Rapha has said that “trans rights are human rights” in a reference to Emily Bridges, the transgender cyclist who is pictured on the cover of this month’s issue of Diva, the magazine for LGBTQI women and non-binary people, wearing kit from the London-based clothing and accessories brand.
> Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges insists she has no advantage over rivals
Bridges had been due to make her debut in a women’s race at the National Omnium Championships in February after her testosterone levels fell within those allowed by British Cycling under its Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy.
However, world cycling’s governing body, the UCI, subsequently barred the 21 year old from competing at the event and British Cycling has since suspended its policy.
In her interview with Diva, Bridges insisted that the hormone replacement therapy she has undergone means she does not have a physical advantage over riders she would be competing against in women’s races.
“I don’t have any advantage over my competitors and I’ve got data to back that up,” maintained the cyclist, who has been undergoing testing at Loughborough University.
In response to a tweet from road.cc linking to our coverage of Bridges’ interview, Rapha said: “Trans rights are human rights. We believe that all athletes should have the opportunity to race. We don’t have all the answers to how this should be actioned but we’re standing by our athletes and supporting them.”
Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges insists she has no advantage over rivals
“We’re the current punching bag in the culture war,” says 21 year old in interview with DIVA magazinehttps://t.co/hmHRBvf9OD #cycling pic.twitter.com/ejzbaiTM2u
— road.cc (@roadcc) May 26, 2022
Trans rights are human rights. We believe that all athletes should have the opportunity to race. We don’t have all the answers to how this should be actioned but we’re standing by our athletes and supporting them.
— Rapha (@rapha) May 30, 2022
There are few issues in sport right now that are as polarising of opinion as whether transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women’s competitions, and SRS Events said in a tweet: “Can’t understand why Emily doesn’t understand that it’s unfair to cis women if she takes part in women’s cycle racing events?”
In response to that tweet, Bridges’ mother Sandy Sullivan responded, saying: “Because she’s spent the last nearly 18 months as part of detailed scientific research studies which includes muscular biopsy data amongst other DETAILED scientific testing. Compare [the above] to previous data held by BC (5 YRS WORTH).”
Because she’s spent the last nearly 18 months as part of detailed scientific research studies which includes muscular biopsy data amongst other DETAILED scientific testing. Compare ⬆️ to previous data held by BC (5 YRS WORTH)
— Sandy ??❤ ?️? Ally She/Her (@sullivansa1) May 27, 2022
Bridges also told Diva that transgender athletes are “the current punching bag populist movements like to go for. We are, at the moment, who the culture war is against.
“There needs to be more positive voices and more education. People are constructing opinions off not the whole story.
“The more studies that are done, the more concrete evidence there will be.
“Sport acts as a microcosm to the rest of society, so with the patriarchal structure that exists in the rest of society, that’s intensified in sport,” she added.
Rapha is controlled by an RZC Investments, owned by Tom and Steuart Walton, two of the heirs to the Walmart grocery fortune.
The retailer, founded by their grandfather Sam Walton, is based in Bentonville, Arkansas.
Rapha relocated its North American HQ in 2020 from Portland, Oregon to Bentonville, which in January hosted this year’s UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships, with Walmart acting as headline sponsor to the event.
In March, the Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, vetoed legislation aimed at banning gender-confirming treatments or surgery for transgender youth. His veto was subsequently overturned by the state legislature.
Tom Walton said in a statement published at the time on the website of the Walton Family Foundation that he backed the governor’s position, reports Bike Industry and Retail News, although it noted that Hutchinson had previously signed into law legislation banning transgender women and girls from competing in school sports.
“We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas,” Walton said.
“This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state.
“We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.
“Our nation was built on inalienable rights and strengthened by individual differences. Arkansas has been called the land of opportunity because it is a place where anyone can think big and achieve the extraordinary.
“Any policy that limits individual opportunity also limits our state’s potential,” he added.




















169 thoughts on ““Trans rights are human rights,” says Rapha – “all athletes should have the opportunity to race””
She was racing other Men this
She was racing other Men this year. With respect Emily you might feel like a punching bag, but if you make it a choice between trans-rights and the integrity of competition for all Women then it is pretty obvious why you were excluded. That is even before we talk about what a ‘natural’ level of testosterone for a female athlete is…
I am shocked. Do you have any
I am shocked. Do you have any scientific evidence to back-up your opinions? Emily was excluded based on a UCI rule, although Emily followed the British Cycling rules. And yes she made a choice, but that does not given anyone the right to make Emily feel like a punching bag.
Every human has human rights,
Every human has human rights, but that is not equivalent to saying every human can access any competition.
Once again much about
Once again much about fairness and inclusion for a biological male and very little indeed about what Bridges’ taking part in womens’ races would mean to the biological females. Recall that Bridges won the University MALE points race in February.
Define “biological male” in a
Define “biological male” in a way that actual scientists would agree with you.
oh, you can’t? Shock.
You know very well biological
You know very well biological male/female is easy to define. 99% of the scientific community would agree but the issue is they’d have their lives ruined, income removed, reputations destroyed by the trans-radicals.
What people like you do Nos is play in the nuance, use the outliers to support your narrative and hope the tiny amount of exceptions prove the rule. The exceptions being people with DSD, not trans athletes.
You’ll point to 2 spirited tribes, transgender vikings and non-binary pharaoh hoping they’ll cloud the issue of sex and gender.
When Emily tried to enter the womens race and overwhelming amount of her competitors were ready to boycott the race. You’ll now point to there being full support from her competitors for her but can’t provide proof of this.
Emily has been involved in scientific studies showing a huge drop off in performance. Do we have links to those studies? A huge drop off that allowed Emily to win a mens race in February.
