Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges says she ‘just wants to race competitively again’ after being told that she cannot compete in the women’s event at this weekend’s National Omnium Championships under current UCI guidelines.
In a statement released on Friday, Bridges said that she has been in contact with British Cycling and the UCI over the last six months and has provided the two governing bodies with “medical evidence that I meet the eligibility criteria for transgender female cyclists”.
The 21-year-old also criticised the coverage of her case in the British media, which she says has resulted in her being “relentlessly harassed and demonised” in recent weeks.
She said: “I am an athlete, and I just want to race competitively again, within the Regulations set by British Cycling and UCI after careful consideration of the research around transgender athletes.
“No one should have to choose between being who they are, and participating in the sport they love.”
Bridges was set to make her competitive debut as a female cyclist at the National Omnium Championships in Derby this weekend, taking on leading riders such as multiple Olympic champion Dame Laura Kenny.
After revealing her struggles with gender dysphoria in a Coming Out Day article written for Sky Sports in October 2020, Bridges started undergoing hormone therapy last year. Her testosterone levels are now sufficiently low to allow her to compete in women’s events under British Cycling’s Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy.
According to the latest version of the policy, transgender athletes are required to have testosterone levels below 5 nanomoles per litre for a year (men generally range between 10 and 30 nanomoles per litre) before being permitted to compete against other women.
However, British Cycling revealed on Wednesday that it had been informed by the UCI that “under their current guidelines Emily is not eligible to participate” at the championships in Derby.
The UCI told the national body that, because international ranking points are allocated at national championships, Bridges could only race once her eligibility to compete as a female in international competitions is confirmed, a process which is still ongoing.
In a statement released on Wednesday, British Cycling said: “We have been in close discussions with the UCI regarding Emily’s participation this weekend and have also engaged closely with Emily and her family regarding her transition and involvement in elite competitions.
“We acknowledge the decision of the UCI with regards to Emily’s participation, however we fully recognise her disappointment with today’s decision.”
Bridges responded to her exclusion on Friday evening, saying that she has been in contact with the UCI and British Cycling to request clarity concerning her ineligibility, and called on the two bodies to reconsider their decision.
Her statement reads:
For the last six months, I have been in contact with British Cycling and the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) over the eligibility criteria I would need to meet as a transgender woman in order to race in the female category at the British National Omnium Championships this Saturday, 2 April 2022.
In that time, I have provided both British Cycling and UCI with medical evidence that I meet the eligibility criteria for transgender female cyclists, including that my testosterone level has been far below the limit prescribed by the Regulations for the last 12 months.
Despite the public announcement, I still have little clarity around their finding of my ineligibility under their regulations.
Bridges also criticised how her case has been handled online and in the British media, including alleged reports that some female competitors had threatened to boycott the event if Emily raced, which she says has led to her receiving “targeted abuse” on social media:
As is no surprise with most of the British media, I’ve been relentlessly harassed and demonised by those who have a specific agenda to push. They attack everything that isn’t the norm and print whatever is most likely to result in the highest engagement for their articles, and bring in advertising.
This is without care for the wellbeing of individuals or marginalised groups, and others are left to pick up the pieces due to their actions. Trans people are the latest of a long list of people to be treated this way, and unfortunately, without change, we won’t be the last.
I’ve had journalists at my front door every day harassing us for comment and story, my privacy has been totally violated over speculation around my eligibility and fairness to compete. I’ve had to deactivate my social media to prevent the targeted abuse I am receiving, and block websites to stop seeing them.
This is despite the fact I have not yet raced in the female category. I have been judged despite a total lack of evidence against me, purely because I am trans.
74 thoughts on “Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges breaks silence to question “alleged ineligibility””
“I have not yet raced in the
“I have not yet raced in the female category. I have been judged despite a total lack of evidence against me, purely because I am trans”
I hate to be the one to point this out but gender is gender and sex is sex. What additional evidence is required to determine one’s sex? To completely disregard this fact and lay all blame on social norms seems misguided.
Blackthorne wrote:
You don’t seem to have a good grasp of the complexities in biology
“I am an athlete, and I just
“I am an athlete, and I just want to race competitively again”
Do you mean as you did on the 27th of February 2022 when you won the BUCS mens national points race??…. Was that not competitive?? I understand that she wants to compete in a female category, but biologically, she’ll never be female.
