Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

UCI bans transgender female cyclists who have transitioned after puberty from competing in international women’s races

The governing body says its previous rules, which required “at least two years of gender-affirming hormone therapy”, are not “sufficient to completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men”

The UCI has updated its rules concerning the participation of female transgender cyclists in international competition, by prohibiting women who transitioned after male puberty from competing in all women’s events on the UCI calendar.

The world governing body’s decision, which comes into force on 17 July, follows British Cycling’s announcement in May that it was introducing a new ‘Open’ category to run alongside the women’s category as part of an update to its Transgender and Non-Binary Participation policies.

> British Cycling updates transgender policy, introduces new "Open" category

According to the UCI’s new rules, the men’s category at International Masters events will also be renamed ‘Men/Open’, permitting the participation of any athlete who does not meet the conditions for participation in women’s events.

The updated policy, which was agreed upon at an extraordinary meeting of the UCI on 5 July, follows a seminar organised by the governing body on the “conditions for the participation of transgender athletes in women's cycling events”, held on 21 June, which saw the “various stakeholders” in the debate present their respective positions.

According to a statement released by the UCI today, “From now on, female transgender athletes who have transitioned after (male) puberty will be prohibited from participating in women's events on the UCI International Calendar – in all categories – in the various disciplines.”

The banning of female trans cyclists from women’s events comes just over a year after the UCI tightened its own rules on transgender participation by doubling the time that an athlete transitioning from male to female needed to wait before being able to compete.

Those rules, which came into effect on 1 July 2022, stipulated that athletes transitioning from male to female needed to have had testosterone levels below 2.5 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L) for 24 months. Previously, the rules required testosterone levels below 5 nmol/L for 12 months. 

> UCI tightens rules on transgender female cyclists by extending transition period to 24 months

However, the UCI has today stated that its management committee “has taken note of the state of scientific knowledge, which does not confirm that at least two years of gender-affirming hormone therapy with a target plasma testosterone concentration of 2.5 nmol/L is sufficient to completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men.”

The statement continued: “In addition, there is considerable inter-individual variability in response to gender-confirming hormone therapy, which makes it even more difficult to draw precise conclusions about the effects of such treatment.

“Given the current state of scientific knowledge, it is also impossible to rule out the possibility that biomechanical factors such as the shape and arrangement of the bones in their limbs may constitute a lasting advantage for female transgender athletes.”

Based on what it describes as these “remaining scientific uncertainties”, the UCI concluded that “it was necessary to take this measure to protect the female class and ensure equal opportunities”.

However, the governing body also emphasised that their stance on the matter “may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves”.

“With this in mind”, the statement continues, “the UCI will begin discussions with other members of the international sporting movement on the co-financing of a research programme aimed at studying changes in the physical performance of highly-trained athletes undergoing transitional hormone treatment.”

> British Cycling’s new ‘Open’ category “patently designed to make sure that transgender women will compete at a major disadvantage”, says “perplexed” transgender cyclist

UCI President David Lappartient added: "First of all, the UCI would like to reaffirm that cycling – as a competitive sport, leisure activity or means of transport – is open to everyone, including transgender people, whom we encourage like everyone else to take part in our sport.

“I would also like to reaffirm that the UCI fully respects and supports the right of individuals to choose the sex that corresponds to their gender identity, whatever sex they were assigned at birth. However, it has a duty to guarantee, above all, equal opportunities for all competitors in cycling competitions.

“It is this imperative that led the UCI to conclude that, given the current state of scientific knowledge does not guarantee such equality of opportunity between transgender female athletes and cisgender female participants, it was not possible, as a precautionary measure, to authorise the former to race in the female categories."

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

95 comments

Avatar
brooksby replied to Paul J | 1 year ago
0 likes

Paul J wrote:
brooksby wrote:

Now, I know this is like standing here with a match and a can of petrol but...: that's pretty offensive to any trans-women, isn't it?

Is having an under-23 category offensive to 25 year olds? Is having a featherweight category in boxing offensive to heavier competitors? We have categories in sport because certain attributes correspond very strongly with large differences in ability. I.e., these are performance based criteria and categories. We create the category so that a group of people can compete between themselves, so they can still enjoy competitive sport and (for youth) so they can fairly develop. Strictly in terms of performance there is - for pretty much any sport based on strength, aerobic capacity - a huge performance difference that arises in puberty between those who go through male puberty and female puberty. That's simply a reality. Hence we have sex based categories. It's not offensive, it's simply the reality of how humans have evolved. If you subscribe to an ideology where some internal, highly-subjective, gender identity must be set above reality, and where anyone who points out that your ideology is at odds with reality and (according to you) akin to a murderer, then I put it to you that your ideology is unsound and needs refinement - and will ultimately be rejected by vast majority of people, at least in the current form you present it as. And note, the vast vast majority of those who disagree with you on this have a lot of empathy for trans-people, and wish to support them as far as is reasonable. But you're losing the room when you start calling those people murderers and equivalent. Reality still matters I'm afraid. Yes, we should respect people's internal identities as much as possible. But to destroy women's competitive sport for it is not reasonable. Your ideology needs refinement to match what is reasonable.

You know, I'm pretty sure I never said any of that...

Avatar
Paul J replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:

You know, I'm pretty sure I never said any of that...

You didn't say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins' too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this "trans genocide!" language in their instagram post - as do many other TRAs.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Paul J | 1 year ago
0 likes

Paul J wrote:
brooksby wrote:

You know, I'm pretty sure I never said any of that...

You didn't say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins' too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this "trans genocide!" language in their instagram post - as do many other TRAs.

Just to be clear, I don't think the term "trans genocide" makes much sense.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Paul J | 1 year ago
2 likes

Paul J wrote:
brooksby wrote:

You know, I'm pretty sure I never said any of that...

You didn't say that, indeed. I am kind of extrapolating from your reply (and Hawkins' too) and projecting onto it arguments that others often make in these debate. E.g. Emily Bridges (nee Zack) used this "trans genocide!" language in their instagram post - as do many other TRAs.

Oh, Ok - I always wondered what it would feel like to be made out of straw  3

Avatar
EM69 replied to Paul J | 1 year ago
2 likes

Paul J wrote:

The correct decision.

Absolutely

Pages

Latest Comments