 likes

Two common biological sexes, plus 0.36% of the global population that sits outside those standard definitions.

I don't think 0.36% is a sufficient percentage to be muddying the waters as to what is the definition of a female, and poo pooing women's rights to viable sport. 

Which is what I take your argument to be... am I understanding your stance correctly? 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 1 year ago
5 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Two common biological sexes, plus 0.36% of the global population that sits outside those standard definitions.

I don't think 0.36% is a sufficient percentage to be muddying the waters as to what is the definition of a female, and poo pooing women's rights to viable sport. 

Which is what I take your argument to be... am I understanding your stance correctly? 

I don't really have a stance on sport, although I do think that splitting sports by sex is problematic - it's more logical to divide people up by ability. Modern sport is characterised by "unfair" competitions as ordinary people have very little chance of winning anything unless they are genetically gifted and have suitable training, equipment and motivation.

It just bugs me that people try to divide humans into just two groups when it's factually incorrect - hence my attempt to educate. Unfortunately, people jump to their political interpretation as this is an emotionally charged subject.

My take on the sports angle is that there's two fundamentally opposed requirements. Women that were assigned female at birth want to be able compete without being at a disadvantage for their hormonal exposure and transitioned women want to be treated and compete as 'women' without having to face all the usual intolerance that they've likely endured. Having separate competitions for transitioned people seems impractical due to the numbers involved and it also risks further marginalising people that have or want to transition.

Avatar
The Accountant replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Two common biological sexes, plus 0.36% of the global population that sits outside those standard definitions.

I don't think 0.36% is a sufficient percentage to be muddying the waters as to what is the definition of a female, and poo pooing women's rights to viable sport. 

Which is what I take your argument to be... am I understanding your stance correctly? 

I don't really have a stance on sport, although I do think that splitting sports by sex is problematic - it's more logical to divide people up by ability. Modern sport is characterised by "unfair" competitions as ordinary people have very little chance of winning anything unless they are genetically gifted and have suitable training, equipment and motivation.

It just bugs me that people try to divide humans into just two groups when it's factually incorrect - hence my attempt to educate. Unfortunately, people jump to their political interpretation as this is an emotionally charged subject.

And that, folks, is socialism in a nutshell. The harder you try, the more talented you are, the more you'll be penalised.

Who needs to divide people by clearly definable characteristics like if they're a bloke or woman, when you could separate them out by "ability" (aka hard work and talent) and give everyone prizes?

Now tools down and relax, no point in trying hard or we'll just move the goal posts and make it more difficult for you to achieve anything.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
2 likes

Thank you for continuing to try and educate in the face of such willful ignorance. ❤️

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 1 year ago
1 like
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Two common biological sexes, plus 0.36% of the global population that sits outside those standard definitions.

I don't think 0.36% is a sufficient percentage to be muddying the waters as to what is the definition of a female, and poo pooing women's rights to viable sport. 

Which is what I take your argument to be... am I understanding your stance correctly? 

Just to put that 0.36% into context, it's more than the population of Australia.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
4 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:
CXR94Di2 wrote:

There are two biological sexes male and female. If a man or woman wants to alter their bodies. That's upto them. don't expect to use your biological birth advantage in competition

I think you meant to say that there are at least two biological sexes: https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/

Also, the term 'biological sex' seems to be misused, so I'd recommend that you should put your definition if you want to say something definitive about human biology. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/

pretty much this. 
 

the overly simplistic childlike idea that there are only two sexes, based solely on a laughably poor idea that chromosomes are all that matters, is at the root of a lot of bigoted opinions here. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to nosferatu1001 | 1 year ago
3 likes

Now totally meta-topic but I think there is a a deep human psychological trait at work in this topic.  One embedded from our early development are systems for categorising objects (and "animate things" especially) which are "essentialist" e.g. if something is an "x" there is something (its "essence") innate to it which you can't change - even if you change all the external features of "x".

So although we do apply "duck typing" - if we "knew" (someone told us, or our minds had already categorised) the water creature was really a type of pigeon and/or was born from a pigeon egg our "essentialist" system may take over.  Now we just can't see a duck.

