Emily Bridges calls British Cycling "failed organisation", says trans women have been "banned" as new 'Open' category announced

Why have you 'put' the 'word' 'transitioning' in 'scare quotes'?

(edit) Wait - I know why... 1 post, eh?

True. But then the whole Trans thing is about slogans and ultra-precise wording and 'specialness', so in a way they are meeting that like for like?
Ultimately a Trans woman has a male body which she modifies to her own desires and needs, with drug treatment and/or surgery, or to comply with competitive sport regulations.
The latter has proven to be a complete minefield which has seriously placed women's sport at risk. How on earth do you achieve a level playing field? I would say it's damned near impossible, and so BC have retreated from trying to do so. Other 'physical sports will no doubt follow.
I don't mean any of this in an unkind or dismissive way, nor do I denigrate a Trans woman's right to declare herself female because that's 100% how she feels, how she NEEDS to feel. No Trans woman goes about this lightly.

espressodan wrote:

The BC policy has so much spin on it you'll get dizzy. I've got no idea what a fair solution looks like, but the new BC 'policy' put another way is "All trans people have to complete with men". Calling it all 'Open' category doesn't mean a thing. Bridges, York etc have a perfect right to call a spade a spade in relation to that.

Which category do the trans men ride in?  Actually, are there many trans men athletes?  The news coverage always picks up on the trans women...

Great post.
And something which never gets acknowledged is that overall..and I emphasise OVERALL, boys and men are different from girls, tend to be more forceful, push themselves physically harder, and are able to do so. Doesn't mean there aren't tomboys, doesn't mean there aren't 'sensitive boys', but what it does mean, is that even in darts, snooker, motor racing, whatever, there'll still be a preponderance of men over women. The modern obsession of course, is to immediately cry MISOGYNY! as a 'reason' for the lack of women. It's utter tosh. Yes, there'll always be men who don't like their space trodden on, but more boys than girls will be naturally drawn to these things. And no, it's not social conditioning.
What we need is equal opportunity to try what you want and to be allowed to achieve your dreams and goals, not this gormless assertion that if there aren't as many women, they must necessarily be downtrodden.
Same goes for the 'no one there looks like me' crap which gets glibly peddled around these days.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Same goes for the 'no one there looks like me' crap which gets glibly peddled around these days.

I think you may be crossing boundaries there into a different type of discrimination...

On nature and nurture: First others have informed me that if you're near the top of the pyramid (a white guy in the UK, US and many places) lots of problems that afflict others may simply not be visible to you.

Secondly many of the directions nature may bias people in apparently *can* be completely overridden by social conditioning. Or at least the wide range of variation in human behaviours both geographically and over time should suggest caution in saying it isn't so.

Apologies, Bridges didn't call BC racist, she effectively said the sport of cycling was 'too white and too straight' . I merely challenge the notion that if there is not enough 'representation' then there must necessarily be discrimination. It's a lazy and misleading argument, and it leads to a sense of helplessness and entitlement which is corrosive to society as a whole. Are you really being held back by forces out of your control, or did you just not try hard enough because you thought you would be?
Where there is discrimination I shall reject it and fight it all the way. But I'm fed up with all the virtue-signalling which gives a false impression of some 'dystopian society' which doesn't exist in this country.
As for nature and nurture in human sexuality and gender roles, you play with those roles at your peril. Allow children to find themselves, don't push them into some homogeneous box you choose for them.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

In her diatribe against BC, Bridges asserted they were a racist organisation.

I may have missed it but I don't think that was in the statement above?  (She may have said this elsewhere though).  (EDIT she does accuse them of not caring about the sport being "white" - since she's not exactly held back accusations elsewhere though I'd say she isn't directly saying "racist"...) Her views of the state sound like that's what she thinks of them though.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

I merely challenge the notion that if there is not enough 'representation' then there must necessarily be discrimination. It's a lazy and misleading argument, and it leads to a sense of helplessness and entitlement which is corrosive to society as a whole. Are you really being held back by forces out of your control, or did you just not try hard enough because you thought you would be?

Again I think we're roaming rather far from the point.  After all in Bridges case this has been brought into sharp focus because she did try hard enough!  e.g. winning men's races as a man, then going through additional hoops for BC, then winning races as a woman and not just saying "people keep telling me to leave it - this is all a bit too hard".  And finally being told "actually, no".  I can see how it might look like (as is sometimes asserted) that some are happy for trans women to have the right to compete as long as they're not successful.