All I’m asking is that the links to the studies are providdd so that people who know how to interpret the results can make reasoned conclusions.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Ok. So define it. Because, like most things in science, there are many ways to measure it.
Any evidence to support this boycott? British Cycling defined a policy, Emily followed the policy. What matters is not the support, but the process followed defining and implementing the policy. The rest is hear-say unless you have evidence.
I agree these studies should be available. Maybe, you want to reserve your opinion on Emily results until you have read them?
Do you mean scientists can give reasoned conclusions?
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Maybe Emily should wait until they have been published and proved her point before she enters another race in the female category?
I don’t agree with the way she was treated by the UCI and BC but on the evidence of her race in February I don’t believe she should be racing in the female category.
Yawn. Just your transphobic
Yawn. Just your transphobic nonsense again sparrow.
no. Actual biologists would laugh at you if you repeated your lie to their face. They absolutely would. How do I know that? I know enough real world research geneticists to know first hand their bewilderment at transohobes such as yourselves uneducated opinions on a complex subject.
You, as ever, are wrong on this topic. Educate yourself. Be humble in what you don’t know.
Yep, me again. One of those
Yep, me again. One of those unbelievers that think biology overrides ideology. Aka, 99% of the population or non-twitterers.
Could you ask one of your geneticist friends to register on the site and offer real world geneticist insights in to how science has had it so wrong for so long? Or would you rather just sit there flogging mud as most of your kind do?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Science hasn’t gotten it wrong. Your under educated opinions on “science” are what’s wrong. Your ideas o biology are so infantile it’s staggering you keep on spouting such nonsense.
herp,derp XY XX herp derp
Prove me wrong Nos. It must
Prove me wrong Nos. It must surely be easy to blow my arguments out of the water by posting actual evidence? Actual science that proves reducing the amount of testosterone in a 6’4″ biological males body equates to the same competitive results that a 5’2″ biological female will have.
But no, you and CITA will just sit there clutching your pearls and pointing at the “transphobes”.
In all the threads you have posted in you have not once posted any actual evidence. It’s all been hearsay and naysay.
Yet that isn’t what was asked
Yet that isn’t what was asked
Prove your term is well defined. Based in actual science, not your sub gcse misogyny.
when you can’t, for the 15th time, you can actually admit a shortcoming. One that everyone has! It’s ok not to know as it’s an area we’re still learning about.
or you can continue with your transphobia. Your choice. Grow or stagnate.
MsG wrote:
Fairness. Can you reference any scientific evidence to show this would be unfair. Or is this based on your opinion and not fact?
MsG is a TERF, don’t expect
MsG is a TERF, don’t expect proof. Just vitriol.
I hate simplistic slogans
I hate simplistic sloganising which misrepresents the issue.
Of course the rights of
Of course the rights of transgender people should be respected, but that begs the question of whether a transgender woman who transitioned post puberty should be permitted to enter women-only sporting events. Personally, I think it would be fairer to limit women’s events to women born with XX chromosomes and transgender women who transitioned before puberty. But if transgender women who transitioned post puberty are to be permitted to enter women’s events, then there should be some kind of handicapping system to account for the physical effects of undergoing male puberty.
JMG DC wrote:
Look. The science for this is very complex. We need to stop giving opinions based on our own very limited knowledge. Otherwise, Emily and others will continue to feeling like a punching bag.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
I’d agree that biology is more complex than many posters here are aware of. I’ve learned some stuff. However the “science” need not be so complex. As one suggestion had it, just run the races / events for a period of time and see what happens. Then you’ve some data.
But that won’t help much of course. We always want to put people in categories (very few people want “no categories” for sport in general). Fundamentally this whole debate is about who can be in which category. (Apologies to the few folks who’ve moved beyond this…)
And would that process be “fair” to everyone involved? Or indeed anyone?
It’s good to see Rapha
It’s good to see Rapha standing up for trans rights in cycling. British Cycling’s abrupt u-turn on their policy without consultation or evidence, presumably because someone high up there has transphobes round for dinner parties, was absolutely craven, disgusting behaviour. British Cycling need to either develop policy and a plan to actually support Britain’s LGBT+ people, or be stripped of sporting body funding.
I think many of us are
I think many of us are unclear what – specifically – trans rights are in this context, and how they differ from others’. Could you be specific?
Maybe not u turning on a
Maybe not u turning on a policy developed over years with full consultation from members would have been the best start.
The U-turn wasn’t good. But
The U-turn wasn’t good. But do you or alexcr have an answer to my question, please?
That Emily followed all the
That Emily followed all the rules laid down by the sports governing body and the sports gove bring body threw those rules away. That’s her rights being trampled upon.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
We need to be clear on which body. UCI banned Emily and pushed Emily & British Cycling “under the bus”. What I want to know, is whether UCI have made a decision on Emily re-registering or just ignoring it. If they are ignoring / delayed it, shame on them.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I don’t recall being consulted before they developed the policy, can you show where i missed an opportunity to have my say?
https://www.britishcycling
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20210325-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-launches-consultation-on-Transgender-participation-policy-0
Again. What an amazing thing Google is…
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
What’s amazing is that you’ve spent thirty-nine posts refusing to supply any links to support your assertions, then suddenly you’ve managed to find one. One can only draw the conclusion that you didn’t have evidence for what you were saying previously and so fell back on the somewhat weaselly tactic of saying “Google it” whenever challenged.
If you are a genuine supporter of Emily’s cause, rather than a tiresome troll (your posts thus far are so ridiculous that one does wonder if you are actually an agent provocateur), I seriously suggest that you rethink your approach. At present, your aggressive, patronising and evidence-free posts, along with your refusal to engage in any debate, simply repeating ad nauseam what you have already said, is far more likely to push any neutral away from supporting her than to convince them that her case has merit.
