The organisers of the women’s and junior men’s CiCLE Classic are confident that the races will go ahead as planned in June after “numerous” offers were made by potential new sponsors following an online appeal.
The races, which form part of British Cycling’s National Road Series and the Junior National Road Series respectively, appeared to be on the brink of cancellation on Tuesday after long-term sponsor Pete Stanton announced that he was withdrawing his backing in protest against British Cycling’s recent suspension of its trans athlete policy.
Stanton, who had funded the women’s race since its inception in 2016 and was one of the driving forces behind its creation, told Velo UK that he has many friends within the transgender community and that “I feel that I would be letting them down if I did not make a stand to show my support for their rights”.
Stanton’s withdrawal has left the organisers scrambling to plug a £15,000 funding gap to secure the future of the Melton Mowbray-based races, which have quickly become one of the highlights of the British cycling calendar thanks to their use of gravel sections and farm tracks, as well as an illustrious list of winners, including Katie Archibald, last year’s victor Abi Smith, and the 2014 junior men’s winner James Shaw.
The men’s Rutland-Melton CiCLE Classic, the top-ranked UCI British men’s one-day race since the demise of the RideLondon-Surrey Classic, is unaffected by Stanton’s departure and is set to take place on Sunday 24 April.
British Cycling has pledged to offer additional support of just under £10,000, while race director Colin Clews launched a public appeal on Tuesday in a bid to secure the remaining funds. Since then, Clews says he has received “numerous” offers of financial support from companies and individuals, as well as women’s rights groups.
Yesterday, the campaign groups Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women announced that they have made a formal joint offer to sponsor the race. However, Clews says he and his colleagues are wary of accepting financial backing from campaign groups for fear of “politicising” the race.
Last week British Cycling suspended its transgender and non-binary participation policy with immediate effect, essentially blocking trans athletes from competing pending a full review.
The national governing body, which has found itself in the spotlight since the UCI’s decision to bar transgender cyclist Emily Bridges from making her racing debut as a woman at the British Omnium Championships, described the situation as “unprecedented in our sport” and argued that the current system is “unfair on all women riders and poses a challenge to the integrity of racing”.
Explaining his decision to step away from the CiCLE Classic, Stanton said: “The transgender policy adopted by British Cycling had been the result of a full consultation process and was believed to have been working well until last week when it was suspended without any further consultation.
“Whilst fully supportive of women’s sport, I also have many friends and colleagues within the transgender community whom I feel that I would be letting down if I did not make a stand to show my support for their rights.
“This is not the first case of a transgender rider competing under UCI rules, or even as part of an official UCI team, and to arbitrarily change that position based on one individual case, I find totally unacceptable.”
He continued: “I am desperately saddened by the Emily Bridges case and the actions that it has prompted me to take. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory resolution to her case and that of similar cases in the future can be quickly found in the interests of all parties involved, and sport in general.”
ONE MONTH to save @CiCLEWomens following the loss of our long term sponsor. Can you help? New major or small sponsors sought urgently. Enquiries to: cicleclassics@gmail.com pic.twitter.com/sLOwzrKHFw
— colin clews (@CiCLEWomens) April 12, 2022
Following Stanton’s departure, Clews launched a public appeal in an attempt to find “like-minded partners who can help us to deliver the race in 2022 and support its future development.”
The race director also paid tribute to Stanton, who he described as “massively committed to the development of women’s racing within the UK.
“His financial contribution to support this aim over the past six years is way beyond that of any other private individual. As an organisation we hope that it may be possible to renew our collaboration at some stage in the future to continue our joint pursuit of promoting domestic women’s racing at the highest level.”
A phenomenal response to our plea made yesterday means there WILL be someone following in @abijesmith wheelmarks in June @CiCLEWomens THANK YOU EVERYONE!!! Including @BritishCycling News to come! pic.twitter.com/o0VeUI8Aqt
— colin clews (@CiCLEWomens) April 13, 2022
Yesterday Clews took to Twitter to announce that “a phenomenal response to our plea made yesterday means there will be someone following Abi Smith’s wheel marks in June,” and praised the “absolutely incredible” outpouring of support from the public.
However, while he told BBC Sport that he and his colleagues are currently considering the joint offer made by Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women, alongside other commercial alternatives, Clews admits to having reservations about the potential political impact on the race if it becomes linked to women’s rights groups.