On the wider issue (again away from this particular issue) there is ample research evidence that if you're not from the majority you will be expected to try much harder, it will be much harder and you still may not get there.  For a trivial example half the population may wish to question the assertion that they just didn't try hard enough when working exactly the same job and that's why they tend to get paid less / don't get promoted!

In general the existence of also-rans with excuses don't refute the existence of systematic discrimination.  And again if it doesn't apply to you it is very hard to see.  After all, you *know* how hard you worked!

Back to Bridges - putting aside the statement I think BC have made a mess (again) but it is not easy at all.  There seem to be a sizeable number of people in two different groups (elite sporting women / trans women) who have goals in direct conflict here.  There may be a way through which eventually "works" more or less for either side but at the moment it does seem it's pretty binary and existential for some.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Allow children to find themselves, don't push them into some homogeneous box you choose for them.

A rather odd choice of words ("homogeneous box") given the subject (diversity) - although I think I understand what you're getting at.  I think your fears are misplaced - but I've gone on long enough now!

It was definitely part of her whole statement. Do check for yourself. She accused BC of taking part in a genocide against Trans women and she did call them a racist organisation.
Her whole argument is basically hysterical. Not only is she wrong imo, hysterical arguments mean nothing. She's had plenty of time to form a considered response but instead she has chosen to fling a load of mud.
So yes, my comment about her racism accusation is justified imo.
And infact I would go further and also say that statements like these are indicative of a broad, aggressive, radical political woke narrative which is almost anarchic in its ferocity, and we see it everywhere from BLM to Trans rights to Climate Change and beyond. I don't deny any of those by the way, I do think many of the arguments are unrealistic though. That's me actually digressing by the way, but it all ties in I think, and is relevant?
I do agree that in a way, Emily has been let down, in the sense that she was given false hope. BC's initial reaction was to be 'inclusive, kind' and all the rest of it, before the science was fully understood. I think what's emerged is that in some way equalising Trans female performance with that of cis women, is actually impossible in any really meaningful way, there are too many medical and physiological factors to consider. So then we are left with what is actually a philosophical and political argument, which is a totally different matter. And when push comes to shove, 50% of the population are female, and around 1% of the population (or at least a tiny amount) are Trans female. The latter cannot dictate to the former? I'd say that inherently, perhaps women tend to be more inclusive than men, but in this case they are fighting hard because there's an inherent threat to their competitive sport. And I agree with them.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

It was definitely part of her whole statement. Do check for yourself. She accused BC of taking part in a genocide against Trans women and she did call them a racist organisation.

Just a point of fact - I definitely did and I definitely can't see the direct accusation of racism.  I'm not denying she might have wanted people to infer that, or that she is indeed accusing them of "furthering genocide" against trans people.  Could be my old eyes though!

Vo2Maxi wrote:

But while accusing them of that - although Her whole argument is basically hysterical.

This is a crie de coeur in my opinion - something out of desparation rather than an argument really.

OTOH we're all capable of some high-falutin' words about things we care deeply about:

Vo2Maxi wrote:

...a broad, aggressive, radical political woke narrative which is almost anarchic in its ferocity...

(Apologies for the personal - it does have a ring to it.)

I don't think that some kind of performance-equating is necessarily "impossible" - after all we've been making fairly abitrary categories and rules in sport since forever.  I agree that at the moment "appeals to the science" are likely secondary and it is mostly a social / political discussion we're having (for better or worse).

I'd certainly agree that the full implication of trans / non-binary etc. is very radical - at least in terms of what we take for granted currently.  Just setting up a new category (trans) is a change - although of course there have been people not fitting in to the standard pattern since forever.  Notions that "women" or "men" can each come in two sexes - or that someone we put in one category can completely move to the other - or that physical differences to do with sex are fundamentally unimportant or that the gender categories themselves can get in the bin...  All these are massive challenges to current mainstream cultural assumptions.  Some maybe contrary to some of our innate psychological category systems.

All at a time when - in a few places in the world - we have only recently started more critically examining issues which affect more people or are in some senses more salient e.g. sex or race discrimination.  It's early days.

