The mother of transgender cyclist Emily Bridges has commented on British Cycling’s treatment of her daughter, simply saying “dumped by email”, after the national governing body’s decision to suspend its transgender policy pending review of the current system.
Yesterday, British Cycling released a statement saying the current system is “unfair on all women riders and poses a challenge to the integrity of racing”, and announcing they have suspended the transgender and non-binary participation policy.
The decision came a week after the UCI’s decision to bar Bridges from competing at the women’s British Omnium Championship, her first race as a woman. British Cycling had initially cleared the 21-year-old to race due to her testosterone levels being sufficiently low.
However, amid a backdrop of riders reportedly ready to boycott the event, British Cycling said Bridges could not compete because of the UCI’s intervention.
In reaction to the news of the suspended transgender policy, Sandy Sullivan, Emily’s mother posted on social media saying the national governing body had dumped her daughter by email.
Dumped by email
We’ve just received this in our in box
We will be making a statement at some point during the next 24 hrs pic.twitter.com/yXFhLHRHLq
— Sandy ??❤ ?️? Ally She/Her (@sullivansa1) April 8, 2022
Member of Scottish Parliament Karen Adam was one of the many to reply to the tweet, saying: “History will judge. Statements from orgs [organisations] like these are going to be the thing of shame and embarrassment to look back on.”
> Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges breaks silence to question “alleged ineligibility”
The largest network of LGBTQIA+ cyclists in the UK, PRiDE OUT, then released a statement accusing British Cycling of “bending to political pressure and cowing to the transphobic gender-critical movement”.
PRiDE OUT strongly believes in the inclusion of all trans people in cycling. Today’s shocking and disappointing announcement from British Cycling appears to be bending to political pressure and cowing to the transphobic gender-critical movement.
British Cycling’s decision to immediately suspend their current trans and non-binary participation policy, due to it being a fast-moving area of sports policy and scientific research doesn’t appear to make much sense. Assuming they have been in contact with the centres of excellence researching trans performance in sport, based at Loughborough and Brighton Universities, it raises the question where is the alleged fast-moving science coming from?
When British Cycling launched its first transgender and non-binary participation policy in October 2020, it was celebrated as ‘establishing the requirements for enabling participation and creating a welcoming and inclusive environment in cycling at all levels’. The policy was reviewed six months later, and following a comprehensive eight-month consultation period, a further update was issued in January 2022.
Simultaneously, in February 2021, British Cycling appointed a 12-strong panel of external members to form an external Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Group to hold British Cycling to account on matters like this. Therefore we are presuming they must have been consulted on the policy, and somehow collectively given their approval.
Why are we now in a situation where trans people appear to be banned from racing at an elite level in cycling, indefinitely? It also seems to put a question mark over the small number of trans people who are already participating in cycling sport, at non-elite level.
In a later tweet, PRiDE OUT added: “It does make you wonder if there is ingrained prejudice from some quarters of large cycling institutions.”
Boris Johnson joined the discussion this week, saying he does not “think that biological males should be competing in female sporting events”.
Admitting it was not an issue he expected to “consider in great detail”, the Prime Minister said: “I don’t think that biological males should be competing in female sporting events. And maybe that’s a controversial thing, but it just seems to me to be sensible.”
Johnson’s comments came on the same day the head of British Cycling’s Olympic and Paralympic programme signed a letter calling on the UCI to tighten its rules on allowing tansgender cyclists to compete in women’s events.
The letter addressed to UCI president David Lappartient was signed by “a group of retired Olympians, elite cyclists, scientists, researchers, and supporters of female cycling sport who wish to express our deep regret that it took a crisis situation to get us to the point where the UCI has admitted that rule 13.5.015 is ‘probably not enough’.”
Last weekend, Team GB’s 2008 Olympic gold medallist Nicole Cooke called on a separate category for transgender athletes, while retired pro Pippa York criticised the “toxic environment” surrounding the Bridges’ case, including “endless talk about trans women invading sport, taking girls’ places, erasing them, denying them a future… Framed as concerns, fairness, safety.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
78 thoughts on ““Dumped by email”: Mother of transgender cyclist Emily Bridges speaks out after British Cycling decision to suspend trans policy”
Quote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but nobody is banned from racing – as far as I understand you just need to abide by the rules.
“UCI’s decision to bar
“UCI’s decision to bar Bridges from competing at the women’s British Omnium Championship, her first race as a woman. British Cycling had initially cleared the 21-year-old to race due to her testosterone levels being sufficiently low.”