Rendel. People who looked,
Rendel. People who looked, found some of the research quickly. I have concluded you could not be bothered and therefore not open minded or will to understand this complex challenge. “A closed mind is like a closed book just a block of wood”.
I am not a supporter or a hater, just feel that simplistics reasoning and anecdotal comments, when the science is more complex, is unhelpful and unconstructive in the debate.
And finally, I wish you and your bias all the best.
Thank you for so
Thank you for so comprehensively proving my point.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Laughing Out Loud. If you think my response proved your point, you need to sells your bikes, dust off your golf clubs and join Alliance of British Drivers and Fair Fuel UK. Your closed mind and bias opinions will be more welcome there, especially because you can start with “I am cyclist…”.
It’s OK, you’ve proved my
It’s OK, you’ve proved my point comprehensively, you don’t have to keep on making of fool of yourself, job’s a good ‘un.
How is the golf? Suit you sir
How is the golf? Suit you sir! I need a new bike, what you selling?
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Oh dear. Your first attempt at this joke fell flat on its arse but hey, pick it up and throw it out there again. One can only reiterate that if you genuinely support Emily’s cause, rather than simply trolling for sad egotistical purposes of your own, the best thing you can do is to wind your neck in; your aggressive, fact-free and arrogant postings are an embarrassment and encumbrance to those who support her and will only serve to confirm her opponents in their beliefs. You will of course carry on posting, because in the end it’s not about the issues, it’s all about you. It’s very sad.
Y’know, looking back… if
Y’know, looking back… if you just took the “I don’t think anyone’s sufficiently over the detail for a cool and rational discussion of that” from those posts and ignored the rest I bet that would be true. Sadly it’s tempting to post a comment when I should just
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
No, that is consultation after they published the policy, that doesn’t show that they developed the policy in full consultation with the membership, dates matter!
Backladder wrote:
you do realise you sound as uninformed as the drivers reacting to the Highway Code changes, who also claim they didn’t get their say, when they did ?
it’s not BC fault you didn’t pay attention.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
If I missed it I may be at fault, depending on how it was publicised but I asked for a link to show that I missed it and no one seems to have been able to find one.
alexcr wrote:
Whilst British Cycling could have handle the situation after the UCI ruling better, the UCI throw Emily and British Cycling “under the bus”.
Rapha wrote:
Yes, literally everyone believes that. Unless you mean “all athletes should have the opportunity to race in whatever race they choose“, then literally no one believes it. (Or will you be supporting my petition to race TDF this year?)
Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? It’s one thing to express airy feel goodisms, quite another to develop real policy that responsibly takes a multitude of complex and often contradictory factors into account.
It doesn’t get much more patriarchal than a male saying, “Hey imma go race females and demand that everyone accept my decision.”
It doesn’t get much more
It doesn’t get much more patriarchal than a male saying, “Hey imma go race females and demand that everyone accept my decision.”
That’s also the Chappelle arguement expect he goes one step further by saying white males and in IMHO from a philosophical pov it’s hard to argue against. ?♂️
ejocs wrote:
Yes, literally everyone believes that. Unless you mean “all athletes should have the opportunity to race in whatever race they choose“, then literally no one believes it. (Or will you be supporting my petition to race TDF this year?)
Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? It’s one thing to express airy feel goodisms, quite another to develop real policy that responsibly takes a multitude of complex and often contradictory factors into account.
It doesn’t get much more patriarchal than a male saying, “Hey imma go race females and demand that everyone accept my decision.”
— Rapha
British Cycling did develop a “real policy”. Emily did followed that “real policy”. UCI pushed Emily and British Cycling “under the bus”. Regarding your implied fairness argument, do you have any scientific evidence to support this or just your own opnions.
Emily’s testosterone level
Emily’s testosterone level had to be below 5 nmol/dl for 12 months to qualify her being able to compete as a woman. A normal range for female testosterone is 0.7 – 2 nmoldl. If any non-trans females returned a testosterone level of 5 nmol/dl they probably be banned for a long period of time.
How was the 5 nmol/dl level set? What studies was this based on?
People keep screaming “scientific studies” but no links have provided so that the scientific community can make reasoned conclusions.
So no links to studies
So no links to studies disproving their method, nor any comment on why they’d develop a policy only to scrap it last minute. Doesn’t seem too fair to follow all the rules then have the rules ripped up does it…
Come again? I was replying to
Come again? I was replying to Rapha’s tweet, not to British Cycling or anyone else. And I didn’t make any fairness arguments, or any kind of arguments/claims that depend on scientific evidence.
all companies should have the
all companies should have the right to profit from situations
If Emily Bridges was my
If Emily Bridges was my accountant, I’d be more than happy for her to do my taxes. If she was an airline pilot I’d take my seat without an iota of doubt in her abilities. If she were my GP I’d be perfectly OK dropping my pants for a prostate exam. In pretty much no walk of life does her gender identity “matter” to anyone other than herself and those close to her.
However, a lot of elite competitive sports are based not only on hard work, training and commitment. You need to start with an unfair advantage over others, usually physical traits that you are lucky enough to inherit. For a transgender athlete such as Emily, the only way that she is going to prove that being born and developing with a male body before transitioning has conferred no unfair advantage over, shall we say, traditional female athletes is to lose.
Like many of us, she has choices to make about her priorities in life and sometimes that means being mindful about being fair to others who are also chasing their ambitions.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Fairness. Based on your own opinion or scientific evidence?
Science, in general, only
Science, in general, only informs opinion. Very few scientific theories make it to becoming incontrovertible laws of nature. This is the great strength of the scientific method.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Hum. Newtons Law? Too many to list.
Newton, it’s called a law,
Newton, it’s called a law, and it’s quite a good approximation, Einstein refined it a bit but then there are some more complexities…
Gravity – not just a good
Gravity – not just a good idea, it’s the law!
