Update: On 5 August USA Cycling, responding to a request for comment from road.cc, claimed that Leia Genis was ineligible to compete at last week’s Track National Championships – where she took second place in the women’s individual pursuit before being stripped of her silver medal and removed from competition less than 24 hours later – as she had failed to provide the UCI with the documentation required to race in the Elite Women’s category.
The national governing body pointed out that Genis’ earlier participation in non-elite events fell under USA Cycling’s Policy VII Non-Elite Competition guidelines for transgender athletes, which allows competitors to self-select their gender (according to these guidelines, members are also able to file a grievance “in the event that a question should arise about a member’s eligibility to participate in a manner consistent with their gender”).
However, by upgrading to compete in the elite women’s category, USA Cycling says that Genis then became subject to the policies and regulations of the UCI and International Olympic Committee (IOC).
As noted in the original article below, the UCI’s new rules on transgender cyclists – which came into effect on 1 July – stipulate that athletes transitioning from male to female must demonstrate that their testosterone levels have been below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months.
According to USA Cycling, Genis did not provide the UCI with the required documentation to upgrade to elite level and, when a review was carried out during last week’s track championships, had not completed the “required steps” to meet the eligibility criteria.
In a statement provided to road.cc, USA Cycling said: “At the 2022 USA Cycling Elite & Junior Track National Championships, a transgender woman, Leia Genis, registered for several Elite Women’s events.
“Ms. Genis was made aware of the UCI’s Transgender Policy in March 2022 and her responsibilities in complying with this policy. At the time, Ms. Genis was participating in non-elite categories and fell under USA Cycling’s Policy VII Non-Elite Competition guidelines.
“Ms. Genis subsequently upgraded but did not provide the UCI with the necessary documents to race in the Elite Women’s category.
“When USA Cycling discovered that Ms. Genis was participating in the event, a representative from the organization met with Ms. Genis to review her eligibility in accordance with the UCI’s policy.
“This review revealed that Ms. Genis was ineligible to participate in the championships as she had not completed the required steps to meet the UCI’s Athlete Eligibility Regulations. As a result, USA Cycling refunded Ms. Genis’ registration fees, vacated her event results, and removed her from further events at the 2022 USA Cycling Elite & Junior Track National Championships.
“USA Cycling supports transgender athletes’ participation in sport and was one of the first national governing bodies to adopt an inclusive transgender athlete policy.”
The original article appears below:
A silver medallist in the women’s individual pursuit at last week’s USA Cycling Elite Track National Championships has accused the governing body of “transphobia” after being stripped of her medal and removed from competition less than 24 hours later.
Leia Genis finished second in the women’s elite individual pursuit, behind Bethany Matsick, at last week’s national championships in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. However, the next day both of the bronze medal race participants, Skyler Espinoza and Elizabeth Stevenson, were upgraded to second and third respectively, and Genis removed from the results list.
Writing on Instagram alongside a picture of her standing on the podium next to Matsick and Espinoza, with a silver medal around her neck, Genis said the “transphobia” behind USA Cycling’s decision was “so blatant it’s almost laughable”.
“Being a trans woman in this sport is so incredibly frustrating,” Genis said. “Poorly-communicated guidelines, restrictions and requirements that are constantly changing, lack of empathy from USA Cycling, and a peloton full of furtive whispers and sideways glances mean that even showing up to compete is an immense struggle.
“I am obviously heartbroken. I have worked my ass off to be here and I rightfully earned my silver medal. I will continue to train and race but this experience has left me disgusted and abhorred.”
Genis also explained the events which saw her pulled from competition ahead of the next day’s events.
“I was preparing for the mass-start races, a USA Cycling official informed me that I was no longer allowed to compete and that my place on the IP [individual pursuit] podium was to be revoked on account of my trans identity,” Genis continued.
“Six weeks ago I was eligible for competition at UCI C1 and C2 races held at the same velodrome and overseen by the same technical director. Yet six weeks later, now that I am doing well at nationals, I am suddenly ineligible to compete. The transphobia is so blatant it’s almost laughable.”
Genis also took the opportunity to congratulate Matsick, who set a new track record in qualifying, on her “incredibly fast times”.
USA Cycling remained silent on the decision in the days following the championships, with no comment other than to remove mention of Genis from the opening day’s results.
While the governing body has since responded to road.cc’s request for comment (see update above), questions remain surrounding why Genis, seemingly ineligible to compete under the tightened UCI rules, was allowed to race the event before being told.
From July 1, new UCI rules on transgender female cyclists competing in women’s races came into effect, doubling the time an athlete transitioning from male to female needs to wait before being able to compete in women’s races to 24 months.
It now stipulates that athletes transitioning from male to female need to have had testosterone levels below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months. Previously, the rules required testosterone levels below 5 nmol/L for 12 months.
According to the athlete’s Instagram, Genis began racing last year.
“Unfortunately, not everyone is happy to see a trans person racing,” she said at the time.
“Many of which have expressed their disapproval quite loudly. But there have also been many supporters and honestly, I’ve had so much fun, they couldn’t keep me away if they tried.”
In March, British-based racer Emily Bridges was barred from making her racing debut as a woman at the National Omnium Championships. British Cycling said that the UCI had intervened to say Bridges “is not eligible to participate in this event”.




















139 thoughts on “USA Cycling accused of “transphobia” after individual pursuit medallist stripped of national championships medal”
<pulls up a comfy chair and gets a bag of popcorn>
Popcorn is female in terms of
Popcorn is female in terms of plant biology. But macsuline in French language. Can you choose an easier one please.
NPlus1BikelightsNJerseys
Even more confusingly, I’ve seen evidence of transplants in hospitals
hawkinspeter]
The French are years ahead of us in this matter. Vagina translates into le (and not la) vagin.
No, even though I’ve looked
No, even though I’ve looked really hard for a long time I just can’t see anything odd about this photo.