“At the present time, myself and colleagues are considering that [offer] amongst other options that might be available to us from commercial sources,” he said.
“We want this event to continue into the future and therefore we would prefer to link with a partner or number of partners who are able to give us financial backing for a number of years ahead, so we’re not in the same position next year as we’ve found ourselves in this year.
“Secondly, and this is important to appreciate, we are a cycling event, our objective is to pursue women’s cycling and to promote it at its highest possible level in this country, but I have colleagues who have reservations with regard to the potential link to women’s rights groups that might indicate to anyone out there, or certain individuals out there, a politicising of the event.”
Clews, who says he “endorsed” British Cycling’s suspension of its transgender and non-binary participation policy, told the PA news agency that the pitch from Sex Matters and Fair Play for Women was so far the “only firm offer on the table”, but indicated that crowdfunding could still be an option to secure the 2022 edition of the race, though a high-risk one that wouldn’t provide long-term stability.
The race director also called on cycling’s governing bodies to settle the debate currently raging around transgender participation in the sport.
“What is so important to us is the fairness of any races we put on and certainly the current suspension that British Cycling have imposed on Emily Bridges we can only endorse because that goes along with that fairness element,” he said.
“But competitors such as Emily, they wish to compete, we shouldn’t be stopping them from competing, but it’s how and where and when they compete that’s the big question.
“I’m afraid those are questions that shouldn’t be placed with me as an organiser, they are for the governing bodies to resolve.”
If funding is secured, the women’s and junior men’s CiCLE Classics will take place as planned on Sunday 19 June.























72 thoughts on “British Cycling’s “unacceptable” transgender policy suspension makes leading women’s race sponsor pull out, as organisers weigh up offers”
Fair Play for Women and Sex
Fair Play for Women and Sex Matters have offered to jointly fund the women’s race.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/formal-bid-to-sponsor-womens-cycle-race/
Terrible title: ‘unacceptable
Terrible title: ‘unacceptable’. The exclusion of all males from women’s sports is necessary to provide fairness and safety for female participants. This objective is hardley ‘unacceptable’.
alexuk wrote:
the quotes indicates that this is the ex sponsors words.
It’s not road.cc’s choice of
It’s not road.cc’s choice of term – it’s quoting the sponsor in question, and that’s pretty clearly indicated by the quote marks in the headline.
Sponsors women’s cycling, yet
Sponsors women’s cycling, yet throws his toys out of the pram when men aren’t allowed to join in. Keep your money mate.
I’m sure you’re not
I’m sure you’re not prejudiced against trans women, so perhaps consider rephrasing your comment? Calling trans women men comes across as, well… it’s not a good look is it.
Trans women need love and support against against all the bigots out there. We should give them that while having civilised discussions about how to include them in elite sport.
Fwiw, I think it’s hard to justify how
formerly maleathletes that haved formerly raced in the male category can compete against the rest of the women at elite level. But there’s no need for nastyness.skeuomorph wrote:
Formerly male? Some would argue they’ve always been women (and therefore call you transphobic and bigoted to boot).
Language is hard!
Language is hard!
I should have phrased it “formerly raced in the male category”
skeuomorph wrote:
Don’t worry; it is a minefield. After all, why were women ever racing in the male category?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
I like your style.
It’s about a lot more than fairness in sport. This is just what has gotten the most traction.
Trigger warning: the following reading and viewing may be upsetting to those who have a problem with people who have different opinions to them.
The week the trans spell was broken
Gender ideologues complain that this shift in public tolerance is merely a conservative backlash against trans rights, but they are wrong. What we are seeing is the inevitable result of trans activists – and, most of all, Stonewall – pushing far beyond civil rights for trans people and insisting instead on unpopular and unworkable policies, such as trans women in sport, child transition and any open acknowledgement of female biology.
Pronouns are a personal matter – not a matter to be enforced on everybody else
Julia Hartley-Brewer & Helen Joyce telling it like it is
A Response to SciAm’s ‘Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia'
The question ‘what is a woman?’ has become a way we can assess honesty of ruling class
Nobody wants to bar trans people from competing. We just want them to compete in their proper sex class. And before anybody hauls out their favourite chart showing how messy biology is, yes, I know about DSDs. I trust scientists like Emma Hilton far more than I do those keen to repurpose the word ‘woman’ to include anybody who wants into their spaces.
Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are afraid to be called transphobes, as it’s now so meaningless except for speaking volumes about the person using it. Nosferatu, who works tirelessly to turn every conversation about this into a slanging match, asks us to define biological woman. How about defining transphobia? (That’s a link to my site.)
Well said Sam, but you’ll be
Well said Sam, but you’ll be labelled a transphobe. Interestingly, nosferatu hasn’t yet come back to call you transphobe yet. Must have hit a nerve.
biker phil wrote:
yawn. Stop trolling.
I’m pretty sure there are
I’m pretty sure there are several on here who are actual Transphobes no matter if sport is involved in the argunment or not. Previously they would have been Racist or Anti-Gay but realise they would be called out these days for those arguments and probably banned from the site.
But as the sporting arguments are a grey area on acceptance and fairness for all and is hitting the news, they can normally couch the prejudices in these arguments and get away with it. You can still tell those perople as they still use the “dead” name, or use “he”, “him” and “male” and other terms offensive to the person they are discussing.
It is not about being
It is not about being transphobes. It is about what is fair in sport.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
both mark and biker Phil are absolutely transphobic, something they’ve made plain on multiple occasions
Actively cheering when transwomen are barred from competing is about the least transphobic look
No, I agree, the comment
No, I agree, the comment should read ‘Calling trans women men should read as calling trans women biological men’
Because, that is what they are, no matter what they think they are.
biker phil wrote:
Given you cannot define “biological woman” (or bio man) your assertions do get a little tedious.
There is a huge amount of
There is a huge amount of irony in the withdrawal of the sponsor. From previously doing it to promote women’s racing, they then withdraw it as a protest because transgender athletes are not allowed to compete against natal women. Did the sponsor get opinions from the female competitors before taking this action? It might have given them more insight to the situation and consequences of the action.
This is a new and really difficult area of sporting ethics but it spills over into so many other areas (law, religion, society) which is why it produces such drastic opinions and a ‘soap box’ for campaigners on both sides. The chance of getting an outcome that keeps everyone happy is unlikely.
Quite a large number of the
Quite a large number of the competitors, cis or otherwise, seemed pro the bc rules. Given, you know, they voted fir them.
Were they direct competitors?
Were they direct competitors? Show the list of names of people that voted for Emily to race directly against them because from what most of the reports tell, everyone was willing to boycott the race.
sparrowlegs wrote:
by “everyone”, do you mean “some”?
You have this bizarre idea that because you assert something it must be true
The delusion is strong in this one…
Ding ding ding ding!
Ding ding ding ding!
Once again playing around with the language, nuance, outliers. It’s the same old story. Posting links that you say are transphobic and yet others would say show clear definitions between the sexes. Refuting that XX and XY define the boundaries whilst pointing towards genders. It’s all just bluster now with no credible evidence but stories like this Keep coming out and people are starting to take notice
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744.amp
And you have shown loads of
And you have shown loads of evidence of people in agreement? Where’s this list of people that consented to competing directly with Emily?
sparrowlegs wrote:
yoir ability to make stuff up is awesome. Being precise with language isn’t playing around it’s dong soemthing you seem incapable of doing – failing to say offensively transphobic and misogynistic things eVery day
Your goal shifting is also the sign of the truly desperate. You’re allowed to claim that EVERY competitor did not want to compete. You provide zero proof, just your usual hand waving I hope no one notices then, when you’re called on your crap, you decide to make up a new standard to challenge it’s about three fallacies in one, which is hilarious
fiund your proof that the trans competitor threw the competition, as you claimed? Or did you make yet more shit up?
Keep throwing that muck Nos.
Keep throwing that muck Nos. Muddying the waters. All without actually moving the conversation forward because you know you have nothing left to offer except calling people transphobic again and again. It’s the on-line equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “ner ner ner-ner ner”.
You keep mentioning equality but it seems your idea of equality is degrading the rights of 50% of the population. They are the mothers, wives, daughters and friends of a lot of other people. People that can more than likely vote. They may not have voted in their lives but something like protecting womens sports may just mobilise them if it becomes an issue a political party highlights. It could very well become the new Brexit. It could throw the plight of many quiet living trans people into the limelight. People that more than likely just want to live as the gender they identify as instead of trying to compete as the sex they aren’t.
What muck? *I* wasn’t the one
What muck? *I* wasn’t the one who made the absurd, likely libellous claim that a competitor deliberately underperformed, and then failed to provide any support for the assertion at all.