One issue I really have is with British Cycling and its licensing. Currently, Emily is listed as male on her license, which for whatever reason has caused a problem for her, but also, when she was racing as a male called Zach, he had some great results that earned him ranking points and higher categories on his license as a result. These should all be expunged for Emily, as she is brand new to women’s cycling, she needs to have a brand new license, starting at Cat 4 and working on gaining ranking points and moving up. This I’ve no doubt won’t be a problem, but it would also give BC the knowledge and show how stupid their policies are. Giving time to sort it before even getting anywhere near Elite racing…
The other issue I have, is she’s complaining about the media railing against her, while all the time courting a certain section of the media who are currently (allegedly) making a documentary about her life, transition and all that encompasses….If you put yourself out there in the media, you will get both good and bad written about you.
Gkam84 wrote:
Can you define what you mean by biologically female please?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Can you define what you mean by biologically female please?— Gkam84
I think the thread is going to split into the following tribes:
Tribe 1: no tail innit/women are for breeding
Tribe 2: ok, I recognise scientifically there is a spectrum but there are not enough people in the margins for me to give a shit about.
Tribe 3: for the love of god won’t someone think of the bathrooms
Tribe 4: it’s complicated
Tribe 5: utter rage at one or more other tribes
Tribe 6: basic trolling
Tribe 7: Some of us work in
Tribe 7: Some of us work in the criminal justice system, including with wome’s’ refuges, and see some real challenges about deciding when a trans women should be allowed into women (as in sex) only spaces, such as women’s refuges and women’s prisons.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB]
I think the thread is going to split into the following tribes: Tribe 1: no tail innit/women are for breeding Tribe 2: ok, I recognise scientifically there is a spectrum but there are not enough people in the margins for me to give a shit about. Tribe 3: for the love of god won’t someone think of the bathrooms Tribe 4: it’s complicated Tribe 5: utter rage at one or more other tribes Tribe 6: basic trolling— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB
Tribe 7: advanced trolling by throwing in some pertinent questions and then disappearing from the thread
hawkinspeter]
Tribe 8: bad puns, inter-thread callbacks, and [largely squirrel-based] memes.
This argument keeps being
This argument keeps being made, define female.
So I googled what it means simply to be human. I found all sorts of answers. Universal definition is difficult. People can’t even agree when a human begins.
And definition comes with its own problems. We all know what a square is. Yet if you measure to sufficient accuracy you find no square exists, since the sides will never be equal.
I’m reasonably confident also that you do not have to be able to define something to the n’th degree to know it exists. For example, even if we can not define male and female to the satisfaction of all, we know these things exist because sexual reproduction exists, and that requires male and female.
People keep throwing around
People keep throwing around the terms and basing logical arguments on “biological females”, so it seems reasonable to have a working definition. Realistically, it’s not going to cover all edge cases, so let’s have the definition that people using the term are referring to – it’s a perfectly reasonable request.
You can easily define a square and put in a “to within the limits that we can measure using a ruler and unassisted vision” – you’re not being pragmatic here.
Indeed, the limits of
Indeed, the limits of measurement, and there’s the problem. Whatever definition of female is given, it is open to others to challenge, basically by zooming in to a finer scale of measurement.
So if a chromosomal definition is given, some will argue about chromosomal variations. If a “common sense” definition is used, some will present alternative common sense, and so on.
And yet it remains true that biological female and male objectively exist.
As far as I know, a working definition of female did exist, until it was challenged. So now there needs to be a new working definition.
Sriracha wrote:
That is utterly meaningless without definitions. How can they objectively exist if there is not the means to measure and determine?
As I previously posted, the
As I previously posted, the existence of something does not require its definition. We can see that biological male and female exist – even if any definition is disputed – because we see that sexual reproduction exists, which requires biological male and female.
Sriracha wrote:
Well, that sounds to me like you’re basing the definitions on reproductive fitness which would imply that infertile individuals are neither biologically male or female.
Surely he’s meaning
Surely he’s meaning reproduction in humans can only be done when one party is male and the other female? I think you know that too. Just because a party can’t or doesn’t reproduce doesn’t mean they are any less a member of that sex.
sparrowlegs wrote:
You may believe that, but reality disagrees:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20452130/
Exceptions do not a point
Exceptions do not a point prove. There will always be outliers. Link all the studies and findings of non-binary Vikings and chimeras you want but in 99.999999999999999999% percent of human reproductive processes I’ll bet the parties involved are biological male and female.