No helmets?
No helmets?
Yeah, that’s pretty
Yeah, that’s pretty disgusting. You don’t let someone compete, do well, then decide they’re doing too well and humiliate them.
Utterly odious
waiting for the usual gender critical transphobes to turn up and make this into their usual dumpster fire.
I’m not surprised there’s
I’m not surprised there’s immediately an accusation that somebody who doesn’t share the same view is “transphobic”.
But.. but.. BiOloGY*
But.. but.. BiOloGY*
nosferatu1001 wrote:
It does not look good, does it? However, if they wrongly allowed her to race under the new UCI rules then whatever one thinks of said rules it is right that the error should be corrected, isn’t it? If that is the case then it’s not a case of deciding someone’s doing too well and then humiliating them, it’s a case of making a mistake about eligibility and correcting it. They should be issuing an abject apology to the woman in question and holding an enquiry into how it was allowed to happen, but if somebody has won a medal in a race for which by the UCI rules she was not eligible it is surely unfair on the racers she beat to allow the result to stand.
You are making out like this
You are making out like this was some nefarious scheme they hatched to humiliate her. It wasn’t it was clearly a mistake that they have corrected. Its not nice for her but is it any fairer to let the result stand. What about the 3rd/4th place riders who should have been 2nd/3rd?
There is no fair wait to fix a mistake like this.
They will probably learn from this so it doesn’t happen again.
There are, however, dignified
There are, however, dignified ways to handle this
Pretending she never existed is absolutely not it.
I don’t see what the issue is
I don’t see what the issue is here.
A recently updated rule was correctly applied which meant the biological female competitors were rightly given the placings they should have.
Biology 1 Ideology 0.
There are primarily two
There are primarily two issues:
-the sporting body (once again) having unclear/shifting rules and poor communication, that unnecessarily aggrevate the issue
-a pile on by people with a broader agenda, in either direction, with mudslinging, abusive language etc.
FWIW, I work professionally with a parellel issue – single sex prisons and refuges. People pile on with an opinion on whether trans people should be allowed into single sex spaces like these without considering the implications for the rights (and safety) of other people already in these places.
sparrowlegs wrote:
srop spouting your lies. You know full well that your idea of “biology” is so simplistic it’s laughable.
geneticists say you’re wrong
You’re just hoping that by saying often enough your transphobic attitude won’t show through
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Hahaha! Here we go, blah blah
Hahaha! Here we go, blah blah blah.
What you have linked to isn’t proof, it’s propaganda. You know it and so does everyone else. You’re argument is paper thin and getting weaker.
Remember all those weeks/months ago how I predicted what has happened will come to pass? The names you called me, the pearl clutching etc etc.
Thanks to people like Leah Thomas, Fallon Fox, Emily Bridges et al, all they’ve done is prove the gap exists between the biological sexes. No blurred lines, no “close enough”, just clear, irrefutable proof.
Not long ago, the average person such as I didn’t really have a view on transgender rights as such. It wasn’t harming anyone and seemed the right thing to do. Yes, transgender people should have the right to live as the gender they choose and with it the rights associated.
Then, biological men started to erode the rights of biological women on the sporting front. Stood there on the podiums of various sporting activities were biological men that had been bestowed gifts that biological women could only dream to have, or at least could get somewhere near with the use of performance enhancing drugs. An ideology was hoping to crush biology and with it, the rights of biological women to compete fairly. Dreams were being shattered. It’s then that the average people like me thought “nah, fuck this shit, something needs doing about this”.
And that, dear Nosferatu1001 is where we find ourselves today.
Well said. Could you imagine
Well said. Could you imagine if, say, Usain Bolt was still competing? And decided to compete as a woman? Would that be fair? Or if Mike Tyson had decided to compete as a woman? How many people would be comfortable and think it was fair to watch him ‘her’ batter shit out of a woman?
If people want to say they’re a different gender, fair play, it’s their choice. But they should not be allowed to compete in sports against anyone other than other trans athletes.
I would be very interested in seeing results from trans men competing against biological men.
This nonsense has gone too far, as always the very vocal minority cannot respond with anything other than nasty threatening bile, spouting the usual ‘Transphobe, TERF’ etc etc etc.
Nosferatu is the perfect example of this woke ideology, whereby anyone with a view different to theirs are viciously attacked and shut down. Little does he/she/they/them know the damage they’re doing to their cause. This madness will go full circle and will ruin it for the trans people.
I await a bigoted angry response complete with name calling from Nosferatu, who seems to be an angry homophobe, which will prove my point completely
biker phil wrote:
Despite what the more hysterical sections of the press say, I’ve yet to see a serious trans advocate say that a man should be able simply to say “I’m a woman” and go straight into competition. You can disagree that a man who’s undergone testosterone-lowering treatment is sufficiently reduced in performance to compete fairly with women (I have no view on this, or rather my views seem to change day to day) but strawmen such as “do you want Mike Tyson to be allowed to start fighting women” don’t really help matters, nobody is advocating that.
That’s what they wanted or at
That’s what they wanted or at least were aiming for. Self-identification, no hormonal manipulation, no body modification.
But that’s exactly what could
But that’s exactly what could happen?
No, it’s sufficient evidence
No, it’s sufficient evidence to anyone with the ability to understand. With every post you confirm your incapable or unwilling to understand. Your lies keep coming, your mysogynism keeps showing, etc.
Youre a transphobic person who doesn’t have the slightest clue about what defines a “biological woman” and you know it. You’re just hoping that by you repeating your bullshit that people will somehow think you’re at all credible, as opposed to a sad, sad individual full of hate.
Mmm, and yet it seems that
Mmm, and yet it seems that more and more sporting bodies are agreeing with me…
On your idea of what a
On your idea of what a “biological woman” is? No. No they’re not.
little transphobic troll, sub-gcse level of understanding of genetics.