UCI has banned her from racing now she is taking hormones and is living as a woman. Also her testosterone is low so why on earth should she be expected to race against men?
I think the way forward will sadly have to involve a much greater passage of time before a transwoman is allowed to compete against cis women, and that will be frustrating for these young athletes who may miss their best years while waiting for Governing bodies’ approval. Whatever happens, it must be seen to be fair. Currently the situation is sadly not acceptable to many other competitors.
Also her testosterone is low
Ask her, she chose to race against men in February, and won. So another question is, why should women be expected to race against her?
The point is, this is her choice. She is not banned. That’s a very different situation from saying people are banned on the basis of gender identity.
Her testosterone is at or
Her testosterone is at or below the 5 nmol/L limit the UCI set for trans females. This is far far above the upper limit for biological females that operate in the 0.7 – 2 nmol/L range.
Even at that level of testosterone she competed against and beat biological males in February.
What BC have done is actually stand up for biological female athletes. I bet for more people are happy with this outcome than against it but in twitter world it won’t look that way. The virtue signalling will be deafening.
Although I do find it funny
Although I do find it funny that the same people who state that trans people are nobodies against men so only want to race against women, now use the “look how good they were against men” as an argument now.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
and, if transwomen are allowed to compete as the gender they ARE, and DONT do well, you have transphobes stating they must have deliberately thrown the competition.
you cannot win, because the transphobia isn’t rational. It’s, at its base, irrational “ick”
Yes, it’s called emerging
Yes, it’s called emerging evidence.
Emily raced against men in Feb and won. Maybe BC have taken a look at that and realised she’d have wiped the floor with her female competitors? Or maybe BC have realised that biological females have a right not to be competed against by biological males?
All this pearl-clutching and virtue signalling by the vociferous few just shows there’s a shitload of male entitlement out there.
So trans women can compete as
So trans women can compete as women unless they actually win (an incredibly rare occurance, in reality)? That kind of begs the question doesn’t it?
UCI and BC frame this as “protecting women from unfair competition” yet if we wanted to protect women cyclists we would abolish UCI and BC and replace them with bodies that had women athlethes’ interests at their heart.
Lest we forget, testosterone testing comes from a long history of dodgy pseudo-science and the athletics regulators are the ones who have held back women’s participation in sport for decades. These regulations are not coming from a good place and they are about continued subjegation of women in sport, as Doyle argues here: https://thesportspectacle.com/2016/08/16/capturing-semenya/
Caster Semenya is not trans,
Caster Semenya is not trans, she is intersex (DSD) so shouldn’t really be used to push the trans argument. Only 0.0018% are intersex.
I never said trans women can compete as long as they don’t win. My stance has always been trans women shouldn’t compete against non-trans women.
You’ll no doubt bring in “nuance” and say things like “it’s complicated” but the facts are that trans women carry quite a few advantages over non-trans women. Deny biology/science all you want but they are based on facts, not ideology.
Ramz wrote:
but if they DONT win, you have abhorrent transphobes deciding that they must have thrown the event in order to not draw attention. Or some other trolling nonsense.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
It’s difficult to argue with someone who slanders anyone who does not agree.
The situation you describe represents a perverse incentive. Whether or not a given competitor has yielded to that incentive is not the issue. So you can hold off asking for proof that so-and-so has deliberately performed sub-par (and you know such proof is almost impossible to provide, which is why you ask), and accept – since you have described it yourself – that the situation exists when you have transwomen competing against women. If you run a competitive sport in the face of obvious perverse incentives, there will always be questions asked.
If you think anything is
If you think anything is libellous, please point it out. I’ve, in my opinion, identified transphobic people from their transphobic written comments on here.
There is a perverse incentive you can find for any competitor to throw a competition. Gambling, for example.
When, with absolutely no evidence – none, not even an analysis of performance past and present to suggest an abnormal time, for example – an accusation is made that the competitor threw a race purely to avoid adverse publicity when there may not have been any at all, well, that’s quite a jump.
You keep stating “biological
You keep stating “biological females” yet cannot define that for anyone. Care to do so now?
you’ve had well over a month since first asked, so should,be trivial.
also, not virtue signalling. It’s about treating people who are women as women.
