Emily Bridges, the transgender cyclist at the centre of a storm that engulfed British Cycling over the past year, prompting the national governing body to update its transgender and non-binary participation policies, has confirmed that she is set to mount a legal challenge against those changes.
In May, over a year after it suspended its transgender policy with immediate effect in the wake of Bridges’ controversial exclusion from the women’s British Omnium Championship in April 2022 and following a nine-month review, British Cycling announced its decision to introduce a new ‘Open’ category for competitive events, which will consolidate the existing men’s grouping and run alongside the female category.
> British Cycling updates transgender policy, introduces new “Open” category
In an interview this week with British Vogue – as part of Vogue 25, the magazine’s list of 2023’s most influential women – Bridges said that she will “fight” British Cycling’s new transgender policies “in the courts and the streets”.
Bridges’ mother, Sandy Sullivan, confirmed to road.cc today that her daughter intends to launch a legal challenge against the policies.
In her interview with Vogue, Bridges – who, in the wake of the policy update in May, accused British Cycling of “furthering a genocide” against transgender people – said that despite anticipating the creation of a new ‘Open’ classification, which would effectively ban trans women from competing in the female category, she was still “devastated” by the decision.
“I was 10 when I started cycling competitively. I did a few sessions in a velodrome, and I was instantly hooked,” she said in the article. “Soon after, I began working my way up through the British cycling ranks, setting a national record in 2018 before joining the GB cycling team for a year in 2020. I left the team that year to transition, and in 2022, I was in talks to rejoin the GB cycling team with an eye on the 2024 Olympic campaign.
“However, in May 2023, news came that British Cycling, the national governing body for the sport, was placing a ban on transgender women competing in the women’s category. I had foreseen it happening, but the confirmation was still devastating. Cycling competitively was my life for the past 12 years. But now, I’m divesting from the sport – I have to.”
She continued: “Trans inclusion in sports has long been a highly contentious issue due to unsubstantiated concerns about transgender women having a physical advantage over cisgender women.
“At the end of last year, a report by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport found that biomedical factors, such as bone density and lung size, do not pose an advantage for trans athletes, but that social factors – like nutrition and training quality – may do. I have dedicated my body to assisting research currently being undertaken at Loughborough University to shed more light on the issue.”
Just as in her initial critique of British Cycling’s new policy in May, Bridges once again lambasted what she regards as the governing body’s failure to tackle the sport’s inherent lack of diversity.
“Cycling is still an elitist sport, one where diversity, particularly at a competitive level, is bleak,” she says. “According to British Cycling’s website, the official Great Britain Cycling Team has only three non-white cyclists out of the 55 listed. It should focus its efforts on improving accessibility and making a concerted effort to diversify, not waging a war on trans competitors.
“As a kid, cycling was the thing that made me happiest in the world. But my relationship with the sport is complicated now. My experience over the past few years has tainted the positive memories, and I’ve had to really focus on the things that made the sport so enjoyable in the first place.
“And while I have learned not to attach my entire self-worth to cycling, I’ll still be fighting British Cycling’s decision in the courts and the streets. I’ll continue to march with my trans siblings and use the voice I have to challenge injustice in the world.”
British Cycling declined to comment when approached by road.cc.
65 thoughts on “Emily Bridges set to mount legal challenge against British Cycling’s transgender policy”
I’m curious to know what
I’m curious to know what legal basis Ms Bridges thinks she has to challenge the BC policy, given that the Equalities Act 2010 has a specific exemption from transgender antidiscrimination measures for sport if “the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.” So as far as I understand that she would have to convince the court that the average male doesn’t have a physical advantage in cycling over the average female. I know the trans argument is that she is not the average male, she is a female, but as the law stands I can’t really see how she could have a hope of winning a legal challenge.
From her quote in the article
From her quote in the article it sounds like she’ll be citing that report from “Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport” that says “biomedical factors … do not pose an advantage for trans athletes” as a challenge to that exception you quoted.
thrawed wrote:
The thing is (everything I write here is on the basis that I am not a lawyer, obviously) the courts don’t have the right to change or overrule the Equalities Act, they can only interpret and enforce its provisions, so whether it’s the Equalities Act or the CCES that’s actually correct, it would appear that British Cycling are correctly applying the Act and so she would surely lose if she took them to court. If she wants to mount a legal challenge I would’ve thought she would have to challenge the government over the law rather than BC over its apparently permitted application of it.