Have you ever posted without
Have you ever posted without resorting to nasty jibes or calling someone Transphobe?
biker phil wrote:
yes. Next inane question from a transphobe who doesn’t understand biology nor the term “woke” which means, at heart, anti p-fascist. But then it turns out you think glorifying slave traders is a good thing so hey. Turns out you’re pretty abhorrent all round
oh, and JK didn’t just get pilloried for that one pretty awful mysogynistic statement, never mind age-ist, but the continuing attacks on trans peopl at seemingly every turn. One of the reasons no one was willing to buy a complete signed first edition set of HP. Because she’s an awful human being.
Can you send me the link to
Can you send me the link to the signed books please?
If you think a man is a woman
If you think a man is a woman because he decides he is a she, then you my dear don’t understand biology.
Let’s say I now identify as a cat. Am I correct in thinking that according to the way your mind works, my bosses will have to look after my needs, treat me as a cat and provide milk, Kittikat and a litter tray at work?
biker phil wrote:
As long as you don’t run up any vetinary bills straight away I think the bosses could be won over by the economic advantage. Although I guess you’d then have justification for not showing up when expected.
Or to take you literally – you don’t see women as humans? Or to stretch analogies in other odd directions if you said you were orthodox jewish / muslim one day (if not already) and requested changes to the canteen / staff food storage space would your bosses be justified in demanding that you attend a bar/bat mitzvah or recite the shahada on the spot? (Maybe that one works better with jewish / catholic – both also being linked with parentage as well as belief).
biker phil wrote:
Yawn. Nice that you compare women to cats. Says a lot about you
most transphobes are mysogynistic at heart. They don’t usually let it show so quickly.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
the term “woke” which means, at heart, anti p-fascist.— nosferatu1001
Seems like the most strident on all sides of the argument are bandying the term around without any real grasp of its meaning.
Something of a stretch to convert that into ‘anti-fascist’.
I might have known Nosferatu
Here we go. Strap yourself in. Everyone who thinks this is the correct decision according to UCI rules will be labelled a transphobe.
Without getting into the
Without getting into the ideological discusses I think calling this decision transphobic is similar to calling the recent Bronze medal decision in the Para Commonwealth games Para-phobic (or what ever the correct term is).
Its a shitty application of bureaucracy that may have an outcome that appears trans/paraphobic – but it fundamentally nothing more than the existing rules being applied in a very poor and non-transparent way.
Its rude, insulting, and hurtful to the athletes involved and they deserve apologie and to be managed and informed better – but its not in itself xxxx-phobic.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Wasn’t that more math-phobic?
brooksby wrote:
Triskaphobic, no?
Quote:
That’s the thing. I’m not going to address the alleged transphobia of the UCI, but that right there is some really sh!tty communication regardless of anything else
Two things:
Two things:
1. If someone’s ineligible to compete, their entry should be refused, rather than corrected retrospectively.
2. Clearly there are trans women who want to compete in various sports. Maybe it’s appropriate for them to compete with women, maybe it’s not – I’m not going to judge that one – but it is unreasonable to stop them competing full stop. Do we need a third category, for trans (and intersex maybe) competitors, alongside male and female categories? Or perhaps we should abandon sex-based categories and group people by past performances or something? Probably no one solution suits all events and all sports.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
There are already categories that trans athletes are perfectly entitled to compete in if they meet the qualification standards, one that transwomen can enter and one that transmen can enter.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Do you not see the problem with that simplistic analysis? Trans people are not prevented from competing, just so long as they don’t compete in the category they cleave to. That’s the whole issue, the category. Telling transwomen to compete in a category that is not women is telling them they’re not women. So now you are going to have to judge that one after all instead of dodging the question.
Someone will have to make
Someone will have to make that judgment, as long as we have two gender categories, but it’s going to be a UCI (or USA Cycling, or Olympic Committee, or whatever as appropriate) official. I’m certainly not qualified to make that decision!
Edit: It’s not just “is this person a woman?” of course, but there are also trans men, non-binary and inter-sex people. It all makes a previous generation of competitive decisions such as “Is this person entitled to play for the Faero Islands because their great-grandfather spent a winter there having his boat repaired?” seem quite simple and non-controversial!
Bmblbzzz wrote:
My grandmother was a woman – do I qualify? Come to think of it both were…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Only if at least one was also a tricyclist!
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Older folks like me will remember the amateur/professional transition, especially in athletics, where people would be thrown off the Olympic team because it transpired they’d accepted a £1 book token as a prize in a race when they were fifteen.
The Rugby Football Union were
The Rugby Football Union were banning players of Rugby League as late as 1993 even if they hadn’t been paid to play or without proof of payment and all despite disclosure of boot money and NZ player endorsements in RU.
muhasib wrote:
Yep, Union (which was/is very much one of my sports as both former player and current spectator) behaved with staggering hypocrisy towards League players at a time when a club like Quins would have half the roster “working” in city jobs for which they showed up as much as a day a fortnight, coincidentally all jobs supplied by the club’s sponsors and affiliates.
Why do we have a seperate
Why do we have a seperate race for women at all? Why not just have a “human” category and call it a day?
That would be a massive regression for womens’ participation in sport, because in a lot of disciplines they could never hope to compete on the elite level. The fastest womens’ 100 metre run was 10.49s, almost a full second (10%!) slower than Usain Bolt’s record. The UK’s under-17 boys’ record is 10.42.
Without having a large amount of data, it’s impossible to make statistical analyses. But it does seem to be that there are several cases of transwomen performing at a top level in womens’ sport, to an extent that seems to indicate that they’re overrepresented – and thus likely have a physical advantage.
“Telling transwomen to compete in a category that is not women is telling them they’re not women.” How do you define “cleave”? Because, if it was a question of simply saying that they identify as a woman, that’s a very easy way for a 2nd rate mens’ athelete to have a shot at the big leagues. Given all the doping that goes on, do you really think they wouldn’t?