Given that there’s only been
Given that there’s only been an estimated ~120 billion humans ever, it would be pretty remarkable to have come across even one case of something that’s a one in a hundred quintillion occurrence, never mind ‘all you want’ of them…
Fascinating – didn’t quite
Fascinating – didn’t quite live up to the headline but it doesn’t need to if the following checks out:
I had read of this in older reportage but that would be a noteworthy confirmation that things are indeed broader than our heuristics. (I still loved finding out about fungi increasing their reproductive odds with extra “sexes” and various animals transitioning including maintaining fertility).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, that sounds to me like you’re basing the definitions on reproductive fitness which would imply that infertile individuals are neither biologically male or female.— SrirachaNo, it does not. It merely shows that biological male and female must exist. It does not depend on all of them reproducing.
The difficulty lies with the
The difficulty lies with the edge cases.
Eg
XY = biological male
XX = biological female
Will satisfactorily classify 99+% of the population.
Almost any binary division of the human race will have edge cases so, much like the pragmatic approach to squares mentioned above, it seems reasonable to accept an imperfect solution here so long as it produces fewer edge cases than the current gender based division.
Rich_cb wrote:
The problem is more to do with people confusing the map with the territory. XX/XY is a simple rule of thumb and works most of the time, but it would be wrong to then force someone into the wrong category on that basis when they may be an edge case.
We just need to recognise that a binary classification has limits and be flexible when someone believes that they are one of the edge cases. (Personally, I think that there may be far more edge cases than we realise as most people haven’t been tested to determine their chromosomes/genes etc.)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Where can I find a jean wrangler? Could that lead to a change of pants?
I wasn’t really advocating
I wasn’t really advocating for XX/XY division just pointing out that the existence of cases outside the binary classification doesn’t necessarily invalidate said classification.
I think the least bad option would be division into those who had been exposed to high level testosterone at any point and those who had not.
The presence of male secondary sexual characteristics would be taken as proof of exposure as would direct measurement of testosterone levels.
If you could prove that you were not susceptible to the effects of testosterone you would be allowed to compete in the non exposed group.
I think that would likely produce the fewest number of edge cases and the fairest competition at the elite level.
Testosterone levels/exposure
Testosterone levels/exposure does seem like a reasonable way forwards as ultimately the issue is with any advantages from the effects of testosterone.
I don’t think that edge cases invalidate binary classifications, but it does highlight their shortcomings and can provoke a discussion into what we actually mean by different sexes and whether we should be trying to put everyone into either one or the other.
As an aside, I wonder if there’s any famous sportsmen that have 47,XYY syndrome and benefitted from the extra height? (Possibly basketball) (Edit: after some random internet searches, came across the suspicion that Michael Phelps might have had Marfan syndrome that could have produced his very long arms)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Can you define what you mean by biologically female please?— Gkam84
What I mean by biologically female, is being born with XX chromosomes, otherwise, you could be XY chromosomes and biologically be male. There are some obviously outliers to this, such as being “intersex”. Those being the scientific classifications are undeniable. You’re born (biological) sex.
Then there are the gender classifications/identity, which hold the legal statuses, girls/boys, men/women, trans…etc etc etc
There is also gender expression, which is very much a social construct of how you feel about yourself/others and where you fit in this world.
You should never confuse the three because every person may have a different feeling about their identity and everyone has the right to that, but you cannot deny your biological sex as it is proven in science. No matter how much it is manipulated with chemicals.
Gkam84 wrote:
That’s a reasonable definition and one that a lot of people would subscribe to.
However, due to the SRy gene jumping around (it’s typically on the Y chromosome and largely produces male characteristics), you can have XY individuals without male traits and also XX individuals that do have male traits. This means that using just XX/XY can lead to unexpected results and indeed many people may not be at all aware that their physical traits and gender doesn’t match their chromosomes.
Personally, I think a definition of “biologically female” should include the SRy gene, but I certainly don’t have the expertise to come up with a good definition.