Although I didn’t “google it” it does seem we’re getting stuck in an actual rather than potential well here though.
1. OMG I am so over this
1. OMG I am so over this story. This person seems like a desperate attention seeker now…
2. Rapha is cliquey way overpriced tat and whenever I see cyclists wearing it they are often the most unaware, inconsiderate, narcissistic, and half-witted goobers in the cycle lane…
3. I spend a bit of time in Arkansas and I can tell you it is really quite backward. Like developing nation backward. A barbaric place compared to most EU countries.
Or, she’s trying to compete
Or, she’s trying to compete in the sport she loves, as the gender she is.
But sports aren’t based on
But sports aren’t based on ideology such as gender, they are based on biology and physiology.
That would be your idea of
That would be your idea of biology, which is sub-o level, yes?
joe9090 wrote:
What is that line from Shake it Off? Oh, yes, “And the haters gonna hate…”.
Without any judgment at all
Without any judgment at all on the wider issues, I still don’t understand the testosterone-reducing business: as far as I understand Emily’s account, she has been on treatment for many, many months and it has “massively” reduced her capacity, and yet she won a national men’s race less than a month before she was due to race as a woman. As far as I’m aware she was not World Tour standard before beginning treatment, which is the only way I can see someone could have their capacity massively reduced and still win a national student championship.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes, the science is complex, so better to leave opinions to the scientists.
Do you mean scientist that
Do you mean scientist that only agree with and back Emily’s results or all scientists? Have the results been made available to all scientists?
sparrowlegs wrote:
I am presuming you are not a scientist based on your reply as you do not understand how study are reviewed & published. Your using the same types of argument those “trans-radicals” use. Maybe a role in No10 or Cabinet Office would be more suitable?
You are correct, I’m not a
You are correct, I’m not a scientist. I’m assuming by your replies you are and have seen the results of Emily’s test? So they haven’t been reviewed, studies and published by you want BC to take them and abide by them? I’m assuming these studies included double blind tests using various subjects that have had hormone levels reduced/increased. I’m assuming it’s not a test based on Emily and her results alone because that would be a single subject test with someone that has a vested interest in the outcome
As for the boycott, read the stories on this subject as it was well publicised that Emily’s competitors were ready to walk away from the race if Emily started.
By saying there are many ways to define biological sex you mean to cloud the issue again, hoping the tiny tiny amount of people that are DSD will prove the point for trans athletes, which is completely different.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Laughing. Your not a scientist but continue to voice your opinions like you are! Oh well, never mind dear.
Guardian was the source “…several riders held talks about boycotting the event in protest…”. How many is several? And they talked about boycotting. I talk about winning the Tour De France, but that is not going to happen.
I am not clouding anything. I am saying follow the science and do not voice your own opinion as science or fact.
Ooh – just one slip there!
Ooh – just one slip there! Science at its best is finding out what there is / how it is. Sport would ideally be informed by science. However it’s actually an activity of human decision-making and politics. It’s about someone / some group making up a set of rules and persuading others to stick to them.
So “leave the science to the scientists and hope the opinions of the sport’s governing body – and eventually those competing / spectating – are informed by the science – oh, and they take into account wider social considerations around ‘fairness and inclusion’ too” would be better. If not as snappy.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Suggest you read a science report, they have a conclusion! Sport is informed by science e.g. doping!
I think you’ll find most sporting bodies want to keep politics out of sport. Politics is for the Government, they make the laws and sporting bodies act within them. Yes, the sporting body makes the rules and we either abide by them or do not compet or get sanctioned if we break them e.g. doping or socks too high.
So the truth finally comes out. Ignore the science and go by social considerations. Shame on you.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Suggest you read a science report, they have a conclusion! Sport is informed by science e.g. doping!— chrisonatrike
For a “scientist” you seem to have your conclusion prepared before you’ve done your literature review – or paid close attention to the data. You’re right, it’s been ages but I do recall the importance of citation. Or presenting some results. I’d be delighted if you could bring some more to this topic – some of us are clearly struggling with the basics, others no doubt would be keen for something a little more in-depth.
I was just interested in your repeated use of “but science” when the context makes clear what this is about is making a decision, or building consensus. Not the same, see…
“Most sporting bodies want to keep politics out of sport” – that may be so, I was merely trying to be … scientific and point out “what is” rather than “what I’d like it to be”. Plenty examples of politics getting into sports [russia] [america]. Note I’m not saying that this is a good thing nor that I want more of this.
So the truth finally comes out. Ignore the science and go by social considerations. Shame on you.— chrisonatrike
That’s quite an odd reading you’ve made of what I’ve written there.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
I think this definitely wins Amusing Comment of the Month.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Leaving aside the unnecessary snottiness of your reply, that is exactly what I’m asking, can anyone explain how the science reconciles these apparently contradictory statements that the hormone treatment has massively reduced Emily’s physical capacities and yet she still won a quite high-level race racing as a man just before she was supposedly so reduced in capacity that it was OK for her to race as a woman? As I said, I’m not trying to pass judgement either way, I would just like to know the answer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’ll bite – if only for theoretical purposes – HTH
She won a shortish (30km) points race which was closer to the Senior Womens distance of (25km) than the mens (40km). Its also a tactical endurance race mixing sprinters and more general riders according the Notts U results site so its entirely possible not to be the best in either and come out on top. Unless you have an eye witness that says she completely destroyed the field then its pure speculation that doing well in this race means she will do well in other types of womens races. Its a bit like the fuss around the Lea Thomas results that omitted to mention she came in well behind in several other races coz that doesnt fit the “trans women will destroy female sport” narrative. Before anyone else mentions Emily helped the team pursuit to a BUS bronze too, again hard to judge absolute ability there.