What you’re suggesting is potentially excluding women from birth from elite sport. How very progressive of you.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Because, the world is not black and white. Transwomen self-identifying in sport conflicts with female participation in sport. When people get called TERFs by simpletons declaring that there is no such conflict, it actually makes people more inclined to go full JK and take a hardline position.
What is needed is evidence led, careful consideration. Not identity politics.
I agree they should be
I agree they should be refused entry. However, many people are scared to refuse them entry as they know they will be targeted by the hate brigade and any reasonable comments shut down.
People go on about the UK being freedom of speech. Never has that been in jeopardy as much as it is currently. We are all but living in a dictatorship thanks to the woke brigade, who police what people say and cancel them if their views differ. For example, look at what the trolls and wokes have done to JK Rowling and Sharron Davies? Disgusting behaviour by the wokes.
biker phil wrote:
Have you reached the top of that hyperbole yet?
biker phil wrote:
I just don’t understand why people use ‘woke’ as some kind of insult/negative. Surely ‘woke’ is just recognising that our society has had racism and sexism baked into it for centuries and we should move beyond that. It’s like complaining that World War II was just some ‘woke’ campaign against the poor innocent Nazis.
Also, which people think that the UK has freedom of speech? Presumably people that don’t know history or haven’t heard of Spycatcher.
Honestly, I’ve come to the conclusion that people who love to drop ‘woke’ into conversations are some kind of Fox News watching/Daily Mail reading idiots that don’t really understand the concepts behind treating people as people.
hawkinspeter wrote:
When someone in the running to be our next PM can unblushingly say that “people who vilify the UK” will be put on the Prevent deradicalisation programme it’s clear that if we did have it we won’t keep it for long at the current rate of “progress”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That highlights an important aspect of ‘Freedom of Speech’ – it’s to do with government control of speech. If a government restricts certain topics, then that’s definitely infringing freedom, whereas if people decide to stop using certain loaded words (e.g. ‘spaz’), then that’s just people conforming to social norms. Breaking social norms will turn large numbers of people against you, but breaking governmental speech laws puts you in prison.
Yeah – that was concerning.
Yeah – that was concerning. A move in the direction of “Insulting Turkishness”. Although I keep in mind this is just a contest to win over the swivel-eyed loons (as some from the same party affectionately refer to them as).
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for proving my point.
biker phil wrote:
I’m not really understanding what your point is.
Was it that I am somehow preventing you from expressing yourself? Or is it just that I disagree with what you are saying?
BINGO!
BINGO!
Racism, sexism and Nazi’s.
All you needed was slavery and you’d have had a full house.
I love how as soon as you get someone disagreeing with you it goes straight to the “people that usually disagree with me are sexists/racists/Nazi/slavers”.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Was Biker Phil disagreeing with me? I don’t recall posting a comment here that he was addressing, so I think you’ll find that I was disagreeing with Biker Phil’s usage of the word ‘woke’ which is just bandied around as some kind of right-wing dog whistle. Isn’t the entire point of ‘woke-ism’ to avoid the past horrors of sexism/racism/Nazism and slavery?
I think you’ve mischaracterised me with your straw-man approximation of my posts – for more information, please re-read.
You linked Biker Phil’s use
You linked Biker Phil’s use of the word woke to Nazis. You know what you were doing, where you were going with it. It’s your default position.
sparrowlegs wrote:
So you admit that your previous statement about Biker Phil disagreeing with me was false and disingenuous, then?
Can you be clearer about what you perceive to be my ‘default position’? I’m curious as to how you’re interpreting my many thousands of posts.
So you admit you were
So you admit you were comparing Biker Phil’s use of the word woke with people that are racist, sexist, Nazi sympathisers?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Personally, I think that the use of the word ‘woke’ is misguided as it’s a word that seems poorly defined and it’s typically used in a divisive manner. It’s far better to be more specific rather than carelessly use such a blanket term. Similarly, people who describe themselves as ‘woke’ are also guilty of using it as some kind of membership card, although I suppose it’s used to signify an attitude than anything specific.
I wasn’t trying to pigeonhole Biker Phil into any particular label, but was pointing out that his choice of words wasnt making his point clear and certain words do get associated with political leanings. If you like, I was questioning the message, but not the messenger (I’m pretty sure I’ve agreed with him on many previous topics).
The problem is that by people throwing divisive terms into a discussion, it muddies the water and a sensible debate ends up with people just making declarations of their beliefs and not engaging with the ideas that are being discussed. I’d like to refer you to Rowan Atkinson’s fine speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU
What we need is more discussions about how society treats minorities and not just shoe-horn opinions into ‘woke’/’anti-woke’ boxes.
Interesting. You seem to take
Interesting. You seem to take a little umbrage to my use of the word woke, a term used by wokes, and ‘invented’ by them. But then you post a link to Rowan Atkinsons fine speech which I have watched many times in the past.
I am exercising my rights and freedom of speech to use the same term used by the people themselves.
So I’m a little confused why you initially questioned my post. Especially to refer to me as a Fox News, Daily Mail idiot?
I am neither a watcher of Fox News, nor a reader of the Daily Mail.
Nor am I an idiot either my friend. I am of an age where I look around me and see what the vocal minority groups are doing in their quest for…..I don’t know what they’re trying to achieve.
To end your post by assuming I am an idiot who doesn’t understand treating people as people. Well that sums up the wokes completely, doesn’t it? They don’t like history, good or bad, we learn from it. So they pull statues down. They don’t like people being uncomfortable with biological men competing against and beating biological women in competition, so we’re all labelled as transphobic. The wokes made famous by JK Rowling didn’t like her stating only women have wombs, so they set about relentlessly destroying her.
My head is hurting.
biker phil wrote:
I assume you’re referring to the Colston statue in Bristol. The entire point of pulling down the statue was AFAIK to recognise history and that Colston’s riches and philanthropy were the result of the slave trade. It was a failure of the democratic process that it wasn’t removed previously (The Merchant Venturers had a part to play in that) but it was a literal monument to profiting from human misery.
