The UCI has said that it recognises concerns around the participation of transgender athletes in its events and has “agreed to debate and take an eventual decision” at its next meeting in Glasgow. Previously cycling’s world governing body stated that its “rules are based on the latest scientific knowledge” but “will take into account all elements” when making its next policy decision.
After discussion around transgender participation rules went far beyond the endemic cycling audience following Austin Killips’ victory in the general classification at the UCI’s 2.2 event Tour of the Gila in New Mexico earlier this week, the UCI has come under fire by some parts of the media, and even some former athletes as well.
On Tuesday, the same day that Killips won, the UCI defended its policy by issuing the statement: “The UCI acknowledges that transgender athletes may wish to compete in accordance with their gender identity.
“The UCI rules are based on the latest scientific knowledge and have been applied in a consistent manner. The UCI continues to follow the evolution of scientific findings and may change its rules in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.”
> Austin Killips becomes first trans cyclist to win UCI women’s stage race
However, after the backlash that erupted from media outlets such as the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Fox News, the UCI said yesterday: “The subject of the participation of transgender athletes in international competitions was discussed at the UCI Management Committee meeting.
“The Management Committee decided to analyse the current situation by reopening consultation with the athletes and National Federations, and therefore agreed to debate and take an eventual decision at its next meeting, in Glasgow, in August.
“The UCI’s objective remains the same: to take into consideration, in the context of the evolution of our society, the desire of transgender athletes to practise cycling. The UCI also hears the voices of female athletes and their concerns about an equal playing field for competitors, and will take into account all elements, including the evolution of scientific knowledge.”
This marks a shift in the UCI’s stance with the body saying that it’s open to reconsider its policy, days after affirming that it stands by its current rules.
According to the UCI’s guidelines, trans women are allowed to compete in women’s competitions if their testosterone levels have been below 2.5 nanomoles per litre for at least 24 months. The average testosterone level for cis women is between 0.5 and 2.4 nanomoles per litre.
> British Cycling’s transgender and non-binary participation policy: a cyclist’s experience
Austin Killips passed rhe UCI’s tests, and was thus was entitled to participate at the New Mexico stage event. She credited her victory to the preparation, training and support from her team, Amy Foundation.
“It’s exciting. I’m over the moon about it. I structured my entire training block around it, so it feels good to have it come to fruition,” Killips said in an interview yesterday, also adding that it was “incredibly painful to be othered” and she couldn’t have done it without looking up to other trans athletes like Natalie van Gogh and Molly Cameron.
Although former athletes like tennis legend Martina Navratilova, former British Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and former cyclo-cross world champion Alison Sydor have spoken out against her participation in women’s cycling events, Killips has also received support from pro road cyclist Ayesha Rosena, Anna McGowan and US Olympic rower Kendall Chase.
Speaking after the stage, Killips’ directeur sportif said she was “really stoked” about the victory and pointed to the “perfect” work of the whole team to deliver the win, a view shared by the mother of Emily Bridges — the British transgender cyclist who was barred from competing at the women’s British Omnium Championship after British Cycling’s last-minute suspension of its transgender policy.
Bridges’ mother said Killips won Tour of the Gila “because [the] tactics of the team worked”. “Anybody/everybody involved in cycling at an elite level knows that a GC win is always as a result of support of teammates,” she wrote on Twitter. “Fab team ride. And great GC win.
“All the people rocking up who mysteriously and suddenly have an interest in women’s cycling. As Julie states (and those involved in elite cycling know), Austin’s GC victory was a result of a concerted team effort that came together. What a fab result.”
13 thoughts on “UCI to make “eventual decision” on transgender policy in August and will “take into account all elements” of heated debate”
Wow, another bloke wins in a
Wow, another bloke wins in a women’s event
On the bright side, at least
On the bright side, at least now that blokes are dominating women’s sport the cash prizes are the same value.
Trans women are women, and
Trans women are women, and trans rights are human rights. The UCI should ensure that trans people are respected and protected, not bow to the UK’s hate brigade pushing their repulsive views. Cycling and the UCI will find itself irrelevant and ignored by younger generations unless it understands the importance of inclusiveness.
Trans women have been through
Trans women have been through male puberty and biological development, and have an unfair advantage over “cis” women. This is scientifically proven, and anecdotally demonstrated by athletes who failed in men’s events but are podium-level competitors in the women’s field.
Sport will find itself irrelevant and ignored by younger generations of women unless it understands that the importance of basic biology and fairness take precedence over some transwomen’s (rather stereotypically male) wishes to assert themselves over women.
Anyone should be free to dress how they like, call themselves what they like, and behave according to whatever socially-determined gender norms they like. But that doesn’t circumvent the brute fact that there are biological males and biological females and a tiny number of intersex people: everyone is fixed before birth as one of those, and is therefore not one of the other categories.
I’ve been through “male
I’ve been through “male puberty and biological development” and I definitely don’t have an unfair advantage over any of the women in that race. I’d bet a substantial sum every single one of them would beat me to the line.
paulnettles wrote:
Well yeah, me too. But I’m currently doing more running than cycling, and my no-more-than-moderately-good race times would see me winning or in the places in women’s races for my age group. Talentless men like me shouldn’t be permitted to take the rewards, at any level, intended for women who have trained hard for a shot at winning.
Have a look at your most
Have a look at your most recent ride/run on Strava.
Choose a segment at random, check your ranking in the male category then look where you’d rank in the female category.
Then realise that you have a significant advantage.
paulnettles wrote:
That’s because you’re comparing yourself, and average male presumably, to the absolute top women.
If you don’t understand why that comparison is invalid, you need to study population distributions.
?. Yeah right. Women deserve
?. Yeah right. Women deserve to be protected by real men in every aspect
Fake, current craze will soon be crushed by the backlash
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Women “deserve to be protected? By “real men”? Perhaps you’re suggesting this will be “crushed by the backlash” … from the 19th century?
Never mind the trans question, it sounds like feminism is still a novelty in some quarters.
alexcr wrote:
However much we’d like to let this be true, the physiological reality is that it is not quite true. While in 99.999% of things in life the difference doesn’t matter, there happen to be the odd cases where it does matter. And “Who has the best physiology?” is a prime example.
Someone who developed as male, with male sex hormones, has intrinsic physiological advantages to someone who developed (almost entirely) without those, but with female hormones instead. If the person went through puberty, the differences are _vast_.
That someone with a physiology that would have them mid-pack at national category, or lower, in the male category of the physiology they developed with; can then go compete in the female category – with much of their male performance advantage intact – and suddenly be competitive at elite international level – even world-beating, is *not a fair, or equitable outcome*.
There is *no* human rights or fairness outcome that is served by allowing someone borne and developed with mediocre male physiology, to become world-class in the women’s category.
It is simply allowing *retained* , vestigial _male privilege_ to trump women’s rights.
Someone who had NO CHANCE of being a top-performing athlete, given their developmental physiology compared to others who developed with similar sex hormones, does NOT lose anything by being prevented from using their male-retained advantage to compete against women.
alexcr wrote:
Edited to what is common knowledge amongst the vast majority of men and women
Five hundred years ago it was
Five hundred years ago it was common knowledge that the sun revolved around the earth. How did that work out?
And 150 years ago it was common knowledge that black people were genetically inferior in every sense to white people. Wow, that argument really stood up for itself.
You’ll all learn, the hard way if necessary, that trans people are here to stay.