- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
National Cycling Centre (British Cycling).jpgUCI bars transgender cyclist Emily Bridges from debut as woman at National Omnium Championships this weekend
British Cycling has confirmed that transgender cyclist Emily Bridges will not now make her competitive debut as a woman at the National Omnium Championships in Derby this weekend, saying that the UCI has informed it that under current regulations, she “is not eligible to participate in this event.”
We will have more on this story in the morning. In the meantime, in a statement released this evening, the national governing body said:
At British Cycling, we believe that transgender and non-binary people should be able to find a home, feel welcome and included, and be celebrated in our sport.
Under the British Cycling Transgender and Non-Binary Participation policy, Emily Bridges was due to participate in the British National Omnium Championships on Saturday 2nd April. We have now been informed by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) that under their current guidelines Emily is not eligible to participate in this event.
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.
Transgender and non-binary inclusion is bigger than one race and one athlete – it is a challenge for all elite sports. We believe all participants within our sport deserve more clarity and understanding around participation in elite competitions and we will continue to work with the UCI on both Emily’s case and the wider situation with regards to this issue.
We also understand that in elite sports the concept of fairness is essential. For this reason, British Cycling is today calling for a coalition to share, learn and understand more about how we can achieve fairness in a way that maintains the dignity and respect of all athletes.
Within recent years, we’ve seen huge advancements in the science and testing around elite sports, the broader scientific and understanding of human biology, developments in protection provided by the law, and crucially a greater respect for the psychological and societal challenges of those who are transgender and non-binary. This is a complex area and by uniting, we can share resources and insights.
We know that some of these conversations are happening in pockets of the sporting world, but we want to encourage all sporting governing bodies, athletes, the transgender and non-binary athlete community, the Government and beyond to come together and find a better answer.
Across sports, far more needs to be done, collectively, before any long-term conclusions can be drawn.
Below is our original article, published at 1215 today.
A transgender cyclist who was once part of the men’s Great Britain Academy Programme, and who last month won a men’s race at the British Universities Track Championships, looks set to make her competitive debut as a woman against some of the country’s top female riders including multiple Olympic champion Dame Laura Kenny at the National Omnium Championships in Derby this weekend – although some competitors are said to be afraid to speak out about her potential participation in the event.
Emily Bridges, aged 21, revealed her struggles with gender dysphoria and the impact it was having on her, including depression and feeling isolated, in an article written for Sky Sports that was published on Coming Out Day in October 2020.
She started undergoing hormone therapy last year, and 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.
First published in 2020, the latest version of the policy was published in January this year following a consultation last summer that attracted 600 responses.
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.
Announcing the update, British Cycling said: “Our first Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy was designed to be as inclusive as possible, imposing only necessary and proportionate restrictions on eligibility to ensure fair and meaningful competition, based on the most relevant available guidance.”
The governing body said that it would “continue to follow the UCI regulations introduced in March 2020, which are based on objective scientific research and driven by a desire to guarantee fairness and safety within the sport … For this reason, testosterone levels remain the primary method of determining which members are eligible to compete in the male and female categories.”
It added: “While there has been much commentary on the effectiveness of testosterone-based measures, at the current time we do not have sufficient research or understanding to update this area of our policy in a way which is relevant and appropriate for our sport.
“However, we remain committed to moving with international bodies and scientific opinion, and supporting research efforts in any way we can.”
News of Bridges’ likely participation in Derby this weekend has attracted criticism within the media, with Owen Slot, chief sports writer at The Times, writing that should she beat Kenny – five times an Olympic gold medallist, two of those in the Omnium – this weekend, it would underline the unfairness of allowing transgender women to compete in female sports events.
Meanwhile, Olympic silver medal-winning former swimmer Sharron Davies, who believes that despite reduction of testosterone levels, transgender women retain an unfair physical advantage over biological females and should therefore be excluded from women’s sport, says that she has been contacted by women cyclists who are fearful of going public with their concerns.
“British Cycling ought to be ashamed of themselves,” she said, quoted on Mail Online. “I have had quite a few of the girls very distressed on the phone. They are frustrated and disappointed.
“They are all for inclusion but not at the loss of fairness and opportunities for biological females.”
However, Bridges’ mother Sandy, writing on Twitter, said that her daughter may have to have police protection at the championships this weekend.
“This is the reality of being trans today,” she wrote. “That my daughter has to be on a police operation plan to compete in a bike race in the UK. How in any way can that be #SafeToBeMe2022.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Griff500 1 min 45 sec ago
As I said, look at pictures of the two bikes. The Addict Stem is angled upwards, and shown on the geometry drawing as being approximately at right...