Yes. Good or bad, it is
Yes. Good or bad, it is history. There are much worse countries than this for the treatment of slaves. Many towns and cities in this country would not exist if it were not for slave traders building schools etc, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. But it is history.
How many universities have benefitted from slave traders bequests? Many who have educated the very people who want to destroy them, I suspect.
Are these people also boycotting Japanese products because of Pearl Harbour? No.
Are they boycotting chinese products because of Chinas human rights record? No.
Are they boycotting German products because of Hitler? No. Just look at any road and count the Audis, BMWs, VWs etc.
So anything bad in the past must be destroyed? Are the people who don’t like the history of, Colston, for example Holocaust deniers too? No.
Using Colston as an excuse is just that, an excuse.
We cannot erase parts of history that certain soft people don’t like. It is history and we learn from it.
biker phil wrote:
That’s just a ridiculous attempt at a straw-man argument or possibly you don’t understand the inherent differences.
Bad stuff did happen in the past and we have to recognise that and move on, but to have a statue celebrating the generosity of a slave trader and to put it on a plinth right in the middle of Bristol is clearly in bad taste at the very least. To then have an unelected group of wealthy Merchant Venturers thwart attempts to either remove the statue or put a plaque to recognise the historical facts, is yet another insult.
I’m pretty sure that a similar attitude would be applied to any German town that erected a statue of Hitler, proclaiming his greatness. Would you agree with such a statue?
As an aside – Berlin does keep plenty of historical artefacts around and they are very informative. The East Side Gallery is a remaining portion of the Berlin Wall, though it’s now covered in art/graffiti; there’s remaining guard towers and Checkpoint Charlie is still there in the middle of a street.
biker phil wrote:
I personally won’t go to Germany because of all the statues they have up in public places celebrating the life of Hitler, it’s a disgrace. Wouldn’t bother you though, I presume, because “Good or bad, it is history” and “we can’t erase parts of history that certain soft people don’t like.” Have a word with yourself, for heaven’s sake.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I thought they’d removed most of the Nazi relics from public view, but apparently not: https://forward.com/news/481412/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-germany/
Surprising in one sense given
Surprising in one sense given sensitivities over the last few decades. Maybe not though considering the history. After WW2 most of the Nazis were still left and to make the bureacracy work most had to remain in post or be recalled to positions of authority. After all the Nazi state had over a decade to establish itself.
Rendel better not travel too far – might be shocked as I was in e.g. South Korea.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yeah, it predates the Nazis and originally had a peaceful meaning.
Just seen from the Wikipedia page that “similar shaped swastikas were seen in United States postcards wishing people good luck in the early 1900s”.
Just seen that the swastika was used as part of Carlsberg’s logo until the 1930s when it became associated with Nazism and Carlsberg quickly dropped it.
Rendel better not travel too
Rendel better not travel too far – might be shocked as I was in e.g. South Korea
Well, unless your image has undergone reflection, that one isn’t the Nazi swastika- although both clockwise and anticlockwise types appear in East Asian religions
I use the word ‘woke’ not as
I use the word ‘woke’ not as a ‘right wing dog whistle’ because it is the wokes who are destroying our sports, history, what we can say, do etc. Are wokes using the word Transphobe as a ‘left wing dog whistle’ then?
In Woke World, anything which goes against their views is met with angry threats and name calling. I have seen this first hand with a nephew, who used to be funny, easy going and laid back. Now, due to his work environment, he has turned woke and is a completely different person now. He is difficult to converse with, he’s become a very angry person. He slags off anyone who disagrees with him, it’s his way or the highway. He openly admits that he and his wife are woke, and uses that word himself. So is he wrong to describe himself as woke? If that is what he is?
There is no reasoned discussion with wokes, it’s their view or woe betide you.
Their stance should not be to slag people off for stating that it is unfair to put biological males against biological females and call them transphobic, just as they shouldn’t cancel people such as JK Rowling for stating that women have wombs. Woke is another word for bully.
biker phil wrote:
Your definition of woke is wrong. It’s more about having a bit of empathy towards people who are often bullied and marginalised by the right wingers who rule and control the media in this country. That’s my opinion, there are others.
biker phil wrote:
Well, you don’t seem to like ‘woke’ people. Can you provide a good definition of ‘woke’?
I can’t really comment on your nephew at all.
There’s a problem with using the terms ‘biological male/female’ in that it implies a simplistic view of human biology – a better choice of phrase is ‘assigned male/female at birth’ as that doesn’t carry the false notion that people have one ‘true’ gender. Using those terms is not by itself transphobic, but it does imply that the person using it holds some transphobic views or is uneducated about the subject.
I’m not aware of the specifics of JK Rowling’s woes, but defining women in terms of possession of a womb seems a peculiar stance to take. It’s not even a visible characteristic, so not a good choice to base sports categories on.
My interpretation of the problem is that we have an archaic division of sports into male/female and there’s difficult trade-offs to be made to include as many people as possible. However, the very nature of sport is unfair so I think we’d be better off creating categories based on height/weight/power etc. which are easy to measure and agree on.
‘Assigned male or female at
‘Assigned male or female at birth’? Good grief, it’s not a lucky dip!
There is no false notion, you are either male or female. Fact. What you choose to be is a completely different thing.
To clear things up a little, a woman is an adult female.
JK Rowling was lynched in 2020 for stating that ‘a person who menstruates’ is called a woman. And she is still being pilloried for it by the trans brigade.
I don’t agree with your last point. To me there should be three categories.
Men, women, trans.
biker phil wrote:
FFS. You’re being deliberately obtuse now, so I shan’t bother answering again.
Not at all.
Not at all.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/professor-winston-stating-biological-fact-will-get-you-hate-mail/
Is he being obtuse?