Also – are you sure its a high level race in the grand scheme of things? Its gifted amateur cyclists doing uni degrees when (arguably) the really talented ones are already riding their Pro or Neo-pro contracts or desperately grafting to get there.
I’m on the fence whether Emily can compete fairly with cis women – especially at the Pro level (She was about to race Laura Kenny ffs!). Testosterone feels a little crude as a measure. But I dont like the way it was handled.
Bit on points racing here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/get_involved/4263734.stm
Notts U here:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/sport/news-and-events/news/news/successful-return-to-the-bucs-track-cycling-championships-for-university-of-nottingham-students.aspx
“it was imperative that a
“it was imperative that a sizeable gap could be maintained and heading into the final lap Emily knew she had done enough to win BUCS Gold”
Thats from the link you posted. A sizeable gap. She maintained a sizeable gap to the other male competitors. Sounds pretty much like she was able to create/maintain a sizeable gap. Because it says it, sizeable gap.
sparrowlegs wrote:
And? Women and men have won races with sizable gaps before. And on another day they’ve lost by the narrowest of margins.
In one race that requires tactics and guile against middle rank competion (at best) compared to the Pro’s. It says nothing about her general ability or her ability to beat women in general. Its just 1 data point.
How much wailing and gnashing of teeth was there when Fiona Kolbinger destroyed the male competition by almost 8hrs in the Trans Continental? There wasn’t – it was rightly celebrated.
I’m not saying its right or wrong to let Emily compete in her current state against females at the highest level. I’m saying lets not prejudge it as you so clearly have.
Ah, the old “Fiona Kolbinger”
Ah, the old “Fiona Kolbinger” argument. Is Fiona trans? No, therefore irrelevant as a point of comparison.
Again, you write Emily’s competition off as low/middling at best so that you can try to explain that’s the only reason she won, because they were crap. Yet we should write that off as a point of comparison against her competing against biological women? A lot of her female competitors in that race aren’t pros either, does that lessen their rights to fair competition?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Reading the report it seems to be talking about a gap in points rather than in distance on the track, having said that the points race is a really gruelling effort in which you barely recover from one sprint before you have to do it again and Emily managed to win consecutive sprints in the middle of the race.
Interesting reply, food for
Interesting reply, food for thought. I would say that BUCS is a reasonably high standard of competition, Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton both racing in the championships and, for example, the men’s and women’s individual pursuit championship records being times good enough to have taken gold at the Atlanta Olympics. It’s a fair point about the nature of the points race in terms of comparison with other races – on the other hand in comparison with other male racers, well she did beat them all and the report to which you link does refer to her taking two consecutive sprints mid race, then building a sizeable lead and winning with a sizeable gap, so it does sound a pretty emphatic victory.
Rendel Harris wrote:
How can anyone give an opinion based on “high-level race”. Do we know anything about the other racers? The science is complex, leave it to them.
You keep saying the science
You keep saying the science is complex but no actual science is being offered for us to see any actual complexities. Maybe if some were offered we may be able to use that to see much deeper than what’s on the surface, a biological male competing against biological females.
sparrowlegs wrote:
A lot of articles and papers online. Google it. You’ll be surprised.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
I’d be surprised if anyone who answers questions with “Google it” actually has much grasp of the answer themselves, to be honest.
But I might look at something
But I might look at something that doesn’t back Emily’s results so please, post the links that you want me to read.
sparrowlegs wrote:
I see you are being open minded. Shame on you.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Well you’re not, are you? You keep telling people they can’t give their opinion and to leave it to the scientists, yet (without demonstrating any scientific knowledge or credentials yourself) you are happy to share your opinions with everyone.
Rendel Harris wrote:
If the science says no advantage for cycling, Emily should be allowed to race. If an advantage exists, it needs to be removed.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
I entirely agree with both those points. However neither you, nor anybody else as far as I can see, has provided any satisfactory answer as to whether she has/had an advantage and if she does whether it will be/has been entirely removed.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Advantage in regards to what exactly? I suggest you leave this to the scientists or read the articles and papers (Google It).
There are no studies or
There are no studies or papers that say reducing testosterone removes EVERY advantage a biological male may have over a biological female.
If you know of one, please, post the link.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Wrong again dear. Never mind. Google It.
If I’m wrong, prove me wrong,
If I’m wrong, prove me wrong, post the link(s).
How would you remove the many
How would you remove the many advantages of going through male puberty?
The onus should be on Emily to prove that going through male puberty hasn’t bestowed her with any advantages over her biological femal competitors.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Google It. Read the articles and research. You’ll find the answers.
I have googled it and I can’t
I have googled it and I can’t find 1 study that says reducing testosterone does anything anywhere near to reducing the advantages a biological male has over biological females. Not one.
Maybe you can post a link to one to back up your obvious scientific qualifications darling?
And yet the science,
And yet the science, including biology, isn’t to be trusted because it’s wrong. But the science backing up Emily’s claims is to be trusted.
sparrowlegs wrote:
You are simply wrong again dear. Whether Emily races must be based on science not opinion.
That’s what I’m saying. Once
That’s what I’m saying. Once the triple blind, multiple subject test results are released there’ll be no need for further debate.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Laughing. Your not a scientist but continue to voice your opinions like you are! Oh well, never mind dear.
CyclingIsTheAnswer]
* You’re
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
You’re (note spelling) not a scientist, apparently (telling other people “go and google it” doesn’t make you a scientist), and yet you continue to voice your opinions as if you are.