Apologies, what she actually said was effectively the sport of cycling is too White and too Straight'.
I still stand by my comments though.
And worth noting, I'm a life member of BC (have been for over 30yrs) and for some time now, BC have made huge efforts to be inclusive for all, just look at their website, articles and their regular newsletters?
I've actually just read the whole of Emily's Instagram piece and it's even more hysterical and political than I thought. Of course, she takes great care to immediately say she's NOT being hysterical, and it's not she who is waging a culture war. She seems to think she can preempt that assessment but her writing speaks for itself.
Apparently we are a horrible country and she's considering leaving. To go where? Where would you go for a more compassionate and liberal society Emma? The US? Some European country? You'll get a shock. I think she needs to find some specialist commune living on a beach in the Far East to find her utopia, but of course that'll be cliquey and go horribly wrong.
She cites attacks on her friends as proof that she won't be here much longer. What attacks? Online? Ignore the idiotic haters. Sticks and stones etc. While they are deeply unpleasant, they are a relatively small minority?
Even what I am writing here would be considered hateful and nasty by Emma, and liable to lead to her early demise. Basically, anyone dho disagrees with Emma is hateful and nasty, and wants her dead. That is what we are dealing with. It's like a very extreme example of a child at a supermarket checkout screaming for chocolate.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Apparently we are a horrible country and she's considering leaving. To go where? Where would you go for a more compassionate and liberal society Emma? The US? Some European country? You'll get a shock. I think she needs to find some specialist commune living on a beach in the Far East to find her utopia, but of course that'll be cliquey and go horribly wrong.

I was also wondering about that.  Not that I think the UK is a great example of toleration in this regard.  However it may be one of the better ones of a globally terrible bunch.  Witness the very recent Ugandan law changes on homosexuality.

Possibly somewhere else where she can race?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

She cites attacks on her friends as proof that she won't be here much longer. What attacks? Online? Ignore the idiotic haters. Sticks and stones etc. While they are deeply unpleasant, they are a relatively small minority? Even what I am writing here would be considered hateful and nasty by Emma, and liable to lead to her early demise. Basically, anyone dho disagrees with Emma is hateful and nasty, and wants her dead. That is what we are dealing with. It's like a very extreme example of a child at a supermarket checkout screaming for chocolate.

There is obviously a continuum from unpleasantness to abuse to physical violence but the statistics indicate that trans people are significantly more likely to be victims of crime and likely violent physical assault / sexual assault.  Apparently in the US violent crime is four times as likely to be experienced by trans people.  For England / Wales the overall crime rate (not just violent crime) is twice as much for trans people compared to general population.  That's based on the ONS crime survey statistics and apparently we can't be more specific as they have said they aren't releasing figures for violent offences by gender identity for various reasons.

I'm not agreeing with her statement completely.  I'm just trying to understand where the statement is coming from - and also the objections.

I was aware that Trans are more likely to be subject to physical violence, and that's abhorrent of course. It's always been that way for Gays too of course. Or indeed, any 'outliers' in society, and the more visible that difference is, the more nastiness there'll be. I don't wish to downplay any of that.
But broadly, public sympathy and understanding is high, and there are laws against discrimination and police are keen to enforce. Most people go out of their way to be inclusive, to be basically nice.

Anyway, why is Cycling 'too White'? And actually, is it?
3.5% of our population are black. If you saw 100 cyclists, if 4% were black, that'd be over-representation. I'd say in terms of sports, Asians are under-represented.
But why? Racism? That's the immediate cry from many these days. Infact it has far more to do with what your family did, and what your mates do. And if neither of those are in a sport you're interested in, then it's up to YOU to take that leap of faith and join a sports club.
I well remember the first time I walked into a cycling clubroom and said I'd like to join, over 40yrs ago. I knew NO ONE there, and I had no history of the sport amongst family or friends. I was shy, and felt 'other'. Very much so. I can see that as BAME the barrier might seem bigger, and one of those barriers would indeed be no one there looks like me. Is that anyone's actual fault? Almost certainly not. Maybe YOU are the one who needs to be there, looking like you. But you'll have to assume you won't be met with racism. You probably won't be, but you won't find out until you try.
Again, I'm not going off-piste here, I'm responding to Emily's diatribe.

There are loads of non white riders competing in BMX in the UK, just saying.