You realize, I presume, that
You realize, I presume, that CCES didn’t write a report. It commissioned E-Alliance to write a report. E-Alliance describes itself as “a knowledge sharing hub made up of scholars and partner organizations from across Canada who are dedicated to gender+ equity in sport.” The report was not peer-reviewed science. That said, its key finding that “biological data are severely limited” would appear scientifically sound. The report, however, goes on to conclude that “available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport.” That is a far more suspect conclusion given the small sample size for trans-athletes competing at elite levels. And the report’s confounding claim that “policies that impact trans women’s participation in elite sport are the continuation of a long history of exclusion of women from competitive sport” has nothing to do with the issue everyone is now confronting – that being whether transwomen have an inherent advantage over biological women on the playing field. With that issue under debate, which is how science sorts things out, the question for sports officialdom in the moment is whether to err on the side of protecting the competitive interests of biological women of whom there are many or permitting competition by transwomen of whom there are few. There is no definitive, concrete answer to whether they have an inherent competitive advantage but various indications that they might, which is what makes this a tough call that parallels some doping issues. For instance, one in four men over age 30 is reported to suffer from low testosterone, and there is a TUE that would allow men with this problem to gain permission to take testosterone. But in most of the world of elite athletics that TUE is almost impossible to get. None of the males competing at the 2012 London Olympics had such a TUE. USADA, the U.S. anti-doping organization, was reported to have issued one in 2013. Fifty-eight-year-old Jeff Hammond, 5 a not very good CAT 4 cyclist diagnosed with hypogonadism went through a three-year struggle with USADA to get such a TUE. He basically had to demonstrate that he wasn’t competitive as a master racer, which made the decision easy. How to set up a system to allow an elite male athlete with the same medical diagnosis to obtain a TUE for testosterone, with its known benefits to performance, is hard, which is why there are no elite cyclists known to have a TUE for testosterone. Is there somewhere out there a very good male cyclist being treated unfairly because he can’t get such a TUE? Probably. Does anyone care? Probably not. Why? Because sports are inherently unfair and the rules as regards competitive advantage are all about protecting the majority of competitors. Is that fair to the minority? No. So how exactly does one come up with a way to make this sort of thing “fair” to everyone at the elite level, which is really the only place the trans issue exists given that it’s hard to believe anyone would care if a transgender woman entered a women’s bike race and finished in the bottom half of the field.
Nicely researched and
Nicely researched and explained sir. For my part I was immediately alerted when I read the CCES mission statement which describes them as a “value led” organisation. That phrase alone speaks volumes.
“policies that impact trans
“policies that impact trans women’s participation in elite sport are the continuation of a long history of exclusion of women from competitive sport”
Indeed, I think women would say it was the exact opposite – that preventing erstwhile men from competing in women’s sport marks a turning point from the exclusion of women from sport.
Does activism require a
Does activism require a rational approach based on quantifiable facts, or is it more an exercise in freedom of speech based on emotions…
lonpfrb wrote:
I don’t think a purely emotional argument will gain much traction in a court (unless it’s for excusing someone’s dangerous driving).
lonpfrb wrote:
Absolutely, and if she wants to have her day in court and air her case then good luck to her, but I can’t see it actually advancing her cause at all other than gaining additional publicity for it (not that that is necessarily a bad thing from her point of view).
“dedicated to gender+ equity
“dedicated to gender+ equity in sport.”
Equality means equal opportunity.
Equity means equal outcome therefore everybody must win. There is no equity in sport, it’s just impossible.
cbrndc wrote:
The dictionary defintion of equity is the quality of equal treatment and fairness, so it’s a perfectly good word to use on either side of the argument. It doesn’t mean all outcomes are equal.
“Equity” seems to be being
“Equity” seems to be being used now as a sort of “equality+”, with a suggestion that simply treating people equally isn’t enough.