I’m going to end this conversation my friend, this is a cycling forum after all.
Peace.
biker phil wrote:
Apologies – I shall reply to this as I found it interesting.
That statement by Lord Robert Winston was cut short in that link, but I found a longer version here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/torah-for-today-changing-sex/
Now, that statement doesn’t hold true for rare chimeral people who can be a mix of multiple sets of DNA, but otherwise seems fair enough. The problem is the complexity of the biology, as some babies can’t easily be correctly identified as male/female, so are assigned one or other. I’m not entirely sure what he means by “psychological brain sex” but I assume that relates to gender identity.
I’ll try to step away from the keyboard now.
Quote:
*nervously* Er… is he talking about cycling again?
Phew! Looking at the multiple levels of this seems sensible (eg. beyond just mosaicism / chimerism). Giving a passing nod to “but it’s human-created categories all the way down”, as we move out from cells and chromosomes to a more “I knows it when I sees it” level the picture gets more familiar but also less precise. For one we are already manipulating “hormonal sex”. Not new – many women take pills to essentially fool their bodies they’re already pregnant.
I’m glad we’re at the stage where we’re actually (a) recognising there’s a lot of detail here and (b) being able to gather data in particular cases. This doesn’t really change my view that the final issue is one of human judgement. People have to make a call / agree rules (or not). Although getting people to agree depends on making an argument and their existing beliefs which can be informed by “science”. And sport at top level *is* about the exceptions, the “freaks”, the unusual and often “unfairness”.
I’m not sure what “brain sex” means either but presumably it’s a nod to how the more cerebral types entertain themselves.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Often, yes. It’s dog whistles all round, sadly.
biker phil wrote:
And then I read about all the pressure put on public libraries to remove books considered by the right wing to be inappropriate (often covering the history of lavery in the US or any relationship which isn’t one man and one woman with a white picket fence in the suburbs) and I wonder whether left or right is meant to be ‘woke’ or which one is more in favour of ‘cancel culture’…
sparrowlegs wrote:
And, worst of all, grocer’s apostrophes.
The trouble with Nazis was
The trouble with Nazis was they thought everything was Nazis’.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well, that and all the killing and attempted world domination
Well, alright, yes, there was
Well, alright, yes, there was a bit of that. You can’t hold the attempted world domination against them though, who hasn’t tried that? And they invented motorways and had really natty uniforms.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I know I have.
chrisonatrike wrote:
That Nazi motorway bit was interesting – I did not know about that. I like the way they were initially against ‘car only’ roads that were just for the rich, but then pivoted when in power, not that they had the spare cash to build them though.
I’m not sticking up for the
I’m not sticking up for the Fascists but the autostrade in Mussolini’s Italy were being built a good ten years before the Nazi equivalent so saying its a German invention is a bit of a stretch.
mdavidford wrote:
And, worst of all, grocer’s apostrophes.— sparrowlegs
I’m all for diversity but… grocers’ apostrophes! Or have I missed some irony? It’s been a long day.
TheBillder wrote:
And, worst of all, grocer’s apostrophes.
— mdavidford I’m all for diversity but… grocers’ apostrophes! Or have I missed some irony? It’s been a long day.— sparrowlegs
Ah – well now you’re getting in to the Mother’s/Mothers’/Mothers Day debate.
Is it an apostrophe pertaining to an archetypal grocer, or to all grocers as a collective? Most sources prefer the former, but I’d argue it’s one of those cases where there’s no right answer – which you choose is reflective of your own conceptualisation of the subject.
mdavidford wrote:
Shall we go with Mothering Sunday?
And there you’ve very neatly encapsulated the entire thread – I salute you!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Perhaps best illustrated by the reverse. If people are not “woke” (and I’m easily reactionary enough to dislike the use of a verb as an adjective) then are their eyes closed to the difficulties placed into the lives of people with different skin colour / orientation / gender / etc? Because if they think that life is dandy for any such person, they are wrong, and many of those difficulties are caused by those who either choose to ignore others’ situations, or actively hate them.
These debates are difficult and I can’t agree with anyone who thinks they have the full answer. Concerns on all sides are legitimate and those who think they cannot be voiced are very wrong – they are not woke, but a different flavour of authoritarian, because a truly woke person would have their eyes and ears open to diversity of opinion.
The current lot of Tories are playing a very dangerous game with this. Fanning the flames of a culture war because they think it may appeal to their core vote and their membership is a very bad thing. Political activity should be to change things for the better, not an attempt to satisfy an appetite for power through perceived popularity to a fraction of society. The appeal solely to the core vote (as we see in the US with primary elections) is a route to polarisation and hence extremism, and that’s exactly where we are now.
And if Liz Truss wants to come after me for saying that the UK is, in many ways, vile, she’s welcome to. In many ways it is wonderful too. But almost all of those good things are under severe pressure from those who do not realise the consequences of their actions or inactions, or do but don’t care because money / power / ideology / short termism.
TheBillder wrote:
What worries me most about the current Tories is that they seem to be aiming ever further right-wards in an attempt to get more support. There’s a real danger of fascism becoming more popular due to people having economic difficulties and the UK’s economy is not likely to improve any time soon. We can look forward to the economic policies of a pound-land Thatcher if Truss gets in, and that seems likely as far right Tories are unlikely to want someone non-white to get into power. (From what I can remember, wasn’t Thatcher’s main economic policy to use up oil profits to dig herself/UK out of the hole she’d created?)
hawkinspeter wrote:
IIRC Norway set up some huge social fund out of their North Sea oil profits which is still going. The UK Govt blew it on winning another election…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Unfortunately, nobody will believe it until it’s too late (“They came for the intellectuals and I said nothing because I wasn’t an intellectual…” et al.).
My God, it’s bad enough that
My God, it’s bad enough that this cycling thread has been hijacked by the trans activists. Don’t bring bloody politics into it!
biker phil wrote:
But fundamentally it is about politics in the end. Trans people face a lot of discrimination but some (perhaps from both sides, but my observation is more one side than the other) use the issue for their own ends.