Great, and once there are a few, others will follow. Everyone can do what they want in this country? Who's stopping you?
I just get fed up with the utterly bogus argument that if there isn't 'proper representation', there must inherently be racism.
50% of Premier League footballers are Black. Vastly over 3.5% of course. There are lots of role models for black kids and you can make a load of money and be a hero. Great. But when football is played by hugely bigger numbers than cycling, where are all the young black riders going to come from? I'm not saying there shouldn't be more, I'm just challenging ludicrously misleading arguments.
Also consider, every big organisation like BC these days, has gone 'corporate'. And when public money goes in (like Lottery funding) they become exposed to political pressures.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

I just get fed up with the utterly bogus argument that if there isn't 'proper representation', there must inherently be racism. 50% of Premier League footballers are Black. Vastly over 3.5% of course. There are lots of role models for black kids and you can make a load of money and be a hero.

But oddly 50% of MPs aren't black?  Of course, that would be a ridiculous argument However it is a fact that ethnic minorities are under-represented in parliament, the House of Lords and in local government (including the London Assembly)*.  And (to pick a random one) teaching, especially head teachers.  Or firemen **.

I'm not seeing your "not trying hard enough" or "everyone can be anything" arguments are so strong here. 

Or perhaps - for cycling and football - are you saying that white folks aren't trying hard enough?

I'm not denying that there can be sensible reasons for uneven distributions of different categories of people into different professions or areas of society.  However denying the existence of (ongoing) discrimination or not even considering this as a reason is for those who don't want to see.

Anyway, thanks - I'm going to bow out of this one for now anyway; we're off away from the original topic plus that's several minefields I've got into that I need to get out of.

* Exactly proportional representation might not be what you'd expect anyway given the details of the electoral process.  Having said that things have changed markedly over the last 3 decades.

** Not doctors though - however that's likely because we have specific recruitment policies for overseas health staff.

leewalton wrote:

Bridges and other transgender cyclists can still compete, and if they're good enough, win, given that they have the same physical advantages as the men they will be racing against in the open category.

How are they going to have the same physical advantages if they're taking Estrogen to lower their testosterone?

Its a cop out by BC to maintain the status quo.

As I understand it, the scientific consensus nowadays is that a low natural testosterone level in and by itself doesn't fully negate -even when measured over a period of 2 years- the physiological advantages that a person who was born male and reached puberty as a male has accrued.  This appears to hold true in a competitive context where a performance difference of a couple of percentage points tend to decide between fame and fortune and hard-slogging anonimity (could you quote the person who finished 17th in last year's TDF?).

See https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2021/01/22/testosterone-and-transgender-athletic-performance-finding-a-path-for-inclusion-for-transgender-athletes/

You are correct, and I don't know how old you are to be able to know this, but a big part of why Chris Boardman retired when he did (rather early) was because he had very low testosterone. He was still competing at top level, but from memory it was more a health issue for him as a man?
So no, testosterone isn't the whole issue by a long chalk .

You're right, trans athletes won't be able to compete successfully now, at least in terms of winning.
But the alternative is that women will have their sport slaughtered by the inclusion of trans females. And that's unjustifiable.
There's no way around this unfortunately, it's impossible to introduce testosterone limits or anything else, which would be a 100% reliable "equaliser" to allow trans inclusion fairly into competitive sport.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

But the alternative is that women will have their sport slaughtered by the inclusion of trans females.

Stop being disingenuous and presenting this as a binary (ironically given the subject) problem.  Other sports manage it - just people like you and BC lack the imagination and will to do so.

Which other sports manage it, where physical strength and endurance are the measures of winning, and women and Trans women are competing in harmony?
Name some.
And don't accuse me of being disingenuous please, address my argument, not me. Otherwise I'll call you a woke snowflake. Ad hominem arguments don't work do they?
I'm sincere in my views, give me credit for that or just 'cancel' me, because that seems to be the modern way.

You didn't make reference to my comments about testosterone and oestrogen either, if you want to have strong views on these matters perhaps you ought to research your argument properly?
It's not enough just to glibly demand something because you think it's inherently 'right', you have to back it up with rational argument based on fact. Otherwise your argument carries little weight.

Think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick there, testosterone is reduced by taking testosterone blockers, not by 'taking oestrogen'.
Taking oestrogen may be taken too for its feminising effects.
Sounds like you have an 'opinion' on this without knowing the facts?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Sounds like you have an 'opinion' on this without knowing the facts?

Potato potaatoe.    Sounds like you'll use any trivial point to avoid facing up to the fact that the world and sport is a complicated place.

Oh, you can't admit your fundamental misunderstanding of what you're arguing over? That's a big shame.