- Laz 4 hours 31 min ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- TheBillder 7 hours 30 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 7 hours 45 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 7 hours 48 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 7 hours 53 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 8 hours 2 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 8 hours 32 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 10 hours 7 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
301 comments
There are some very good posts on here exploring this issue carefully and sensitively.
Yours is not one one of them.
How does someone who is genetecially XY and has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome fit in to your categories of sex? Or a person who is XX with a severe virilising form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Or a person who is a mosaic XX/XY?
Are these conditions typical of sportspeople who present as trans?
My understanding is there are Cis women with these conditions who were then treated as trans and removed from the sport.
My question was not, do they exist, it was are they typical, in the main, of trans people. The debate is about trans people.
Its quite clearly not - its about general inclusivity and fairness in mainstream sports that clearly fail to recognise there are many conditions where a binary classification into male/female is inherently unfair. I suggest you take some time to actually read some of the posts on this thread.
You can't have it both ways. If "a binary classification into male/female is inherently unfair" then it should be scrapped and replaced with a classification system which is fair.
Moreover, whatever classification system you arrive at there will always be outliers which don't fit the boundaries, not until everyone is an individual category of their own. Hence my question as to whether the various genetic conditions raised were in fact typical of people who identify as transgender.
And finally, I don't see why we can't argue differing views without recourse to condescension.
No, the original statement was "All people carrying the XY chromosome are male whereas those carrying XX are female. Simple as that." - which is simply not true.
Caster Semenya for example. She, of course, presented as female and thought of herself as female, as often happens with androgen insensitivity. It goes to show that people who say XX/XY it's as simple as that just have no idea.
Personally I agree with rich_cb on this one that in some sports exposure to biologically effective testosterone gives people an advantage. The problem that who experiences this is not simply XX/XY dependent. And we do not know what levels of testosterone exposure or for how long have what effect. Or indeed which sports may be relevant - I think there evidence that in some ultra races XX individuals with no metabolic pathway abnormalities have an advantage for instance.
The problem is that this is such a complex area only a handful of medical specialists fully understand the field and then how it applies to competitive sports, what levels of testosterone exposure and when they occur in childhood and adolescence - I think it is fair to say that no-one currently knows the implications and how to ensure a level playing field with a purely "male/female" classification as that is obviously and inherently wrong.
So the classification is wrong and the rules are wrong, and in the meantime people who already have documented higher levels of depression and death by suicide suffer a trial by ignorant media for the crime of wanting to be themselves and take part in a sport they enjoy.
- How does someone who is genetecially XY and has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome fit in to your categories of sex?
Male... Plus, I should imagine the vast majority of the tiny minority of those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome will identify as male. Anyone not should be supported in understanding if their choice to identify as female is despite, or due, to their syndrome.
- Or a person who is XX with a severe virilising form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Female... in extreme cases of classic CAH, you could argue for intersex, but that would not be truly accurate.
- Or a person who is a mosaic XX/XY?
Intersex, although I guess a sex will be defined by analysis of internal biological structures.
All of the above are extremely rare. Taking into account even the mildest examples of the above, you are at most, looking at 1.7% of the population being potentially affected. True rates of intersex are more likely in the region of 0.018%.
You are right, it's not quite as simple as XX or XY but from a practical view point, it really is.
And from a sporting fairness perspective, its that 0.018% that is relevant to the discussion, not the 1.7%.
This whole 'how do you define a woman' argument is, to me, a complete red herring, for 99.98% it really is a case of black or white.
1. Almost always wrong
2. Often wrong, but changing more recently
3. Ah so now we have invented "intersex" as a new sex classification whereas previously "All people carrying the XY chromosome are male whereas those carrying XX are female. Simple as that" - so it isn't as simple as that.
4. So when we are talking about trans athletes is IS the rare exceptions and edge cases that are important.
5. If the whole argument about how we define a woman is a red herring, why say those carrying XX are female?
1. yes, you are absolutely right, my error... did a little further reading, the 'complete' was the important point I'd missed.
3. I don't think I've invented anything.
4. Can I ask why, what is the correlation and importance to the trans sport discussion?
5. Not sure what you mean?
I think you shoud get off the fence and tell us how you really feel.
The IOC and IAAF tried that. It turned out that biology isn't simple as that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-...
The evidence suggests that suppressing testosterone does not have enough impact to undo the advantages bestowed by male puberty. On the basis that most males are bigger, faster and stronger than most females, trans women have a physiological advantage in women's sport. This goes against fair competition, a sporting cornerstone. It will be interesting to see the competition results in this case but one thing is for sure, the rules surrounding this need to be further developed to ensure that women are not unfairly deprived of team membership and victories they may otherwise have gained.