I think we need more graph
I think we need more graph axes! (FWIW here’s an article looking at just two and suggesting significant contribution from “nature” [eg. as opposed to “choice”]). As to “biological sex” the effects are a matter for consideration but even elementary reading suggests that a blanket statement of “men will beat women” is a simplification (taking whatever “traditional” definition people want). And don’t forget that many sports (from boxing to chess, to presumably boxing chess) have long had different categories within an existing “same sex” categorisation due to certain differences making it “not a fair contest”. Also completely ignoring the fact that even with a decade of training, experimental surgery and 80s levels of doping I’m unlikely to challenge the pro peleton.
Maybe changing this to different questions is useful? Can people compete “fairly” (now define “fair” and in whose opinion – may differ for competitors and their viewers)? Can people feel safe in sports training facilities / with those coaching and organising sport (already problematic as we’re finding out)? How are people treated in sport – can they “be themselves” in that environment (and is that important for society in general)? At higher levels how are they supported to navigate the pressures of the sporting world / the public eye?
Can you find an example of a
Can you find an example of a top class female athlete beating her equivalent male counterpart?
Or maybe even a trans male athlete that’s winning anything?
People keep the conversation to the outliers, the 0.00003% and using that to try and prove the rule, to erase the majority.
I’d ask anyone to take a look at the videos by ‘More plates more dates’ if you think there’s not a significant performance benefit, across the board, between trans women and non-trans women.
Add to that, google ‘Mack Beggs’ and see what taking testosterone bestows on trans male athletes.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Like Fiona Kolbinger in the last TCR ? If you want to more regular achievements, ultra-distance events would probably be the place to look as mentioned a fair bit already e.g. the female contestants in ultra-distance swimming surpass the male by a significant margin.
Fantastic example. I’d
Fantastic example. I’d forgotten about Fiona and I even follow her on Strava! Good shout.
fukawitribe wrote:
Like Fiona Kolbinger in the last TCR ? If you want to more regular achievements, ultra-distance events would probably be the place to look as mentioned a fair bit already e.g. the female contestants in ultra-distance swimming surpass the male by a significant margin.— sparrowlegsdo these sports attract many transwomen, and if so how does their performance compare with the rest of the field?
fukawitribe wrote:
Like Fiona Kolbinger in the last TCR ? If you want to more regular achievements, ultra-distance events would probably be the place to look as mentioned a fair bit already e.g. the female contestants in ultra-distance swimming surpass the male by a significant margin.— sparrowlegs
Another couple on the “endurance” list:
First winner of this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/56720358
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-based-supermum-beats-men-13872681
There was an interesting study looking at maximum metabolic rate as time increases which suggested (a) this is probably digestion-limited and (b) in pregnancy women approach this limit – which may point towards women being advantaged for ultra-endurance. Link to research within BBC’s summary:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48527798
sparrowlegs wrote:
Well, a couple from cycling:
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-becomes-first-woman-ever-win-race-across-america-284445
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/49248126
Not a “contest” exactly but a top class female athlete doing things some years before any man was able to (just as an example of something aside from “endurance”) – Lynn Hill’s first free ascent of the Nose on El Capitain.
*Pedant mode on* “Prove” in “x proves the rule” means “tests” of course – and much of sport seems to be about setting up rules and then testing / challenging them. Also elite sport would be about outliers and unusual people anyway, no? That was my point about me not troubling the pro peleton.
My suspicion is always aroused by talk of the majority being beaten down / “erased” (bit like “war on the motorist” / “cylists are running the show now” protests). However my point was just that – albeit in a minor way – things are not as cut-and-dried as one commonly held view. Just here to try to understand things better myself, not being female, trans, an elite athlete etc.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Are you too young to remember:-
https://www.facebook.com/theracingcollective/posts/this-is-beryl-burton-in-1967-she-set-the-12-hour-time-trial-record-of-any-man-or/2156402534612689/
Backladder wrote:
How could we forget Beryl!
Non-facebook info: https://totalwomenscycling.com/lifestyle/interviews/beryl-burton-biography
Mate, if you deadname her,
Mate, if you deadname her, that’s rule number one broken right there. Her name is Emily.
Then you say that she will “never be biologically female”. That’s transphobe speak, and pretty irrelevant to the topic.
So don’t do the “If you put yourself out there in the media, you will get both good and bad written about you” thing. She’s done something far harder than anything any of us are likely to do. It’s not a “llfestyle choice”: rates of self-harm and suicide are huge aming trans people. She’s exposing herself to transphobia from ignorant and hateful people: don’t be one of them.
clayfit wrote:
I think your reply went to the wrong person (or I’ve been drunk posting again).