I’ll give you a clue. Emily
I’ll give you a clue. Emily Bridges is not a biological woman. Does that make it any clearer?
sparrowlegs wrote:
ill give you a clue. You sound EXACTLY as idiotic as this guy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/josh-hawley-gender-comments-trans-rights-b2052290.html
does that make it any clearer?
also, please provide proof of what a biological woman is. Then you can prove Emily isn’t. Whoops, you’re still stuffed there, aren’t you?
You’re still confusing gender
You’re still confusing gender with sex.
Nope, not at all.
Nope, not at all.
did you read the link?
oh, do you have any proof that the trans competitor threw the match deliberately? Or are you just going to spread malicious statements and then run away when called on them?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Isn’t it the case that it’s easy to define for the vast majority of women? Then there is a tiny proportion for whom it’s much more difficult, and where setting an exact definition which is fair to all is actually rather difficult?
Or perhaps you have the perfect answer already – in which case, please share.
Duncann wrote:
Shockingly it isn’t easy- which is the point.
What tends to happen is it’s a reductionist field day of misogynistic ideas usually revolving around the presence or otherwise of various reproductive organs.
for example, the entire GOP managed to fall into this exact issue despite saying it was easy to do…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/josh-hawley-gender-comments-trans-rights-b2052290.html
Well, in my world, a
Well, in my world, a biological woman has a cervix, ovaries, breasts, has the ability to be able to reproduce and have babies. Whereas a biological male does not have any of the above and cannot have babies. That seems pretty clear to me, and anyone else with common sense.
Unfortunately, unless you’re a lefty liberal woke, you cannot have eveything your own way in life, just because you want it.
biker phil wrote:
Okay, so women’s competitions should only be open to women who have had a successful pregnancy and haven’t reached menopause yet. To even it up a bit, the men’s competitions should only be open to men who’ve fathered at least one child.
It’s the way that he has
It’s the way that he has excluded the people who have had a full hysterectomy, or those who have had a double mastectomy, or indeed those infertile, from the definition of womanhood.
But wether or not it shows to him that simple definitions come with problems, I don’t know.
ktache wrote:
I shudder to think how he plans on categorising the junior teams
hawkinspeter wrote:
Possibly a system of tattoos and numbers, so he can ensure only approved people csn enter?
You say that like it’s a bad
You say that like it’s a bad thing! Meanwhile the world has chosen to identify itself with chips… No this is not Covid-era (over already!) paranoia but the ones we all bought in our phones which we use to publicise our “private” lives.
Anyway on the plus side it would stop solve all those criminal cyclists getting away with it because they can’t be identified.
chrisonatrike wrote:
absolutley – I wonder what phi would do for anyone who needs a hysterectomy though, or hits menopause. Does their chip get wiped?
Can’t find it now but read
Can’t find it now but read years back a classic on the difficulties that systems then had of keeping track of / representing an individual in data. Marginally relevant here because it went something like “Jenny Smith -> (growing up) -> Ms. Jennifer Smith -> (college) -> Dr. Jennifer Smith -> (marriage) -> Dr. Jennifer Jones / Mrs. Simon Jones -> (change of career) -> Revd. Jennifer Jones -> (divorce) -> Revd. Jen Smith -> (change of gender) -> Revd. John Smith -> (change of religion) -> Davider Singh -> (in politics) -> Hon. Davinder Singh, MP -> (enoblement) -> Lord Trent -> …”
Anyway I was forgetting, didn’t this all start from rules for higher-level competitions by a sporting organisation or something?
Again nothing to do with
Again nothing to do with competition or rights but a note that even in existing traditional category and labelling systems there are a possibly surprising range of options e.g. Spanish surnames (note that the paternal one comes first though – but the opposite order in Portugal) More of this here.
Absolutley – customer
Absolutley – customer management systems have a huge fun time of this. Keeping track is so difficult, even by assigning unique ID and having field history to track the change of identifiers.
And yeah, it’s quite the
And yeah, it’s quite the track from “this sport bsck tracked on years of consultation and implementation in a matter of hours” to posters claiming anyone withiut a uterus isn’t a woman.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Much has been made of comments such as [i]men have a penis, women have a uterus[/i], or comments in a similar vein regarding fathering or bearing children etc used as a definition of biological sex. Immediately shot down by the argument that that excludes women who have had a hysterectomy and so on.
Two things. Firstly I would agree that just because a woman has lost her uterus or whatever does not mean she is no longer a woman. Likewise a man who has lost whatever male sexual characteristics does not cease to be a man.