Yknow, you’re right. The
Yknow, you’re right. The other day I posted something on the internet to random strangers all over the world about how my boss was a gangster, my co-workers were deviants and addicts, all our products and services were useless and our customers were fools. Genuine belief. Next thing I know I lost my job! Can you believe it? Censorship run amok.
It’s not like the good old days where you could walk into a pub, or up to a policeman and start shouting your views and everyone would respect that.
I’m thinking of moving somewhere freer, like… Rwanda. Oh, OK, Myanmar. Well, that’s a bit poor so maybe Saudi Arabia. No, too hot, what about China? Hmm, I forsee “cultural difficulties”, Russia maybe?
Satire aside there have
Satire aside there have always been “unsayable things” in any society I can think of. They change over time. Consider ol’ Oscar Wilde. When he was tried his homosexuality was the problem. Nowadays we’d be triggered by the paedophilia (underage sex workers).
Don’t get fooled by the magnifying effect of the meeja. Those who really want to “cancel” folks aren’t in the majority even if some of the views they espouse are more mainstream now.
chrisonatrike wrote:
“woke” as a term eas started to mean anti-fascist, anti-homophobic etc sll rolled into one
I generally find people throwing “woke” around as a pejorative don’t have any clue as to what the word means and are just parroting back a daily hate mail hate piece.
What? Just like Transphobe is
What? Just like Transphobe is thrown about to anyone with a different view?
people in glasshouses…….
I’m reminded of this old joke
I’m reminded of this old joke…
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion
biker phil wrote:
if by “different ” you mean “literally transphobic in nature and expresssion” then oddly yess, stating a fact is pretty self explanatory.
own your hatred.
Road..cc seems to think that
Road..cc seems to think that cycling has become The Crying Game. Men belong in Men’s sports, and Women belong in Women’s sports. Instead of doping tests, do we need to have atheletes start dropping their shorts in order to pass qualification? This woke garbage needs to end!
JohnnyDanger wrote:
Ooo a one post wonder. I’m looking forward to your deep and meaningful insights on the issues of the day.
Jeez S_S, elitist much?
Jeez S_S, elitist much?
Everybody has to start somewhere.
Maybe we shouldn’t let people post unless they have a minimum of 100 posts?
sparrowlegs wrote:
…but how would they get up to 100 posts?
Maybe Secret Squirrel should
Maybe Secret Squirrel should lay-off the soy milk and loosen his skinny jeans a liitle, as they seem to be cutting off the oxygen to his brain. Perhaps, that might explain why he can’t decern the biological and psysiological differences bewteeen men and women athletes.
JohnnyDanger wrote:
You’ve pretty much just proved SS’s well-founded supposition about the type of poster you’re going to be to be correct there, haven’t you?
And?
And?
Only posters that agree with you and SS are allowed to post? No dissenting or differing opinions are allowed? It might upset the comfortable little bubble you’ve created here on Road.cc?
Drive away any that disagree and lets create an extension of twitter.
By Road.cc publishing stories like this, it will attract people that rightly or wrongly (depending on your views) will want to express an opinion. That’s how sites like this work, it wants to attract more users yes? By having a large and diverse user base it creates more site traffic and therefore more revenue. But by having users like you and SS gatekeeping, chasing away any that might not agree with “THE CUURENT THING” what’s that doing?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Who said s/he can’t post? SS simply surmised from the stupid, ill-informed and aggressive nature of their first post that they were likely to be a stupid, ill-informed and aggressive addition to the forum, and their stupid, ill-informed and aggressive second post seems to confirm that. Nobody’s asked for them to be banned; it would appear to be you who wants voices that don’t agree with your opinions to be silenced and for those who agree with you to go unchallenged.
Read my post properly instead
Read my post properly instead of taking bits out of context. I was the one advocating for a wide variety of users.
It seems that yet again you default to name calling and aggressive posts to scare away others that might not agree with you. You might not be able to get them banned but by ganging up and piling on you immediately create a hostile environment that you hope will deter any further posts.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Having a majority disagree with you is not being “ganged up” on (the language is reflective of the fact that you appear not to have matured emotionally beyond the school playground). You have now made over 500 posts on this forum, the majority of them bleating on ad nauseam with your obsessive views on trans issues (that’s when you weren’t telling us that giving birth was the greatest achievement any woman could hope for), so clearly there isn’t a problem with people expressing their views, it’s simply you have a problem with people expressing opposing views. Funny how people who post aggressive drivel (“lay off the soy lattes and loosen your skinny jeans they’re cutting off the bloodflow to your brain”) are defended by you and yet anyone calling them on it is accused of being aggressive. Hypocrisy writ very large, I’m afraid.
Again with the micro
Again with the micro aggressions and taking things out of context. This seems to be a common theme with you Rendel
I wasn’t agreeing with the poster nor was I defending his view. I was simply welcoming a new user to the site.
Take Nosferatu1001 for instance. I don’t agree with their stance on trans inclusion in womens sport and I’ve argued against them but they might have a rare insight into the best way of seating a troublesome tubeless tyre or the best T47 bottom bracket on the market. I certainly wouldn’t want them scared away from posting something I neither agree with nor disagree with for risk of losing their actual cycling knowledge. For isn’t that what this is at it’s core? A cycling website? It seems you may have gotten it mixed up with twitter at some point.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Good lord man!? I thought this was 4chan? You mean there’s something here apart from point scoring, culture wars, bad puns, 80s and 90s cultural references and squirrel memes?
chrisonatrike wrote:
sparrowlegs wrote:
That is somewhat ironic coming from you, chap; this site still doesn’t have the capacity to review a user’s posting history, but I’d be prepared to wager that your ratio of posts raging about trans issues compared to your posts actually about cycling is in the region of 25:1 at best. Which is fine, it’s a free country and a democratic website and as long as the mods are happy with what someone says they can say what they like, but to try and get holier than thou about something of which you are a prime example is a bit rich.