(Not sure what deadnaming is, but presumably something about using the wrong pronouns)
[/quote] Can you define what
[/quote] Can you define what you mean by biologically female please?[/quote]
Easily. A biological female is one who remains doggedly seated at the table when it’s time for another round.
mike the bike wrote:
Easily. A biological female is one who remains doggedly seated at the table when it’s time for another round.— hawkinspeter
…but what if it’s table service?
Clearly a biological male
Clearly a biological male wouldn’t just let someone else bring his drinks for him! That explains why no-one has yet found depictions of waiters (or sushi conveyors) on the walls of paleolithic rock shelters. Men were real men, mammoths were real mammoths (not like these effete hairless elephants) etc.
chrisonatrike wrote:
As a biological male myself (I’ve got the male pattern baldness to prove it), I’m more than happy for someone to buy me drinks.
hawkinspeter wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
Can you?
Honest question from someone who isn’t sure what the truth is, or if there is one.
If we can’t agree a definition, should we do away with the categories, or simply let anyone decide their own?
Duncann wrote:
I don’t think there is a good one really as the term itself is ill-defined. You could interpret “biologically” as meaning the chromosomes (e.g. male = possessing Y chromosome, female = lacking Y chromosome) or it could be referring to the genes (SRy?), or hormone production or physical traits.
Ultimately, trying to find a measurable to determine male/female isn’t really plausible as it seems like more of a continuum when you consider how much variation there is with hormone expression etc.
Male/female categories are mainly used as most sports have different performance levels between men and women. Equally, we could divide up competitions between height or weight which are easier to objectively measure.
Agreed but that’s not all of
Agreed but that’s not all of it. There is an “actual safety” / “subjective safety” thing here too. Actual safety – (leaving aside elite sport sometimes being associated with really unhealthy lifestyles / practices e.g. doping, eating disorders etc.) this is actually across all sex / gender categories since we already know from e.g. revelations in gymnastics and football from recent years that high-level support is not free of people who use their position to abuse (young) althetes. FWIW this appears to be entirely coming from (cis) men – although it’s mostly those people who currently fill these positions. Don’t know about sport particularly but the risk to trans men from cis men is documented. I don’t know about physical attacks on trans women from cis-women but trans women are known to be at higher risk (than the general population) to attacks from cis men.
Subjective safety – some cis women are clearly concerned about any changes putting them at more risk. Whatever the real risk factor (and not sure if there’s any statistically reliable data) there are – currently – people who would feel uncomfortable here. I don’t know how trans-individuals feel about sharing space either. That’s my ignorance and I imagine it very much depends on the individual. For some it appears to be fundamental to their identity that they can of course.
Here’s hoping road.cc have
Here’s hoping road.cc have beefed up the comment threading engine.
I get it that it’s a bit
I get it that it’s a bit difficult in sports where power is the dominant factor… but for endurance cycling, this has been proven to be possible. There was a Dutch transgender pro, retired last year and she competed with the male hormones being suppressed, she did not turn into a winner in the female ranks but cold hold her own quite well. So, exclusions might need to depend based on the type of cycling, as in sprinting the male advantage doesn’t really go away, but it does in endurance.
under this caveat, it could still be possible for a transgender to win an endurance event, but the win would not come from male physiology but the endurance component which doesn’t seem gender specific.
I suppose in the longer term
I suppose in the longer term statistics will provide the answer. However that leaves a long period of uncertainty.
If you are talking about
If you are talking about Natalie Van Gogh. who retired at the age of 47 last year, having come into pro cycling around 2008 at 34….her best season was 2019 when she was 45 years old with around 120 UCI points. If you go to somewhere like ProCyclingStats and look at womens rankings, try and find many female riders that can do those sorts of points at that age….There are maybe one or two…..so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
The only two I can think of would be Amber Neben and Olga Zabelinskaya….who’ve both been popped for doping.
It has been demonstrated that
It has been demonstrated that women don’t have the drop in testosterone males have after 40, like Van Vleuten not showing signs of slowing down. (Jeani Longo is Ofcourse a tainted example, but she went on well in her 50-ties) I’m not attributing physical age of women stopping competitive sports, often it’s the biological clock, the monotomy of the same thing over and over again or physical wear and tear.