I have some sympathy with that approach, as plain old equality can lead to outcomes of the “well, fit 25-year-old men cycle on these roads so if anyone else doesn’t then that’s their problem” variety. But when it’s stretched to mean “trans people have a rough time in general so men should be allowed to ruin women’s sport and anyone who disagrees is to be called a genocidal bigot”, it just becomes special pleading.
Brauchsel wrote:
Ha ha – men have been ruining womens’ everything for several centuries of our culture, society and economics. It’s no surprise the the manly strutters want to squash any other sort of gender as well, is it?
Myself I have no opinion of any worth on this subject since, like everyone else posting here, I know insufficient to make judgements and have opinions. And anyway (and to repeat) …
….Why not cut the Gordian Knot of this “problem” by doing away with gender-based competition categorisations altogether, in favour of competitions that are open? This would follow the notion that sporting competitions are about finding the best at the sport, whoever they are.
Cue various “blasts of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women” insisting that they should all be kept in their place because, “They’re weaker than we Big Men and not as clever either”. As to the gender inbetweeners – get out the pitchforks and the waving-bibles! Light the bonty-fires!! Ready the ducking stools!!!
I know some Big Men fear getting beat by a women; and definitely by any other non-bigman. They will allege that open competitions will see all the women lose, which is unfair. Myself, I suspect these Big Men might be in for a shock.
They’ve already had many-such, though. Women in charge of companies and even whole nations! Cleverer than even the most masculine of male masters at skools and colliguses. Driving big lorries without crashing! Gawd!
Sure, like marathon running.
Sure, like marathon running. In “open” competition the women’s record is faster than the in the women-only category (it’s almost like the presence of men sets a faster pace). But still not close to the men’s record. So yes, you could just have open competition, but so far no woman would have been the record holder – unless you recognise the results by category…
As to the argument that everybody except … except who … is disenfranchised from the debate, gosh, I thought we were against that sort of ethic?
Sriracha wrote:
I feel its a mistake to asume that the current metrics of women-only sporting events should be used as some sort of definition of the “natural” limits of what women could achieve. The reason I feel this is that history demonstrates dozens or even hundreds of examples where women once achieved little in this or that but, on being freed of sexist and misogynistic fetters or suppression, emerged and arose to become very good indeed – as good as and sometimes better than the men.
The conditions under which women can train and compete at many sports are not the same, at present, as they are for men. There are various inequalities of opportunity, lets admit. If women are given the opportunity, via a long term switch to open competitions and the same development opportunities as men, time is likely to see women rise to the challenges; and some will eventually beat men at the top of one sport or another.
Consider the latest example of womens football. Once it was laughed at as even an idea. One day, it may be that a womens side superior in skill and tactics may beat a mens side of equal “level. Of course, if sly fouling is still allowed, it might take a year longer. 🙂
The Big Men seem to assume that all sports are based on strength or the possesion of male hormones. This is so obviously silly. Many sports are primarily based on skill and intelligent tactics or strategies. There’s no reason based in hormones that women couldn’t beat men in many sports …. if given the chances and faciities that men have in that sport to get better at it.
Cugel wrote:
So read it again – I was talking about open competition.
Cugel wrote:
It seems that you’re then begging comparison to the Big Men yourself by appearing to be saying (to be fair – with a lot of salient evidence on the internet…) that women have bigger brains to men’s bigger brawn.
As Sriracha points out, outside of e-sports (more fun to be had – what is a sport?) normally it’s mental ability / skill (and determination!) plus some measure of physique. There seem to be enough men with sufficient wit/skill to mean that – across a population, at the higher levels – the extra from physicality means males will have the edge in most sports. (Obvs. that doesn’t mean that a random woman can’t be better than a random man).
Interestingly there *are* some niches where females may have an advantage – extreme endurance for example (see e.g. Fiona Kolbinger in cycling).
You’re quite correct though that in the past society has hobbled the ability of women to succeed in many areas. Still true – in particular I think men still have (or expect to have) more freedom to do what they want with their time. Even if that’s spending more of it at work.
You say this, in your
You say this, in your boringly overblown style, every time this comes up. It’s bullshit. Women don’t post slower times, shorter distances, weaker punches etc because of patriarchy or because they don’t get to compete against men. It’s because they’re female, and female humans are as a class weaker/slower than male humans.