Secondly, regarding the original statements, they should say that, for example, all people who can bear children are women, but not all women can bear children. All people who can father children are men, but not all men can father children. I would have though that was understood, but neglecting the second part is no reason to shoot down the first.
I think much of the argument could be deflated by being more precise.
Maybe some Venn diagrams
Maybe some Venn diagrams would help? Although given we’re no longer talking about a static system they’d have to move. So maybe something like those pop-up books?
But that’s still rather
But that’s still rather insulting, is one of the main issues with cis-the men making that argument. That all that matters about a women is her reproductive capabilities.
misogyny is a thing.
ktache wrote:
And yet, trans activism is not fuelled primarily by childless, infertile or menopausal women fighting to be recognised and admitted to womanhood.
Sriracha wrote:
It’s the way that he has excluded the people who have had a full hysterectomy, or those who have had a double mastectomy, or indeed those infertile, from the definition of womanhood.
— Sriracha And yet, trans activism is not fuelled primarily by infertile or menopausal women fighting to be recognised and admitted to womanhood.— ktache
Maybe because (almost) no-one uses such a short-sighted definition of womanhood
Possibly so. Or possibly
Possibly so. Or possibly because women did not start the dispute in the first place.
Sriracha wrote:
…depending on how you define “women”
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say tomato, I say tomato…
But then simply define fruit.
But then simply define fruit…
“After looking at the
“After looking at the evidence that some ‘vegetables’ might be considered ‘fruit’, the complexities of bananas and plantains and the existence of the coconut we have decided that mostly it’s easier to stick with what we’ve got and accept the occasional hawaiian pizza.”
See, now you’ve got me
See, now you’ve got me thinking about mushrooms…
ktache wrote:
They’re definitely male right?
Oh no! You’ve brought sex
Oh no! You’ve brought sex into it, that gets even more complicated in fungi!
Or alternatively shows that human definitions and heuristics only go so far. Mind you I don’t particularly fancy fungi – on pizzas or most places outside of cheese so that’s fine.
Oh. My bad. Just presumed
Oh. My bad. Just presumed being funguys they’d be blokes
Well…
Well…
Sriracha wrote:
so the cis-women on the side of not being bigots don’t count?
But they are and have always
But they are and have always been women (unless of course they themselves do not wish to be defined in this manner). I was just pointing out how ill-defined his definition truly was, and would in fact remove quite a few women from competitive sport, especially the infertility thing. I have not really been commenting on the trans issue, and do not really have a defined opinion. Which for me is odd and not common. The best I can come up with it’s all very complicated, and over many years my mind may be changed in different ways.
But what I will say is that I don’t believe that there have been any large scale genetic analysis done on top athletes. But when you start to really look, there are some odd things that might start showing up.
biker phil wrote:
So to confirm you are a misogynist who reduces the gender of “woman” purely to the presence of certain reproductive organs and whether or not they can carry babies.
Yep, when I said you sound AS idiotic as the GOP senators above, I was wrong. You sound more.
Not born with cock and balls
Not born with cock and balls
sparrowlegs wrote:
That’s a bit of a stretch. What they appear to have done is thrown their hands up in the air and said ‘it’s too complicated – we give up’. It’s only fallen back to the current position by default, rather than by some definitive decision on their part. It’s a bit of a ‘plague on all your houses’ response.
mdavidford wrote:
Most rational people, especially competitive people, expect the regulation to be based on science which is based on evidence and logic. So where the regulation has failed is to make decisions in advance of the science.
We saw this dynamic in the Pandemic where the medicine regulator did not approve new vaccines for use in a population that had not been through a credible collection of pharmaceutical trials conducted and reviewed to industry standards. Thus it was only the scientifically ignorant who disputed the efficacy and safety of approved vaccines. In another country the politicians chose to conflate public health measures with personal freedom because it suited their agenda and their supporters are scientifically ignorant so can be influenced by opinion. Epidemiology is unknown to them.
BC should not take decisions without good science based on good data and practice. That doesn’t exist yet so finding a way to enable it in collaboration with ICU & IOC seems the logical next step. It’s sad that existing regulation is not yet fully inclusive but wrong to pretend that it can be based on incomplete or bad science. It’s certainly wrong to work on the basis of opinion and volume.
Problem is this is not a
Problem is this is not a debate, it’s a fight with several parties. And the problem is one of decision (categories and rules) and identity. So “science” is not going to help much. That just tells you what is (or what you measure), not what you might want to do about that.
chrisonatrike wrote:
British Cycling state “We administer the sporting calendars in all domestic cycle sport and oversee cycling’s development across all disciplines, helping to ensure those who want to race can do so in a competitive and compelling environment.”