Age is also not an argument in this case, Van Gogh might have been able to continue longer because her male testosterone was taken away, not despite of it. An effect normal males wouldn’t be able to escape.
In pretty much any walk of
In pretty much any walk of life, pastime or career, how a person wishes to identify with respect to gender should be without negative consequence or relevance. If I go to my Doctor’s surgery for a prostate exam I really, genuinely have no issue if the GP is male, female or dressed as either. I take on trust that they are a professional, qualified as a GP.
But in certain elite sports that just doesn’t work. Emily Bridges is asking the authorities to make an impossible decision that will likely have unfair consequences to either transgender athletes or (as defined by birth sex) female athletes. We all have to make choices in life, maybe she should accept that she has to decide if being female is more important or being a top level male athlete is more important.
One of the unintended consequences of accepting transgender athletes into female classification is that early in their careers, hopeful female athletes may feel compelled to identify as male, take male hormones, compete, train and build bodies with male characteristics before transitioning back at a later time.
Not sure why you are making
Not sure why you are making this about Emily? BC and UCI made the rules she is just trying to follow them. I agree in part with you but they should have thought more about the rules.
we also have to accept that this is an experimental phase where those rules are still being worked out.
Why don’t they carry out the
Why don’t they carry out the experiment while racing with the men? Why does it have to directly affect the results and incomes of women?
Mungecrundle wrote:
I can’t believe this is a serious comment! April 1st was yesterday, wasn’t it? I genuinely hope that I’ve misread your meaning and you’re not seriously suggesting that gender dysphoric athletes (or people in general) transition because they want to! Or that athetes (or people in general) would be cynical enough to undergo gender reassignment in order to get a competitive edge!
My mind is absolutely blown!
However it’s refreshing to read through the comments below and see the genuine discussions and apparent lack of brainlessness and outright prejudice.
MattieKempy wrote:
This from the people who act incredulous when you say a woman can’t have a penis.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Is MattieKempy some sort of anarchist art collective or something?
mdavidford wrote:
Is MattieKempy some sort of anarchist art collective or something?— Mark_1973_
Nope, he’s a person. But he is sympathetic toward anarchism, so you’re on the right track.
MattieKempy wrote:
I can’t believe this is a serious comment! April 1st was yesterday, wasn’t it? I genuinely hope that I’ve misread your meaning and you’re not seriously suggesting that gender dysphoric athletes (or people in general) transition because they want to! Or that athetes (or people in general) would be cynical enough to undergo gender reassignment in order to get a competitive edge!
My mind is absolutely blown!
However it’s refreshing to read through the comments below and see the genuine discussions and apparent lack of brainlessness and outright prejudice.— MungecrundleI don’t think that is what Mungecrundle said. I thought it was that, as an unintended consequence of rules to enable transfemales to compete, female athletes might seek parity with transfemale athletes by likewise enduring a period of male development and accruing the lasting physical benefits, just as transfemales have done, before reverting to being female. In other words, the latitude given to admit transfemales could be exploited by anyone. One rule for all – otherwise you are back to the problem of deciding who was a biological female in the first place.
Moreover, whilst bona-fide gender dysphoric individuals may not be making it up, sport is of course not short of people and organisations who will do anything to gain the advantage, so the rules and test have to guard against that possibility. It’s the age old problem of asking if someone is a liar or a cheat – you can’t rely on the answer.
In fact, on further
In fact, on further reflection, the rules can’t discriminate between genuine gender dysphoria and others, not without having some test for the genuineness. So whatever rules apply for the benefit of genuine cases apply to all.
So in creating those rules the governing bodies are allowing for any male to undergo testosterone reduction and compete as females, without being required to pass some test of their motivations. Genuine dysphorics themselves have demanded no less, so you’d only be allowed to test the ones who fail the test.
Given the risks associated with any drug regime, the regulators have a duty to ensure they are not creating a situation where those who don’t take the risks are at a disadvantage – that is the whole point of doping regulation. Which is the same as saying they must ensure that people admitted to competition via these channels are at no advantage because of it.
Unfortunately, recent history
Unfortunately, recent history has many proven examples of state sponsored “special athlete training programs”. Cycling hardly has a clean sheet when it comes to sailing close to the wind wrt medical exemptions let alone outright cheating.
Only a fool would discount that any route of exploiting rules and regulations designed to protect one set of athletes will be left unexploited.