And all 2937 of your posts
And all 2937 of your posts are about cycling? I love the threatening undertones that if the site had the capacity to review a users postings or the capacity to ban a user on the content of them, you’d be pressing that report button on quite a few users you didn’t agree with.
If Road.cc actually covered more actual cycling content instead of scraping most of its stories from twitter then maybe I’d have more cycling content to comment on. The fact Road.cc most popular stories are trans related just shows where the site has gone and shows that it knows exactly what it’s doing by allowing posts on those stories got to get those clicks in!
These days I get most of my cycling news and reviews from other websites and YouTubers. I only come here to stoke the hornets nest from time to time. Twat baiting I call it.
Most commented on =/= most
Most commented on =/= most popular. They’re largely only the most commented on because a small vocal minority (mentioning no names) immediately descend into an interminable round of ‘You’re a dick’ / ‘No you’re a dick’ posts as soon as they see anything on the subject.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Certainly not all of my posts are about cycling, but the majority are – unlike yours. Which is fine, but don’t then be a hypocrite and castigate others for exactly what you do. If you see threatening undertones in what I said that’s down to your paranoia, I was simply commenting on what one would be able to see if, as on most websites, one could see a poster’s history. There is a capacity to review user postings and have them banned, road.cc have community editor Simon for precisely that purpose. I have reported a sum total of one poster, Nigel Garage and his many different usernames, and that was not because I disagreed with him but because he made libellous remarks about me, attempted to share my personal information from other websites and made offensive personal attacks on my wife.
So you’re admitting to being a troll?
sparrowlegs wrote:
the transphobic troll finally admits they’re a troll. It must be such a relief to you to finally come out and live your authentic self.
sparrowlegs wrote:
If we’re calling out ‘name calling and aggressive posts’, JohnnyDanger’s first couple of offerings would seem like the prime place to start.
How dare you criticise one of
How dare you criticise one of the Cadre – don’t you know that only the opinion of the cadre really counts!
I’ve mentioned exactly the same thing before and been pilloried for it as you are now. I’ve also seen it happen on other sites where eventually the bulk of people just move on and the only ones left there all agree with themselves. Site becomes a shadow of it’s former self.
JohnnyDanger wrote:
The case for the persecution rests m’lud.
JohnnyDanger wrote:
A lack of blood flow to the brain probably contributes to the spelling of decern and psysiological.
Is it too early to welcome Nigel back to the fold?
JohnnyDanger wrote:
You seem to have forgotten to read beyond the headline – it’s not road.cc making these accusations.
JohnnyDanger wrote:
Where are you getting that from in a news story that reports the facts of a situation but does not provide an opinion on it?
Anyone who thinks women who
Anyone who thinks women who were once men are on an equal playing field as regards athletics is an idiot. Plenty of studies out there to prove that maturing to adulthood as a male confers physical advantages which no amount of attempted hormone balancing will sort out.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Hmm… it is unfortnately more nuanced than that. There are definite athletic where this is the case (lifting, sprint distances), but others where the data do not seem to back this up where testosterone levels are supressed:
eg. distance running https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Race-Times-for-Transgender-Athletes-Harper/1e6abd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a
The author of this study uses the analogy that a trans woman with reduced testosterone will have on average a larger frame but relatively reduced muscle mass putting a “smaller engine in a larger car.” I think this is more likely to apply to endurance disciplines for instance and only when hormone supression has occurred. Cycling over usual competitive lengths is a discipline where an advantage is retained, from what I can see, although in ultra-endurance races like the transcontinental (not intentional) I am not so sure…
Reference the update – sounds
Reference the update – sounds like USA. Cycling is ass covering.. “when it was brought to our attention”…. what you mean when you already knew she was registering, but it didnt occur to them to check back then, or again when the UCI jiggered with the rules…. hmmmmmm. as I said before I dont believe this is transphobia – just sheer bureacratic incompetence, though no doubt it leaves the competitor feeling the same.
I also think that USA Cycling could have knocked this story on the head if they had added more apologetic language to their release. It costs them nothing and might actually gain them some plaudits.
But less face it – there is a nothing like a sporting governance body for intrangience, denial and outright assholery. See pretty much all Sporting bodies everywhere.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
how so? They said…
““Ms. Genis was made aware of the UCI’s Transgender Policy in March 2022 and her responsibilities in complying with this policy. “”
joe9090 wrote:
But the UCI changed the rules in June 2022, publicising them, erm, not much, in a press release with an unrelated title: “UCI Management Committee approves the Federation’s Agenda 2030 and awards the first UCI Gravel World Championships”
Source: https://www.bicycling.com/news/a40320907/uci-transgender-policy-2022/
So the charge of bureaucratic incompetence is actually fairly light. Was the change buried to reduce controversy? Were those affected informed? Were they consulted, given that it might mean a two year process before they can resume competition?
elective inelegibility doesnt
elective inelegibility doesnt mean they’re afraid of you.
Well done to Skyler Espinoza
Well done to Skyler Espinoza and Elizabeth Stevenson!!! They deserve it!
I think Genis is a dirty cheat. Why does she not compete in the mens category?
He
He
She. She is a woman.
She. She is a woman.
Biological or trans?
Biological or trans?
sparrowlegs wrote:
yawn. You again.
Have a look at the links to
Have a look at the links to Sir Robert Winston below. I guess he is a transphobe too?
I would guess you accept all
I would guess you accept all of his views on cycling too…?
Here you go.
Here you go.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/professor-winston-stating-biological-fact-will-get-you-hate-mail/
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/torah-for-today-changing-sex/
Yeah, a Christian site in no
Yeah, a Christian site in no way would not publish the full quote. Hmmm. You’ve been pulled up on this before.