I really do think that you’re (note spelling) doing Emily’s cause more harm than good; there are several commenters on here who are well versed in the arguments and support her right to race eloquently and sensibly, whereas anyone neutral seeing your entire inability to present any scientific argument and your ridiculous pretence of superiority (“Never mind dear”, really?) would naturally think if that’s all the pro side has to offer as an argument it’s weak to the point of nonexistence.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Wrong again dear (regarding scientist). I am asking everyone to stop voicing their own opinions as facts or science. The research exists and you can find it online if you want.
Question. Which exercises have advantage and no advantage after horome thearpy for transgender vs cisgender women? What I am disappointed is commenters, like yourself, giving opinions as fact or science and not spending the time to research the subject. I am telling me, I doing more harm than good, seems like you are trying to cancel me because you not interested in the science, just your own opinions.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Is this google translate ?
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Well you keep telling you that and maybe eventually you’ll stop.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I am hoping that you are now reading about transgender athletes and your next post will be based off the science.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Well, you certainly have inspired me. Don’t need to read up any papers though, following your lead I’m just going to hang around t’internet claiming to be a scientist whilst making unevidenced claims, if anyone questions me or asks for a modicum of proof I’ll tell ’em to Google it, job’s a good ‘un.
sparrowlegs found it. Shame
sparrowlegs found it. Shame you did not want to invest the time and or effort to understand Emily. Maybe next time.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Never mind dear. Maybe next
Never mind dear. Maybe next time, learn how the text editor works so you do not deliberately misquote someone.
Whoosh
Whoosh
Still doesn’t prove that
Still doesn’t prove that reducing testosterone removes ALL advantages a biological male may have over a biological female.
Also, after being in the RAF for 9 years and working closely with armed forces from all over the world I would not consider members of any of them to be mostly athletes in any way. Yes, there are fitness tests but you really do have to be unfit not to pass them.
A lot of the content in this link goes on to say the advantages can be reduced but never fully enough to guarantee fair play for biological females competing womens sports
https://m.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988
So, again, until scientific tests across all sports and competitors is completed, reviewed and published it’s probably best and safest that trans competitors not be allowed to compete against non-trans competitors.
I did not say it proves it. I
I did not say it proves it. I said it is likely a level playing field can be achieved. Regarding fairness, would you stop TUE based on the same reasoning? How do you level the playing field e.g. swimmers cannot have bigger feet or hands than x? Fairness is a very complicated topic and I do not think it is fair or right to boil it down to one element e.g. testosterone. If Emily competed and came last, would your opinion change?
TUEs are completely different
TUEs are completely different to allowing someone who has completed male puberty to compete against someone who hasn’t. No TUE in the world can make up that difference.
Now you’re using nuance again about differences in foot size etc but this is completely different. You are trying to use exceptions and outliers to show there are differences in make up but the difference between biological males and females is often quite huge. Take the NBA and WNBA for a start.
The fact remains that a biological male that has been through puberty will have advantages a biological female just won’t have.
Also, Emily came first in a mens race not long ago. She’s probably not a great example to use.
It highlights the argument on
It highlights the argument on fairness is flawed. Sport Bodies create categories to try and level out the playing field, but they cannot do it exactly, so they group and within that group they have margins / tolerances.
Again please stop using simplistics reasoning and anecdotal comments when the science is more complex. It highlights you are bias at best.
But you are comparing males
But you are comparing males to males and females to females in that example. It’s almost like you’re going for equity instead of equality when you mention foot size etc.
Take a look at the link below which shows no matter how much Lia’s testosterone is reduced, she’ll always be 6’4″.
https://firstsportz.com/swimming-news-mayo-doctor-confirms-lia-thomas-an-unfair-biological-advantage/?amp
I hope you can back that up
I hope you can back that up with “science” – I’m sure it’s more complicated than that…
sparrowlegs wrote:
Using the same logic, shall we ban Ian Thorpe because of his feet? Argument is flawed and bias is exposed.
Are you saying women cannot be that tall? Oh, gender bias as well.
Show me a 6’4″ biological
Show me a 6’4″ biological female swimmer.
Ian Thorpe isn’t trans is he? In which case it’s not a great comparison. Show me a biological female swimmer with the same size feet as him.
Flimsy arguments at best backed up with name calling. You and Nos have done nothing to further the case of allowing trans female athletes to compete against biological females. Nothing.
I don’t know whether she ever
I don’t know whether she ever went swimming but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Allen
(Also as you’ll remember we’ve already gone through some examples of women – by everyone’s definition as far as I recall – “winning” / achieving things men could not at certain disciplines).
There are quite wide ranges. The “average” may be an unhelpful concept given we’re talking sport, where the unusual is usual. Otherwise we can all enjoy a kick-about / challenging ourselves. People cluster around certain physiologies at higher levels of sport. Stating the obvious basketball players tend to be tall (other things being equal), Sumo wrestling – partly because no weight classes – favours strength, mass and low centre of gravity etc. “Optimum” is not necessarily a single point for given discipline. There may be multiple possible optima – and each may have own tradeoffs. So extreme strength may be useful but lose you speed / add weight etc. Given *some* male / female differences (I know, we’re arguing about just that…) the optimum might differ across sexes as well.
Are there absolute limits for original biological sex – which could then be “carried over” if you transition? I’m tempted to say “google it”…
Oh come come chrisonatrike.
Oh come come chrisonatrike. Don’t fall back to posting links to outliers when trying to prove a point. We know that doesn’t work.
Sandy suffered from a condition called gigantism.
We also know Missy Franklin and Kate Ledecky aren’t trans so yes, they may be taller than the other biological female competitors but they won’t and don’t have the advantages of going through male puberty.
If you’re going to rule out
If you’re going to rule out ‘outliers’, I think that’s going to stop you talking about elite athletes at all.
But, we aren’t talking about
But, we aren’t talking about outliers, we are talking about trans females competing against non-trans females.