We possess other systems for creating different kinds of categories and groupings and understanding others of course and humans are cognitively flexible.  However all that likely gets its foot in the door later in our development and later in our mental processing systems.  Plus they likely piggy-back of this more basic system.

Additionally there's also a lot of cognitive machinery devoted to the detection of "others" who might not cooperate or even might "cheat".  We are acutely sensitive to this.  I think this is activated when drivers see cyclists filtering past them or are slowed down by them!  Somehow they're on the road but not playing by the same rules and that's not fair. "Entitled!  They don't pay road tax!"

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to nosferatu1001 | 1 year ago
1 like
nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretty much this. 

 

the overly simplistic childlike idea that there are only two sexes, based solely on a laughably poor idea that chromosomes are all that matters, is at the root of a lot of bigoted opinions here. 

Even if we were to subscribe to the chromosome idea (despite biology being far more complex than that), there's still more than two sexes.

Quote:

The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

When you consider that there are 7,000,000,000 alive on the planet, there are almost assuredly tens of millions of people who are not male or female.   Many times, these people are unaware of their true sex.  It’s interesting to note that everyone assumes that they, personally, are XY or XX.  One study in Great Britain showed that 97 out of 100 people who were XYY had no idea.  They thought they were a traditional male and had few signs otherwise.

Avatar
MsG replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
2 likes

There are still two sexes, with the various genetic abnormalities as you have described above. 

It is not a bigoted opinion. It is looking at the biological reality, that means it is unfair for men to compete as 'women'. Yes, people like Bridges may be upset about that, but could continue to compete (as earlier this year) against other men.  This would be much fairer to the vast majority of actual women.
 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to MsG | 1 year ago
0 likes
MsG wrote:

There are still two sexes, with the various genetic abnormalities as you have described above. 

It is not a bigoted opinion. It is looking at the biological reality, that means it is unfair for men to compete as 'women'. Yes, people like Bridges may be upset about that, but could continue to compete (as earlier this year) against other men.  This would be much fairer to the vast majority of actual women.
 

*Citation required*

I suggest that it's more of a blinkered opinion rather than bigoted, but I'd be interested in seeing the scientific literature that supports your view that there are only two sexes.

Avatar
MsG replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
1 like

What's your justification for putting men's feelings above fairness?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to MsG | 1 year ago
1 like
MsG wrote:

What's your justification for putting men's feelings above fairness?

That's a complete non-sequitor. Where on earth did you get that from?

I recall stating that there are more than two sexes and provided a couple of educational resources to back that up, but you've just spun out on a tangent.

Are you sure you're not replying to the wrong post?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to CXR94Di2 | 1 year ago
4 likes

Hmm... I thought "athlete" was precisely about using every biological advantage (and in cycling notably some "additive" advantages) as much as you could?

Skipping the debate again I do think that BC have managed to make an unholy mess of this situation.  There isn't an uncontroversial position here but sadly they've flip-flopped and it's the competitors - who have to jump through their hoops - who've been inconvenienced. (I use that last word because as far as I can see being a competitor in top level sport is precisely about a willingness to accept arbitrary rules and extremely tough discipline...)

Avatar
EM69 replied to CXR94Di2 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Be careful what you say on here, I got banned for a while for speaking the truth and upsetting the woke brigade. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to EM69 | 1 year ago
4 likes
EM69 wrote:

Be careful what you say on here, I got banned for a while for speaking the truth and upsetting the woke brigade. 

Well CRX94Di2 is mistaken about there being just two sexes, so it'd be better if they approached the subject with at least some understanding of the technical difficulties. Simply declaring things 'the truth' is more of a dogma than a discussion/exploration of the issues.

Avatar
peted76 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Another 'reactive' approach from BC. 

I imagine this documentry will be in place to promote the discussion of inclusion however I suspect it'll meader around the the lack of clarity within the sport and use cheap headlines throughout rather than actually come to any scientific or sensible conclusions. 

I expect nothing good from this documentary except a robust thread on road.cc the day following  1

Avatar
nosferatu1001 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Seems like another failure to think by BC. 

Latest Comments