So they need to decide what information their oversight requires to be credible, and what studies are needed to provide that information.
There are no shortage of UK sports science institutions who could deliver those studies and work with British Cycling to refine what should be studied. Doing that correctly is more important than doing it quickly if the result is to be credible.
A scientific approach is how hard problems are solved with openness and transparency. Thus reasonable people can see the evidence for themselves and be assured that the regulation is fair whilst consistent with the stated objectives..
I agree that using science to
Slight nit-pick – I agree that using science to tell us what the facts are – and make decisions more credible – is important. And from these threads it appears to be at least some of the required science is out there. Or we have an understanding of how and where to look. They should be doing that, indeed.
In the end though this controversy is (pinching someone else’s phrase) in the category of “predicament” and not “problem”. You don’t “solve” it, you make choices. Those may have better or worse consequences, for different people, short or longer term – and will change the shape of the future. The place of science is to inform those choices. I’d agree that it seems at least it can here.
I’m not sure what any of that
I’m not sure what any of that has to do with my comment about BC’s position or their handling of it, though. Did you reply to the wrong post?
I must admit that statement
I must admit that statement annoyed me. Screaming TERF or GC every time something doesn’t go your way actual undermines any further valid point you might make.
A more measured response pointing out that BC should have put together a road map and transition plan to a set of new rules would been better.
I just don’t buy the “if you have an issue with a tiny bit of trans representation” then you must be a trans eating monster line. Especially in something so niche as Elite level sport.
I think it’s more – they
I think it’s more – they spent literally years deciding the rules, and pull the plug in days? That level of frustration will come out as seemingly harsh and not entirely even handed.
Surely if you’re minded to
Surely if you’re minded to transition to the opposite sex, isn’t that the big thing in your life? Like, wouldn’t you expect your life to be different, including in ways you hadn’t foreseen? Would you really expect to transition *and* get to do all the stuff you used to do, in a having your cake and eating it sort of way?
Well I thought the whole
Well I thought the whole point was a) you feel bad to worse (see suicide stats) before transition. You may well be bullied as an oddball then too. b) You transition – although I note the “self-definition” debate I believe that for most trans people that isn’t an overnight thing. c) …and now you are definitely seen as odd by many people. You may be discriminated against in many situations or people may react with shock, horror or indeed lethal violence when they “realise”. d) If you had some positive thing in your life from “before”, I imagine you might well want to cling to that even more. But now you find you can’t go back and competing as you “now” the rules are confused about your new status.
Athletes being athletes – thus “people who do what others won’t” in pursuit of a goal – I’d hesitate to say “no-one would transition just to win competitions” but that is probably at most a minor thing.
So “it’s complicated” – there is no obvious way to change which won’t disadvantage someone. It’s clear that many involved see this as an existential right (or challenge to their rights).
British Cycling caved at the
British Cycling caved at the first oportunity even though Bridges appeared to have folllowed their rules for eligibility to race. In my opinion this is disgraceful.
Its the flippin job of governing to look after athletes welfare and BC have failed miserably in this case. Their actions are shocking and BC have been exposed for the spineless, heartless and selfish souls they are.
BC had plenty of reviews when coming up with the regulations for eligibility when they decided the rules. At the first sight of pressure they caved to public and private pressure. They should have said they would review the situation AFTER Bridges was allowed to compete.
Other posters have pointed out many LGBTQ+ people are subject to ridicule, bullying and worse, and BC through their actions are complicit in the latter.
capedcrusader wrote:
This
its a com0lete failing of leadership and safeguarding to bow to the transphobic bullies here.
capedcrusader wrote:
British Cycling didn’t cave as far as I can see, Bridges did appear to follow all the BC regulations, but it was the national championships and they are governed by the UCI, who said that Bridges didn’t comply in some way with their regulations. So that wasn’t on BC. They couldn’t allow Bridges to compete and then review the situation.
Had BC not changed course and decided to suspend their policy, Bridges could have competed in other races governed by BC and not the UCI….
capedcrusader wrote:
That is simply untrue and unfair, British Cycling were going to let Bridges race but the UCI said she couldn’t because she was still registered with them as a male athlete. Wherever one stands on the issue, ignoring the facts in the interest of name calling isn’t going to help anyone.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I could be wrong but the “caved” comment is I believe the fact that, after years of implementation, BC ripped up the rules in hours.