You dress this up with a faux-hippy “throw off society’s chains and see what women can do” vibe, but it’s so fucking insulting. Women athletes know that the best men are, and always will be, at a higher level to them. You can see this in all the results of all sports over the last century or so, and you can listen to what elite female athletes say. Your implication is that these women don’t really know their capabilities, and that if they just tried a bit harder they could beat the boys. They know it isn’t true, and unsurprisingly generally don’t want to have to compete against men, because they’d lose. You might be ok with that, but they’re not.
Brauchsel wrote:
You seem a bit hot under the collar there, Brau ole steamboat. Have I given your prejuduce an ache? 🙂
Wot a good job, though, that you’re able to speak for all women in this matter, enabling them to be safe in their safe wee ghettos you’ve kindly arranged for them. But as you’re so sure that “men are always best” we can be sure that shutting them up with your man-hoot about their inferiority will be welcomed, as it will give them more time to look after the babies and do the cookin’.
**********
But, to resume a more rational discourse, consider this:
In sport that’s differentiated into men and women events, each class has it’s own hierarchy, based on how well the sporting ones perform in a history of competitions. In cycling, for example, we have the categories, entered via the points system, with the higher end differentiated by means of team selection processes. It’s the same in virtually every competitive sport.
So, you and me have no chance to enter the TdF because we’ve not got enough points, so to speak, even though we’re fully made-up members of The Big Man class. (Well, you are).
Now, imagine we do away with these queer gender spits in competitive sport and just keep on with the “points” system of selection for who can compete in which events.
I know for a fact (‘cos it happens now) that many women will get more points than many men down there in the lower orders of real amateur sport. They will be enabled to enter various open class races as a result. Men and women racing against each other! I know – shocking!! What will Queen Victoria say?
Now imagine this scenario transposed up the hierarchy to professional cycling and other domains where there is currently gender-based suppresion of women (and other non-males). Why not allow women to at least attempt to get more points that enable them to enter “higher” class races containing pointed-up blokes? Some women will get those points.
But if some won’t, because your C19th theory that “women are all inherently weak and feeble” is true, what does it matter, as women will still rise as high as they actually can through sporting ability rather than because Brau says they’re all feak and weeble; or, if they aren’t, they ought to be and the Big Men will ensure it, by Jingo, by keeping them out of manland, the .. the .. the .. lesser beings!
Gawd, even if you were right,
Gawd, even if you were right, ever, I still couldn’t stand to read your bigheaded garble.
…
…
She seems to have posted
She seems to have posted “left British Cycling to transition” instead of “got dropped by British Cycling, then decided to transition”
I do have some sympathy for
I do have some sympathy for atheletes who find themselves in her position. However according to the last census 0.1% of the population identified as transgender of that a miniscule % will be elite atheletes.
We seem to be spending a lot of time and resources trying to fix an issue affecting so few people.
Why?
One of the sacrifices they may have to make, to live their lives as the sex they are comfortable with, is elite sport.
Nice to see her eliding (pro)
Nice to see her eliding (pro) cycling’s undoubted lack of racial diversity with her ongoing campaign to force women to race against men.
They’re not the same type of thing, and it’s as dishonest as their lumping themselves in with gays and lesbians. Your ethnic background and who you’re attracted to aren’t things you can change, and they don’t give you an insurmountable performance advantage over others.
Your sex also isn’t something you can change, but if you’re male you do have that performance advantage over an otherwise-equal woman.
How you choose to present yourself, and which stereotypes associated with a sex you choose to act out, is entirely within your control and you should be free to pick whichever you like. But it doesn’t change your actual sex, and so either you compete with your own sex or you accept completely open competition and no women ever winning anything.
If she wants to draw comparisons between trans issues and racial inequality, she might want to consider modern views on people who dress themselves up as members of supposedly “inferior” races.
“Furthering a genocide.”
“Furthering a genocide.”
Hmm, glad she’s not being hysterical about it.
Daclu Trelub wrote:
Funny you should say that:
“Hysteria comes from the Greek root hystera, meaning ‘uterus.’ Originally, it was believed that hysteria and hysterical symptoms were caused by a defect in the womb, and thus, only women could become hysterical”.