You posted a link to Sandy Allen who as far as I can tell was neither a female athlete or trans.
if you want to compare like for like then compare Phelps to Ledecky. Or Lia Thomas pre-trans to Lia Thomas post-trans. Lia was ranked somewhere between 500-600 as a man but when she transitioned that didn’t equate to her being ranked 500-600 as a female. Why is that?
Apologies mdavidford, it was
Apologies mdavidford, it was chrisonatrike that posted the link to Sandy Allen.
mdavidford wrote:
which is the point that sparrow stares in the face and still misses,every time
sport at an elite level is all about genetic outliers, by definition. Sparrow just wants to decide some genetic outliers – proven or otherwise, they’ll just assume them – can be excluded just because he’s a transphobe.
byt he’s also an acknowledged mysogynist who stated that bearing children is the greatest thing a woman can do, so yeah.
sparrow – fortunately your fact-less opinion based off less than o level / gcse biology isn’t particularly important.
mdavidford wrote:
which is the point that sparrow stares in the face and still misses,every time
sport at an elite level is all about genetic outliers, by definition. Sparrow just wants to decide some genetic outliers – proven or otherwise, they’ll just assume them – can be excluded just because he’s a transphobe.
byt he’s also an acknowledged mysogynist who stated that bearing children is the greatest thing a woman can do, so yeah.
sparrow – fortunately your fact-less opinion based off less than o level / gcse biology isn’t particularly important.
Maybe answer the question I
Maybe answer the question I posed then? Why, when Lia raced as a man she was ranked 500-600 but now she identifies as a woman she isn’t ranked 500-600 in the female ranking?
I stated women bearing children as something only biological women can do.
Here you go again with the pearl cluthching and finger pointing. Maybe come to the discussion with one of your geneticist friends who can cite studies and papers about how biology is no longer useful as a divider in sports?
Ah no, actually. You stated
Ah no, actually. You stated it was the greatest thing a woman can do. You then tried to walk it back after you were loudly told,to fuck off. But you still said it.
Would this be another question that you have spun up to deflect from the fact you dint like some genetic outliers, proven or otherwise, because at heart you go “ick”. It’s ok – stop denying. First step to growing and overcoming.
anyway. As ever you’re quite, quite dull. It’s not even entertaining anymore. You really are this deficient in your understanding of biology, and wish to foist that on everyone else. Sadly, it’s just sad.
Oh dear Nos. looks like those
Oh dear Nos. looks like those transphobes at the BBC are allowing yet more bigoted opinions based on outdated “science”…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517
Get on to them! Tell them you know geneticists and true up-to-date scientists that can categorically prove them wrong!
I’ll expect the page to be taken down and replaced with a full apology after you’ve put them straight.
You merely asked for a tall
You merely asked for a tall female swimmer so I suggested one. I’m sure there are plenty more. You’re correct, she suffered from gigantism. As did Andre the Giant. On the other hand Peter Dinklage is quite short.
What was your point again…?
I was just trying to help out on the “it’s more complicated” front as different abilities / sizes / power-to-weight-ratios etc. are available across humanity. Those abilities have different utility in different sports, no? That points to any binary decision being a flawed one. You can of course sidestep that with “the most important thing is that people compete on declared gender lines and everything else has to follow from that”.
Anyway I think the nitty gritty of different particular advantages in different sports are the only place where the “science” may be informative. Rather than just saying “no change, because sex (and science)”, “all change, because gender (and science)” or even “no-one gets to comment because ‘science’ and I’m the referee”. Probably “no comments” is where we’re headed anyway, at the current rate bring it on.
Of course that’s all begging the question of what we mean by “fair” in sports or what we want to achieve in sports at all. Sounds like a problem firmly in the domain of human interactions and decisions to me, that.
My point is you negated any
My point is you negated any point you had when you posted that link.
Aaand now you go back to the
Aaand now you go back to the nuance.
Never been anywhere but.
Never been anywhere but. Anyway, it’s past mine but there’s still light to ride by, so I’ll let you and nosferatu1001 and our (new?) cycling-positive friend here have at it.
Weirdly it is only you who
Weirdly it is only you who ever quote her height as 6ft 4. I picked this up on other discussion you have had on this. Where do you get that from? All searches seem to be anywhere from 5ft 8 to 6ft 1 (wiki the last one) and even that might have been a guess from a WP article where they point out Missy Franklin was taller and Kate Ledecky was 1inch or so smaller.
You know, I may be wrong
You know, I may be wrong about Lia’s height. It’s listed in most places as 1.85m which is 6’1″.
I stand corrected.
Here we go again…
Here we go again…
mark1a wrote:
Thought I’d stick my head in here to see if there’s any insightful comments or links to interesting science.
Nothing. Nada. Lots of mentions of science, scientists and biology, yet can’t see any studies or analysis.
You’ll be calling “science” a
You’ll be calling “science” a MacGuffin next.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Nothing. Nada. Lots of mentions of science, scientists and biology, yet can’t see any studies or analysis.— hawkinspeter
Suggest you Google it. And remember, each sport has different characteristics so an advantage in one might not mean an advantage in another. Matt Stephens interview with Philippa York. Pippa talks about some of the issues and her own experiences.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
That sounds very much to me like “do your own research” which usually goes along with a complete lack of references.
I’m out.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No. I am asking you to Google it and see the numerous articles and research done. I do not want to spoon feed you and then burp you.
You don’t want to back up
You don’t want to back up your argument? You’re not very familiar with the field of science are you…
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Articles are available for people who want to research the topic. I do not have an argument, I am asking people not to voice their opinion as facts or science.
Again judgment without fact.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Now you’re talking sense…
“My position is you’re all
“My position is you’re all idiots. And if you disagree that proves it.”
chrisonatrike wrote:
“If you disagree, you can just go Google yourself!”