How do I “move the conversation forwards” when the transphobic lobby makes stuff up out of whole cloth? It’s hard to debate liars.
How is figuring out a way to have fair competition where all can appropriately participate degrading rights? How is piling on yet more discrimination to a group already suffering high amounts at all fair or equitable?are you so lacking in empathy or just so full of apparent hate and paranoia that a transwomen failing to win means she MUST have thrown the race?
I won’t continue to respond as you’re not worth any more time or brain space. You have no capability here.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
But do you recognise that the incentive to do so clearly exists, and is far from absurd?
I don’t know exactly where it
I don’t know exactly where it is but Lia’s times were looked at and were very suspicious. Again, you use strong words like ‘libellous’ to scare and intimidate people in to silence.
Your cause wants biological women to shut up, take it, stop making noise or else we’ll do all we can to have your livelihood removed. That kind of misogynistic bullying can’t be ignored and is getting trans people worse thought of. It’s doing damage to their cause. surely you can see that stories like this do a lot of damage to trans people causes?
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744.amp
Trans female MMA fighters fracturing the skulls of female fighters. Trans female swimmers beating female Olympic silver medalists. None of this shines a positive light on the plight of trans people who for the most part just want to get on with their lives. Hate spewing trans-radicals like you just heap more misery on their plight too but insisting it’s right that 50% of athletes move over and accept a reduction in their rights.
Best off sticking to the liberal echo chamber that is twitter while it’s still fertile ground for your hate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7lSDzRircvE
It’s somewhere in the latter half of the video Sharon says Lia’s times are highly suspicious. But, no doubt you and your het-hating radical-trans lobbyist have already written Sharon off as a transphobe.
I recognise that the liberal
I recognise that the liberal left will jump on my comment, because the best form of liberal defence is attack, but here we go. In my opinion, there should be a trans women and a trans men section for sports. Biological women should compete against biological women only, and biological men should compete against biological men only. You can argue all you like but until a trans man competes and wins against men, I do not accept it to be fair.
Do all those who support trans women competing against biological women agree that if that is acceptable, then it should be acceptable for a trans man to compete in, say, the Tour de France. Because if you don’t then you are a hypocrite.
You still haven’t defined
You still haven’t defined “biological woman” yet. Any chance you or your ilk could do so?
as for transmen competing and winning, how about
https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/trans-athletes-win-boys-sports
And
https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/transgender-athletes-to-watch
Also, define “fair” in a way that is objective and not just your presupposed ideas. You were challenged to do this last time you spouted your ideas, yet conspicuously couldn’t do so.
Well, my definition of a
Well, my definition of a biological woman is good enough for me, and many others. It is what defines a woman. When a trans woman can have a child naturally, come back to me.
biker phil wrote:
That’s what defines a woman?! I know several women whom everyone including you (I assume) would agree are biological women, who can’t have a child naturally. Maybe they’re just not trying hard enough.
Apologies, that’s not what I
Apologies, that’s not what I was intimating. What I meant is that biological women have the ability by and large to bear children. Something Trans women will never be able to do. I was trying to point out to the heterophobe the differences between one and the other. No offence intended.
biker phil wrote:
ooooh turns out you did exactly the same as these idiots
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/06/republican-woman-definitions/
so you’re a misogynist as well.
To be clear – biker Phil thinks a woman is defined by their ability to bear children. That’s what they have posted more than once now.
Only 3 athletes in the health
Only 3 athletes in the health line story are trans males and one was competing whilst on a womens team.
None have them gone on to have successful sporting careers.
You keep posting the same tripe that means absolutely nothing. Grasping at straws and all the while punctuated with the obligatory “transphobe” name calling. This isn’t about stopping trans people from entering spaces or living their lives, this is about protecting the sporting rights of 50% of the population.
biker phil wrote:
I’m pretty sure none of them would object in the slightest to a trans man competing in the Tour de France, so I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Unless you’re saying that it should be acceptable to force trans men to ride the Tour – they’d probably object to that. But then, they’d probably object to forcing cis men to ride it too.
What I am saying is that it
What I am saying is that it will not happen, because a trans man could not physically compete against men in the event. It would be an unfair advantage for the biological men, just as it is an unfair advantage for a trans woman to compete against biological women.