An origin story, but the OED
An origin story, but the OED no doubt points to the evolution of language since then.
bobbinogs wrote:
“Furthering a genocide.”
Hmm, glad she’s not being hysterical about it.
— bobbinogs Funny you should say that: “Hysteria comes from the Greek root hystera, meaning ‘uterus.’ Originally, it was believed that hysteria and hysterical symptoms were caused by a defect in the womb, and thus, only women could become hysterical”.— Daclu Trelub
Glad somebody got it.
Christ. Shine a light….
Christ. Shine a light….
I thought this had been sorted.
“Hands up who can have kids”
My post about “a man
My post about “a man pretending to be a woman and wanting to compete against women” (this is my view) has been deleted twice by the administrator. Is this the freedom of speech and tolerance the keepers of political correctness have been preaching about?
This is a private platform,
This is a private platform, freedom of speech is irrelevant you numpty. You post at the whim of the moderators.
You’ll be moaning about being cancelled next. ?♂️
You can’t hide your
You can’t hide your authoritarianism behind any cheap “private platform” and “cancel” neotalk nonsense, luv.
Boss Hogg wrote:
The internet has changed since your days as commissioner of Hazzard County, Boss. It’s no longer a
secret military networkcommon room for academic hippie typesfree for all. It turns out it’s just like a pub toilet *, a gallery or a newspaper. If you write comments the management don’t approve of don’t be surprised if they not only don’t publish them but scrub them off / lose them down the back of the reception desk.After all – it’s their freedom to “publish” or not…
* If it’s shithouse walls you’re wanting there is always
8chan8kun – or evenTwitterXHey Rosco, where have you
Hey Rosco, where have you been hiding? Looks like you’ve resurfaced to police the thread.
Boss Hogg wrote:
Had my post deleted for highlighting what genocide really is.
Road.cc used to be a place
Road.cc used to be a place where you could air your views freely. Some people overstepped the mark, used bad language etc.
Now, the snowflakes have taken over. This is the world we live in, a world where if you give your opinion on something, and someone else doesn’t like it, rather than accept that we all have differing views, giving a balanced response or engaging in a debate, they resort to insults, name calling and cancellation. Or post removal. Basically if we do not like what you have put, even though it isn’t racist, homophobic, tramsphobic or threatening we will remove it, because we cannot compute that someone doesn’t share our views.
If road.cc goes down this slippery slope, they will lose many readers, subscribers and support.
Biker Phil wrote:
“If” – as the Spartans said.
I was a little surprised the ones that were here went – I think that might have been moderator misunderstanding (e.g. think the posters were simply quoting words Emily had used).
However since the topics of helmets, trans rights (or “rules of certain sporting events”) and some of (what used to be) the further fringes of politics are all topics which have been demonstrated to generate much heat and little light, I would probably accept a bit of twitchy moderation here. (Sure there are other places to chat about that).
IIRC the only folks who actually have got blocked took great delight in saying they thought the site was garbage and wouldn’t pay a bean for it. Support like that I’m pretty sure road.cc can do without. (Plus they came back anyway!)
…OTOH some have suggested the previously light moderation here is essentially “keep them clicking” (some of said contrarians liked to say that too). In that case you’ve absolutely nothing to worry about, except the odd deletion to give an illusion that mods are on top of things.
One or two of the mods have a bias. Several folks here have pointed out this site’s pretty free and easy as they go. Again – if you really wanna say it how it is there’s (former Twitter) – and enjoy “insults, name calling and cancellation” over there.
Yes, it’s called political
Yes, it’s called political correctness and despite the preached “divergence”, no inapropriate views will be tolerated. And Road.cc seems to be part of this newspeak.
I’ve left plenty of
I’ve left plenty of contrarian and non-pc comments on here (including in this very thread) without any trouble at all. Perhaps the comments getting deleted aren’t just for content but for content+tone? (Or perhaps road.cc is just as haphazard with its content moderation as it is with everything else on the site.)
Curiously, what I have been censored and banned for is leaving (friendly) factual and grammatical corrections on articles. They updated the articles based on my suggestions–I was right, after all–but deleted my comments and blocked my account.???