Googling yourself makes you
Googling yourself makes you go blind, I heard.
Just don’t google google!
Just don’t google google!
I can’t – I don’t know where
I can’t – I don’t know where google is. How do I find it?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ask Jeeves.
mdavidford wrote:
I’ll gopher him.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Let me know when you have, reach me on FidoNet.
Finally! An evidence based
Finally! An evidence based opinion that I can respect.
I actually lol’d at this ???
I actually lol’d at this ???
Oh wait – I get it. It’s a
Oh wait – I get it. It’s a parody of mansplaining. Showing how the “other” in these “debates” sees it. So most of the commentors come over as patronising. Claiming a position of authority (on behalf of others) while clearly having gone no further than their own prejudices. Failing to listen or engage. Ending up just repeating the same unchallenged “wisdom” while clearly unable to understand, never mind justify it.
There really should be some kind of symbol you could use on the internets to add some kind of expression of feeling or emotion to text and save us from needless miscommunication.
Point us towards the
Point us towards the supporting articles then we can read them.
All I’m finding is evidence and studies that show once a person has gone through male puberty, the advantages bestowed upon that person can never be fully removed by any amount of testosterone reduction.
That’s what I’m basing my opinion on. The scientific evidence and studies that I have read.
You seem to know way more about this subject than any of us do so please enlighten us. I’m actually seriously asking for you to show us these studies so that I can read them myself and I might just change my opinion if the evidence is compelling enough.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Alot of the research was carried out on untrained people and this is not a fair comparison. Suggest you read the research carried out on military personnel.
You mean the one on RAF
You mean the one on RAF personell?
If you know of the study then post it as I can’t find one that supports testosterone reduction removing all advantages a biological male has over a biological female.
A mutiple choice question:
A mutiple choice question: Which of the following exercises has no advantage after hormone thearpy:
A. Push-ups
B. Sit-ups
C. Run
Well, if I take the findings
Well, if I take the findings from this study
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
then it’s B.
Transwomen retain an advantage in upper body strength (push-ups) over female controls for 1–2 years after starting gender affirming hormones.
Transwomen retain an advantage in endurance (1.5 mile run) over female controls for over 2 years after starting gender affirming hormones.
Transwomen are currently mandated to have 1 year of testosterone suppression before being permitted to compete at the elite level. This may be too short if the aim is a level playing field.
During an interview with Matt
During an interview with Matt Stephens, Pippa York talked about other changes that impact cycling ability for her (adding weight, loss of power so power to weight ratio reduced). I’ll not going to comment on the time, just that it is likely a level playing field can be achieved and we need to focus on that. We need to focus on include and not exclude.
Pippa went through full
Pippa went through full gender reassignment surgery. A lot of trans people do not. Around 5-10% of trans women get genital surgery (https://www.statsforgender.org/surgery/).
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Trick question, as all 3 still have advantages for a considerable time after commencing hormone therapy. The first reference below confirms that running performance benefits exist more than 2 years after starting hormone therapy. The second reference confirms that muscle area (affecting both push ups and sit-ups) is maintained for 3 years after starting hormone therapy.
” hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. ”
It is worth noting that the conclusion above from my second reference was written by a female transgender sports scientist. This makes a nonsense of the 12 month rule.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
Wrong again dear. This is why
Wrong again dear. This is why I do not post links.
“… the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared…”
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Wrong again. Read the second reference. More muscle density helps pushup and situps. And the only reason you don’t post references is you cant be bothered to read a cross section of reports to gain a broad understanding.
Griff500 wrote:
Ignoring first reference and only referencing the second reference to prove your own opinion without context or justification. Bias at best…Shame on you.
CyclingIsTheAnswer wrote:
Ignoring first reference and only referencing the second reference to prove your own opinion without context or justification. Bias at best…Shame on you.
— Griff500 I ignored neither, they were both my references. If you read the detail of the first reference instead of speed reading, what it actually says is that during the test they failed to adequately account for the higher average weight of the transgender women, so in performing the same number of pushups/situps, they still generated more power. So both reports agree that after 2 years in one case, and 3 years in the other, there is retained muscle after treatment.
“For example, as a group, transwomen weigh more than CW. Thus transwomen will have a higher power output than CW when performing an equivalent number of push-ups. Therefore, our study may underestimate the advantage in strength that transwomen have over CW.”
I am done feeding the troll.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, would you Adam and Eve it?
mark1a wrote:
In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose above the great velodrome of Manchester. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Disc Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.
Has anybody else noticed Nos
Has anybody else noticed Nos stopped posting around the same time CITA came along?
No? It’s almost like I was
No? It’s almost like I was busy yesterday
your ability to generate conspiracy theories is fun. Found any proof that the trans athlete threw that race yet? Or is your libel going to stand?
For all those asking for what
For all those asking for what the scientists say, Auntie has you covered:
[I]Transgender athletes: What do the scientists say?[/i]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517
BBC – yep, saw that, I’m sure
BBC – yep, saw that, I’m sure this will be the end of these threads now
I have an O level in Biology.
I have an O level in Biology. It’s outdated now because these concepts weren’t on the syllabus in 1985. However one biological fact I’ve learned from recent discussions, as I’ve stated previously is that there are more horse’s arses in the world than horses. No need to Google it.
A lot of people here are
A lot of people here are suggesting that the matter can be settled by science. But…
Scientific fact: Human males and females develop differently, resulting in different physical and psychological characteristics. For most sporting activities, in general a male will have an advantage over a female. But that does not imply that for any male and any female, the male will win a sporting activity; in other words, differences between individuals can outweigh the average advantage of a male over a female.
Claim: Certain applications of hormones can exactly counter that part of a male that can be considered the part that is the part of their average male over female advantage.
Regardless of any scientific study, I consider this claim to be utter bullshit.