Even if that’s true, it’s
Even if that’s true, it’s also true for 99.99??% of cis men. So I’m still not clear what point you’re making. That men (cis or trans) should be allowed to compete in women’s races as long as they’re not good enough to beat the top women, perhaps? You seem to be rather confused between ‘being permitted to’ and ‘having the athletic and sporting ability to’.
mdavidford wrote:
The point biker Phil is making is that they’re a transphobe and celebrate when equality is reduced.
mdavidford wrote:
Hence I keep saying – the transphobes keep claiming something is unfair, yet cannot even explain what “.fair” means in a field of by definition genetic outliers.
Nobody will ever be able to
Nobody will ever be able to say anything which you disagree with and not be a transphobe. Change the bloody record.
biker phil wrote:
It’s easy – don’t state transphobic statements. Many many people manage to do so.
Grow.
What I am saying is that it
What I am saying is that it would never happen, because a trans man would physically not be able to compete against biological men as they wouldn’t have the strength, hence why trans women should not compete against biological woman. Because they will be stronger than women because of their physical make up.
That wasn’t what you were
That wasn’t what you were saying though. You said
Which bears no relation to what you’re arguing here now, which doesn’t justify your accusation of hypocrisy.
The problem with a lot of
The problem with a lot of this is that the trans-radicals play in the nuance, the outliers, the “it’s complicated” arguments when it’s actually not.
Twitter is awash with it all and anybody that tries to apply biology, science or common sense gets shouted down and called a transphobe (as well as racist, homophobic and whatever else they can throw).
I’ve never had an opinion on trans rights, always been on the “everyone should have the same rights” stance. That was until the question came to womens sports, where it’s biology/physiology against biology/physiology, not ideology. I have a few gay friends (men and women) and not one agrees that biological men should compete against biological women. We all agree that trans people should have representation in sports but not at the cost of female sports. But, for the trans-radicals that’s not good enough. And so I think they may awaken a sleeping giant, the people that, like me, didn’t have an opinion before, but do now.
Define “biological woman”
Define “biological woman” then.
you’ve had abiut two months now to come up with an answer
Given you so confidently state that this is SCIENCE you will be able to find such.
put up or shut up.
Seeing as pointing out the
Seeing as pointing out the obvious doesn’t work then we’ll drop back to the XX chromosomes.
Using the chromosomal definition should cover everyone except 0.0018% of the population.
https://www.statsforgender.org/dsd-intersex/
This is where you clutch your pearls and scream “TRANSPHOBE” whenever presented with irrefutable evidence. Maybe throw in a link to a non-binary Viking or a 2 spirited indigenous tribe. We’ve seen it all before and it’s just not working. Look at how many people are now posting on these threads saying trans women shouldn’t be competing against non-trans women but it seems to be the usual few that say they should, because, you know, gender and all that when gender doesn’t come in to it really.
Yep, that’s definitely how
Yep, that’s definitely how you define a woman. Absolutely.
it’s definitely “science” to do so. Meaning I’m sure you can point to a paper stating such definitively?
I mean, currently you’re sounding more idiotic than these lot, which is saying something… https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/06/republican-woman-definitions/
I mean, you wouldn’t make bold claims without being to back them up now, would you? Especially as that’s trolling behaviour, much like stating a trans competitor definitely threw a completion in order to show that trans women can be beaten. Or whatever malicious nonsense you made up and are hoping has been forgotten.
or even, your claim that the greatest thing a woman can do is give birth?
no pearl clutching. Despair at the open bigotry. It’s like you’re proud of it.
XX does not work for everyone
XX does not work for everyone however as you say.
The incidence of DSD is about 1 in 5000.
What do you do for those individuals?
We aren’t talking about DSD
We aren’t talking about DSD people are we? We are talking about trans women. People with DSD have been allowed to compete and dominate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Women%27s_800_metres
It’s about time you shut up
It’s about time you shut up and left this forum. It is for cyclists, not trans activists. Have you trawled the internet and registered on sites just so you can spout your views and slag off anyone who doesn’t agree with you?
For what it’s worth, you asked me to define a biological woman. I did, I answered what I define a biological woman as. But it wasn’t good enough for you. And now you are pushing the same agenda on other forum users, with the same abuse.
What do you do when you aren’t trolling sites pushing your views and calling everyone who disagrees with your views as transphobic? Go out and glue yourself to a road and slag off people going about their daily business? Or destroy historic statues?
Go away, take your extreme heterophobic views with you. Leave this site be, it was a decent site with good discussions until you came along and caused trouble.
heterophobe.