For those who haven’t seen
For those who haven’t seen this excellent interview, here’s Pippa York’s take on transgender athletes.
https://youtu.be/5abgXEWQPlI?t=1115
IanGlasgow wrote:
A good video – particularly about people’s struggle to make their way through life, authorities not speaking with people actually affected by rules and the polarisation of responses / debate. Again in the interests of hearing other voices I’d note that there is a rejoinder to specific sporting / physiology points raised in that interview (with citatations of data / scientific literature) from the “Women’s rights network”. I know nothing about them (not into the twitters) – presumably a trigger warning needed as I recall some group like that was being labelled as “haters” in a previous thread?
Surely there’s more to it
Surely there’s more to it then just testosterone levels. Zach went through male puberty, therefore his hips didn’t widen, so the angle of his thigh bone didn’t change which would have an effect on the power his skeleton could transfer.
Emily also didn’t go through female puberty.
Can take all the hormones you want, but surely you cant reverse the affects of puberty and its “advantages/disadvantages ”
If somebody was to transition before puberty and the introduction of hormones changes the way the Skeleton and muscle stucture changes im sure there would be less argument
I have sympathy for Emily –
I have sympathy for Emily – it must be very difficult to your life against social norms and personal abuse is not justifiable. This issue is not that she is trans, it is that she benefited in an athletic sense from male development and puberty, an advantage not availble to female athletes. I feel she has been let down by those advising her and by the governing bodies who have set themselves up for failure by failing to take heed of both clear scientific evidence and the views of female athletes.
What is being asked is in my opinion deeply unfair for female athletes (of all levels, not just elite). The question of ‘what is a female’ is a little off target and conflates people with rare variations of sexual development with transgender people (and note, the chromosome conformations in that diagram that keeps being posted describe different routes to being male or female, not different sexes).
For sports purposes, male and female can be separated by classifying according to natural testosterone production and physiological ability to respond to it in a developmental sense. A testosterone driven puberty cannot be completely undone by subsequent testosterone supression. The scientific data is very clear on this – haemoglobin may change, but strength and muscle mass is less affected – and obviously skeletal structure is unchanged. Trans athlete advocate Joana Harper now talks about ‘meaningful competition’ rather than absoloute fairness as she knows what the data show – her own paper showed a retained advantage in trans women.
I really want to celebrate Emily’s cycling achievements but they must be benchmarked appropriately, in competition against the right group of athletes for them to have meaning and for her to have the public support she deserves.
Seems like a very sensible,
Seems like a very sensible, and sensitive, overview. I think the sticking point might be for those who hold to the ideal of [i]transwoman is woman[/i] with no differentiation.
The easiest way to solve this
The easiest way to solve this problem is to have an open catagory where women, men, gay, transsexual or whoever might want to compete in a cycling race. If you’re a good enough rider it shouldn’t deter you from entering this proposed open catagory. Keep the traditional races to specific gender, man or woman by birth. Everyone is happy! Hopefully sponsors won’t back out and keep the wheels turning.
Er – I don’t think anyone’s
Er – I don’t think anyone’s lobbying for gay people to have their own classification, or ride in ones they can’t currently.
Wait – I thought we’d sorted
Wait – I thought we’d sorted out those gender vs. sex definitions even if we didn’t agree on anything else? (ignoring the sexual orientation angle as mdavidford has that covered – it’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” of course!) Please tell me we’re not back at the start again? It’s bad enough trying to explain the ins and outs of segregation by transport mode.
I prefer separated or
I prefer separated or protected infrastructure.
Segregation just seems wrong.
I stand (apart) corrected! I
I stand (apart) corrected! I’m an “unbundled” type myself although that also needs recoining in English – “decoupling” is also not quite there.
Consciously uncoupled?
Consciously uncoupled?
Thank you, but I didn’t mean
Thank you, but I didn’t mean it as a correction, and it may be mere somantics, but to me the term segregation has so many (justifiably) negative connotations.
And I’d like to point out the segregation was never justified.
NeedSomeCake wrote:
The article that I got that diagram from is titled “Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum” so I don’t quite get what you mean. (article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/)
The UK government defines sex as:
I didn’t intend to conflate unusual genetics/development with transgender, but was trying to illustrate how complex sex assignment can be and some of the reasons that a person may not be content with being considered one sex or the other.