LookAhead wrote:
Sounds like the road.cc mods. They don’t like being called out for their incorrectness or anything else.
To them it seems to be easier to cancel differing views – they don’t have the guts to ban any of their long term users – I can imagine in real life they are just wibbling jellies.
Biker Phil wrote:
Well said. Or they ban people because the snowflakes here get upset when they hear the truth. And as we know, it’s hit and miss if they do ban people…only have to look at some of the shocking insults and so on flying around to see that their tolerance for some users is a lot higher than others.
Jeremy Corbyn for PM wrote:
Ha ha – two snowflakes complaining about snowflakes! One suspects a degree of solipsism is involved. 🙂
It’s an “all women-only
It’s an “all women-only spaces matter” being undermined by a kind of “all spaces matter” argument. My wife’s view of this kind of thing is that there is something distinctly male about wanting to insert yourself into (what is still) someone else’s space.
From my narrow, male point of view, the person transitioning has left my “side” (e.g. the office I work in) and that’s it. I therefore haven’t got someone wanting to be let in to my “side”, so I’m not sure how I’d feel if I did.
The nearest I can get to this in practical terms is a on busy session at a student union, where there was often a queue for the ladies. It was common, accepted practice to escort a woman into the men’s to use one of the little-used cubicles. Seemed like good sense to me – but doing the opposite would not wash.
I don’t wish ill on trans people and for the factor mentioned above, I don’t claim to have a sophisticated or definitive view on this issue, nor a solution. I don’t think bringing court cases is going to help matters in the long term. If I’m really on the wrong side of this, then I will accept any decision the mods may make to remove this post.
PS I see Luis Rubiales has been suspended by FIFA. Rather than try to claim the kiss was consensual (when the other party is clear that it was not) if he’d had said “I’m very sorry about what happened, I was so thrilled that our team won the final, I allowed myself to get carried away. I apologise for my behaviour towards Jenni.” would he not be in quite the mess he’s in now?
Oh Emily. Your demand to have
Oh Emily. Your demand to have your cake and eat it too is in Elite sport is setting recognition for really basic trans rights back years.
You literally are the outlier they will point to to deny every trans person.
Your tone cheapens the debate and makes you less than credible.
Please stop for the sake of your own mental health until you can come back with gold plated peer reviewed scientific studies that indicate you have no advantage.
It’s disappointing that BC aren’t willing to help in this but this ain’t the way….
Not so. Emily has used hrt
Not so. Emily has used hrt to help transitioning as have I though in my case much later in life. Testosterone reduction is very effective in reducing strength and stamina. Perhaps more effective in my sport of mtb orienteering with events of 3 hours and longer
Briefly BC (I am a former Commissaire) is pretending that the new open class is fair to all entrants. Transgender women on testosterone limiting hrt do not compete on an equal footing. I transitioned late in life and know the effects. Emily has tried her utmost to have the effects of her transitioning closely checked scientifically.
That’s as maybe. But, trans
That’s as maybe. But, trans women still have an advantage over women. If not, please explain why men competing at a middling level become a trans woman, then suddenly are beating women and winning competitions. It is very interesting that there never seems to be trans men competing against men.
I think there should be categories for men, women, trans men, trans women and non binary. Then everyone can compete in a category which is fair to everyone else in that category.
MtoF transitioning is not
MtoF transitioning is not done lightly and requires considerable psychiatric assessment. The objective is to become as near as possible to the woman within one’s mind not to improve sporting success. In my case within months younger women I had been able to beat in events (though not competing directly) were comfortably passing me on climbs. They often encouraged me.
Maybe you’re just a rubbish
Maybe you’re just a rubbish athlete?
I for one, do not doubt someone’s sincerity when they transition, whatever works for you in your life, for your own mental health, wellbeing and sense of self. It’s a tough road and there’ll be some actual haters. But they are relatively few?
But you cannot just declare universally on your own terms, that you are now a woman, and should be allowed to compete in women’s events.
Vo2Maxi wrote:
Was being an age related National Champion in my sport of Mountain Bike Orienteering several times rubbish? I was commenting after the experience of the effects of hormone replacement therapy. Had to resign from being a British Cycling Commissaire when before the current position there was an implied acceptance of transgender women with former race Licences could compete as long as they were unlikely to win.