Enniugh trolling.
Enniugh trolling.
this is a cycling forum. This is a cycling topic. We know this, because the editors a) put it up, and b) it’s about cycling. I’m sure even you can work out that this is in on topic. Not that I have to justify myself to you, but I’ve been reading this site for years now whoops another assumption you made that you’re wrong on….
So no, I will not be silenced by a transphobe. The fact that you want to silence people supportive of human rights says a lot about you. I will not “shut up” about defending human rights.
I stated a definition of biological woman that could be agreed upon by actual science. You gave an offensive definiton, and an offensively bad definition.
Wait- so you think statues that literally glorify the enslavement of humans are “historic” now? You’re really supporting the glorification of the enslavement of people? So you’re a misogynistic transphobic happy with slavery type now?
No heterophobia here. I’m sorry you’re so blinkered you can’t take any minute challenge to your cis-het-dominated world with any semblance of grace or awareness.
You’re a troll, a keyboard
You’re a troll, a keyboard warrier. All you have done on here is slag people off. No discussion at all. It is your way or everyone else is transphobic.
Nope, there is discussion –
Nope, there is discussion – the fact you yet again don’t seem to realise that it’s possible to have discussions with others that you apparently don’t even see if hilarious.
“Blinkered” hardly covers it.
I’ve posted comments elsewhere on this topic with others members of this site, where we have the ability to discuss. Like a lot of things, you remain ignorant.
(You also take up a disproportionate amount of time, as you post so much hate it’s unbelievable)
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The only discussion you’re interested in is one from your sycophantic followers. Anybody who disagrees with you is a transphobe in your eyes.
Wrong, but not for the first
Wrong, but not for the first time.
Also, “sycophantic followers”? Wow! So anyone who agrees with you is what, right, and anyone who doesn’t and thinks you’re a terrible, terrible bigot is a sycophant? Impressive.
Fortunately you’re on the dying out side of history here…
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Would you re-post that, please? I think a lot people are genuinely interested.
Duncann wrote:
I think there’s a confusion of terms here as “woman” is a gender, so that’s more of a cultural term than a biological one.
Going from Wikipedia, we get this:
That’s all well and good, but there’s still people that don’t fit easily into one or the other and besides, with sporting categories it might be more useful to separate people into easily measured characteristics such as height or weight rather than continuing with male/female.
Surely that depends on
Surely that depends on whether success in your ‘sport’ is dependent on production of sperm and/or eggs? Perhaps it makes sense for some public school pursuits…
In any case, I think there’s another confusion here. I believe nosferatu1001 meant ‘stipulated’, rather than ‘stated’ – that is, rather than having given such a definition, they had demanded one.
Female: Ovaries, eggs, womb,
Female: Ovaries, eggs, womb, fallopian tubes, chromosomes, shape of pelvis, hormone levels.
Male: Testes, sperm, vas deferens, chromosome, prostate gland, shape of pelvis.
Call me simple.
You forgot about forum
You forgot about forum posting and explaining habits!
Velovoyeur wrote:
Are all of those requirements, or is just a subset needed? (e.g. if someone has their prostate removed, does it change their sex?)
Just a subset – if you have
Just a subset – if you have more than one chromosome, that’s enough to qualify you as female.
mdavidford wrote:
Okay, but my pelvis has a shape (i.e. not an amorphous blob), but that would make me both male and female (begins checking for secondary sexual characteristics).
Also, if a female surgeon operates and removes someone’s prostate, does the surgeon become male whenever she’s holding it?
But you’ve now posted twice
But you’ve now posted twice trying to correct someone else’s posts on a forum – that’s irrefutable!
I like the idea that Freud was literally right though and a phallus is the phallus. So maybe it just works like the conch in Lord of the Flies, you just have to hold it?
The frequenters of our
The frequenters of our picture palaces
Have no use for psychoanalysis;
And although Doctor Freud is distinctly annoyed
They cling to their long-standing fallacies.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You could just check whether you have any detectable hormone levels.
mdavidford wrote:
So, if I have just one chromosome, I’m male and anything with more than one chromosome is female?
I think looking at both
I think looking at both composition and construction is the way to go if you’re being “scientific”. The 19th century has us partly covered there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Are_Little_Boys_Made_Of%3F
I’m off out on my bike later
I’m off out on my bike later today…
Take that kind of talk
Take that kind of talk elsewhere you weirdo! ?.