Hooray for real women’s sport
Hooray for real women’s sport.
A man who has had a sex change still has the muscularity of a man for a considerable period
Martina Navratolova gave an
Martina Navratolova gave an interview recently, she was talking about Lia Thomas but also about transgender rights generally. Here it is on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsl73twV1ZM
At about the 4 minute mark she suggests having an open category for everybody and onother category for biological females, something I’ve been saying for a while now (not that anybody takes any notice of me) but I’m glad that somebody in the public eye is making sensible suggestions.
Men shouldn’t be competing against women, we have an unfair advantage.
This has been suggested
This has been suggested several times. It does not address the issue, it’s just a fudge. The issue is that transwomen ARE women, at least in their view. If there is a women’s category then they want to be in it, obviously. Anything less impugns their identity. You can have your open category as well if you wish, but the issue remains unaddressed.
Any solution that has a women’s category which excludes transwomen hits the same problem. So the only other solution is to not have a women’s category, remove sex from the categorisation altogether, and maybe use some formula based on age, height, weight, whatever.
So now transwomen are not excluded from the women’s category because there is no women’s category from which to exclude them. However they lose the prize they sought – to be seen as women. What I call the dog-in-the-manger solution.
I wouldn’t say this is the
I wouldn’t say this is the “prize” per se – it’s more if you’re going to have categories based in gender, excluding people who are that gender is never going to loook good.
Gender or sex? They are 2
Gender or sex? They are 2 different things remember. People keep conflating the 2.
Not wanting to set everyone
Not wanting to set everyone off again but it would seem that the men’s side of it isn’t an issue (men / trans men) then? Or is this a tongue-in-cheek way of letting others see that this idea must lead to no “sex / gender” – based categories (yes – I think this is still being confused here) and thus as you suggest removing the thing that was being contested entirely?
Well, not really so tongue in
Well, yes, but not really so tongue in cheek.
Transwomen and women both say the same thing, they should compete against women only. Logically that requires everyone to believe that transwomen are women. You can’t force someone to believe an article of faith. The only solution is to eliminate the category of women.
You might say that leaves men and others, but that remains open to a charge from transmen, either that they are being discriminated against by being categorised as other than men, or that they are denied the right to participate competitively. So out with the category of men.
With the slate wiped clear, you then build a new category system based on some other parameters which don’t impinge upon anyone’s beliefs about sex or gender. At least, until someone contests those parameters.
Sriracha wrote:
OK. With a clean slate: two categories for competition:
!. Open. I.e. anybody can take part. Men women, transmen, transwomen and all the 57+ varieties I’ve missed out.
2. XX. I.e. only those with XX chromosomes can take part.
Remember, the reason we have women’s sport at all is to level the playing field.
FrankH wrote:
OK. With a clean slate: two categories for competition:
!. Open. I.e. anybody can take part. Men women, transmen, transwomen and all the 57+ varieties I’ve missed out.
2. XX. I.e. only those with XX chromosomes can take part.
Remember, the reason we have women’s sport at all is to level the playing field.— Sriracha
Will option 2 include men with Klinefelter syndrome (i.e. XXY chromosomes)?
FrankH wrote:
OK. With a clean slate: two categories for competition:
!. Open. I.e. anybody can take part. Men women, transmen, transwomen and all the 57+ varieties I’ve missed out.
2. XX. I.e. only those with XX chromosomes can take part.
Remember, the reason we have women’s sport at all is to level the playing field.— Sriracha
the main reason we have “womens sport” is becsuse women were excluded from the sports when they were first set up, so a crude binary split was sort-of ok to set up once society advanced to the point that excluding women was no longer something desirable to the majority
Your crude o-level/gcse understanding of sex as being chromosome based is just that – crude. It’s pretty damned inaccurate as a means of drawing a line between competitors.
I’m happy to be corrected on
I’m happy to be corrected on this. I don’t think that the 5 (units of testosterone) is a number that was meant to be taken as the level at which someone could participate in women’s sport. It seems that much of the argument is focussing on this number. I thought that number was taken, by some expert or another, because someone somewhere would need a reference number to say ‘you can be classed as a woman’ not necessarily a ‘sportswoman’. Anyone know the answer?
And Nicole Cooke is still
And Nicole Cooke is still right!
Is he still allowed to race
Is he still allowed to race other men?
Jimwill wrote:
Who? Boris Johnson, or David Lappartient?