Thats fair. Its really important to differentiate in this topic between the existence of the Trans Athlete(s) and the reality of a set of immature rules from Governing bodies to achieve a level playing field.
My hunch is that we need to evolve towards a classification system similar to the Paralympics rather than the convient binary fiction they adhere to now.
How would you see that working? There are multiple categories in the Paralympics, to cover the spectrum of disabilities. Whereas major sporting events often struggle to cater fully even for the present binary classification.
Moreover, I don't think that the idea of multiple classifications would satisfy trans people, whose demand is to be fully accepted as an ordinary member of their chosen gender, and not of some third category.
You might also like to consider why we have a Paralympics in the first place.
But therein lies the question. Is a trans athlete sufficiently similar to a cis athlete for them to be fully accepted as an ordinary member of their chosen gender for the purposes of fair sporting competition?
And how much leeway should there be in those similarities?
For example, besides his inate talent and years of training, Usain Bolt, at 6'5'' and with a stable lengthy stride, has significant physical advantages over me at 5'9'' and with relatively short legs/stride when it comes to sprinting.
There is nothing I can do about that and, even if all other factors were equalled out, the chances are he would pound me into the dust in a 100m race due to those advantages.
And to become Olympic champion I would have to beat him because we are both in the same category.
I think ultimately, there may have to be compromise on both sides of the aurgument, but there is a lot of science and a lot of open discussion to be had before we get to the point where everyone accepts the answer.
Taking the "Sharron Davies" position of it not ever being permitted because it fundamentally unfair is not sustainable, but neither is simply allowing trans athletes to just compete in their chosen gender category without proper consideration of whether (or how much) that is fair to everyone.
You still only need two categories - female and other. Other is for anyone not born female.
so it's a transphobic split yiure after. Just to be clear, that makes you transphobic.
Interesting video on this topic:
https://youtu.be/VgmyFXdbIT4
This will cause some negative comments I'm sure, however this is a good thing for sport and for all genders, for me.
visibility that trans women are indeed women is key in helping others with their own identity. It shows you're not alone and that you can be true to yourself and not suffer institutional phobia and discrimination as a result.
seperate but equal never works in the long run, so if equality (this is equality) isn't acceptable then the other solution is to bracket on physiological criteria other than the gross "xx/xy" split we have now. That is probably better in the longer run but is obviously a more radical change.
Not wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of things here (I don't believe any commentators here are qualified to judge), it will be interesting to me, to see how someone with as much sporting talent to ride for Ribble and HUUB teams in previous years as a male will fair in the womens league after all the drugs and hormones.
Bridges was interviewed for a Cycling weekly article that was published last month. I don't know if it would clear up any misconceptions but if anyone is interested in the topic then it may be worth a look:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/i-just-want-to-be-competitive-agai...
Rich_cb has a good point ("My issue is with the rules not with the athletes who abide by them."). Could it be that a lack of real understanding of the issues, even by experts and sport governing bodies, is why we've reached this position? I simply don't feel I know enough to have a valid opinion.
Interesting article, thanks.
Oh my lord this is gonna be a minefield comments section.
Maybe they ought to have a non-binary seperate category? I would like to be a woman often, but I am not a woman. I would feel uncomfortable transitioning and then beating persons who have not made a gender transition.
Firstly, Bridges has done nothing wrong. She does not deserve any abuse or vilification whatsoever. She is free to live her life as she sees fit and if she complies with the rules as they are then she can compete in women's events and should not be criticised for doing so.
My issue is with the rules not with the athletes who abide by them.
I don't think enough of the physiological advantages enjoyed by the average male over the average female are removed just by lowering testosterone levels.
As a consequence I don't think the current rules ensure fair competition and they need to be revised.
I have to say Rich_cb that based on my reading of your previous postings I would not have expected such a sensitive and nuanced post from you. Mea Culpa for showing me I'm wrong.
And bloody good post!
Oh no she isn't. She should follow society's rules and laws even if they are directly opposed to her wishes. Just like the rest of us, really.
I think far from doing nothing wrong she is to be applauded for being honest and prepared to follow the regulations in place and thank you for stating what many trans people suffer with regard vilification and abuse. The main problem as pointed out is ensuring that other female competitors have a level playing field. It is interesting to note in the Cycling weekly article that Emily commented on support from female athletes and on the polarised views. I suspect many perceived physiological advantages are in reality dis-advantages but will vary for that individual sport and event to be held ? It is difficult to know what is fair competition when perception on fairness can be tainted from standing at the starting line ?
I'd definitely agree that the degree of advantage will vary from sport to sport.
Height is a huge advantage in some sports and obviously does not change at all on transition.
In other sports extra height may hamper aerodynamics and be a hindrance
Pages