I had been allowed to compete in my sport but retired from competing during a two year check on a variable heart rate. Still ride the occasional event using an Emtb so being ineligible in leagues etc
Sorry Jackie.
Sorry Jackie.
Without wishing to take away from your personal experience it’s not a gold plated peer reviewed study which is precisely why I used those words.
I understand that Emily has been involved with some, which makes it all the more disappointing that she’s gone full extremist.
What BC pretended, was that a
What BC pretended, was that a consistently fair and level playing field might be provided where trans female athletes could compete fairly with female athletes. They did this out of a kind sense of empathy and understanding: wouldn’t it be great if this could be made to work, let’s include everyone. They pretty soon realised it’s a total minefield which is completely impractical, would be unreliable to impose, and ultimately unfair to women.
Other physical sports are coming around the the same conclusion.
There’s no “fair” way of doing this.
Emily Bridges] I Was Banned
I support trans people, trans people’s right to be treated as full citizens with all the rights and privileges that entails, etc., etc., but the trans agenda does itself no favors by constantly trying to gaslight the rest of us into submission.
No, Emily, you were not banned from competitive cycling. There is no genocide in progress or in plan against trans people. No one wants to prevent you from using the bathroom or healthcare or from participating in public life more generally. And merely disagreeing with you does not make one a transphobe.
None of that is true, in fact or in spirit, and we won’t be bullied into pretending it is.
Please, Emily, the best thing you can do for yourself and your cause is to join the rest of us here in reality. We’d love to have you, and you might even realize we’re not so bad after all.
Quote:
Not to comment on the rest but this is puzzling language. “Full citizens” – as opposed to what? Children? Slaves? Animals?
I guess this confusion is maybe prompted by the – also clearly confusing to some – “trans rights are human rights” slogan?
I mean that I believe that
I mean that I believe that trans people are people, that they are not less than, that they should not be discriminated against, slaughtered, banned from sport, etc.
Perhaps the confusion is due to the dual reality that 1) the proposition is so obviously correct that it should go without saying and yet 2) it must be said because many people who think they’re helping the trans cause constantly accuse the rest of us of not believing it.
Slaughtered? Sounds a bit OTT
Slaughtered? Sounds a bit OTT.
Indeed, much like genocide.
Indeed, a bit like genocide.
No. The Holocaust was
No. The Holocaust was genocide. What happened in Rwanda was genocide. This, this is not genocide, not even close. Let’s see if this also gets deleted.
ErnieC wrote:
Quite right. You may want to re-read my posts if you think we’re in disagreement on this point. For example, the part where I say:
Agreed. I stand corrected. My
Agreed. I stand corrected. My apologies to you for the misunderstanding.
So how about when trans women
So how about when trans women start winning all the medals in women’s events, as will undoubtedly happen? That’s fair on women, is it?
Trans women are trans women, they are not women. Duh.
Vo2Maxi wrote:
What is it that you’re responding to? I don’t believe I said anything to which that would be a meaningful response.
Apologies Look Ahead, I seem
Apologies Look Ahead, I seem to have clicked on the wrong Reply button, I suspect it was in response to christonatrike.
I don’t think he did either?
I don’t think he did either?
Read the room Emily.
Read the room Emily.
People know now that they can stand up to trans people and stand up for their own rights, and not bow to their demands every time.
The move from BC (among many other sporting governing bodies) is absolutely correct and a solid move to protect womens cycling too, and the progress that has made in the last few years.
Realises she has no viable
Realises she has no viable argument for competing in women’s events with a male body, so spits her dummy out and inappropriately introduces a totally spurious argument about “ethnic inclusion” in elite cycling to in some way make out BC are an inherently unfair organisation. She’s literally hysterical over this, as indeed are many at the extreme end of the trans community, with her talk of a “trans genocide”.
What you will find Emily, is that far more BAME kids are interested in football and athletics. It’s a cultural and yes, role model thing. Anyone in the UK can be involved in any sport they want, no one needs to feel guilty if their sport doesn’t conform precisely to percentages in the overall population. Example: 50% of Premier League footballers are black, yet only 3.5% of our population are.