British Cycling being embarassing, obsequious idiots ...

God this thread is incredibly disappointing, particularly the opprobrium directed at @Calumonwheels

@Velocio pretty much nailed this in his last post, but to spell it out a bit more clearly: if you genuinely believe that

trans women are women

There should be no debate about excluding them from women's cycling, because as women they should be treated as women. If you even consider exclusion a valid option, you don't really think trans women are women. That means you're not an ally of trans people, you're a transphobe. It really is that simple.

As @Velocio says, if you were to reframe this 'debate' as about gay people, or black people, or disabled people I hope that everyone would find this completely unthinkable.

The fundamental argument behind excluding trans women from women's racing is that they have a physiological advantage. As James says, some sports are better suited to people with certain physiologies. Kenyan people have a physiological advantage at running, so should they be excluded from running because they have an advantage?

I hope everyone reading that would consider that racist, an absolutely unacceptable proposition and say no, but honestly the last few pages has got me wondering.

As in wider society, it seems that there is a disappointingly large number of people on this forum for whom trans equality is a step too far, and who seem to think it's acceptable to have a 'debate' about a marginalised, vulnerable group and whether they should be excluded from aspects of society.

That's shameful.

.

i think you might get banned if you keep calling trans women male and i don't want that

I do, this forum should not be a safe space for TERFs and transphobes.

A safe space for men to shout down women though amirite

This debate needs to either be fully open or bans for personal attacks and hate need to be applied to people of all opinions.

Nearly all sports have different classes, be it age, weight, or historical results. If you take part in a competitive sport, you are driven by a desire to measure yourself against others who within those classes. That's the whole point of competitive sport.
There can be no denying that "male genetics" lead to athletes who are faster and stronger than people with "female genetics". That's why they have separate competitions. Even age and training regimens can't overcome that, for example: the top Woman's 100m sprint time is 10.49. That wouldn't even place the runner in the top 22 of Youth (under18) boys times. A 14yo ran 0.02 slower.

That said, I'm uneasy with transgender athletes being forced to compete in an "open" category, because that feel like a kick in the teeth and is a denial of your identity.
Is it bigotry to point out that genetics may make people ineligible for particular sport classes?

If said women are espousing transphobic views they deserve to be shouted down.

And that's the point - we shouldn't be having a 'debate' about excluding a particular protected characteristic from anything.

if you genuinely believe that

trans women are women

There should be no debate about excluding them from women's cycling, because as women they should be treated as women.

If this is your position, do you think that there should be any requirements with regard to hormone levels etc. for trans women, at least in elite professional sports?

Perhaps their views aren't transphobic
Rather they differ to yours but remain worthy of toleration and should be heard.

burn the last ten or so pages of this thread and just keep this one post, imho

I don't know and honestly I don't care that much.

One of the massive practical issues people seem to overlook with regards to physiology, hormones and so on when it comes to trans women is that these variables don't exist in isolation.

Obviously you've all read the Stonewall report which @Calumonwheels posted. If you haven't, I'd strongly recommend that you do, but if you don't have time just read some of the quotes on that page.

Tell you what, I'll post a few here for ease of reference:

I get shouted at every single time I leave my house and threatened at least once a week. I try to closet myself from my family because I’m so close to getting kicked out. I can’t access hormone replacement therapy without going private. I’m disabled. It’s a lot to deal with and I’m crumbling under the stress but I consider myself a warrior. But really, something needs to change.

Even just five years ago it was not safe for me to come out as trans, the pace of change has been amazing. Unfortunately, there now appears to be a backlash against that progress in the last year with hate from the media against trans increasing disturbingly in the last six months. This increasing transphobia is accelerating and is causing acute anxiety in my daily life.

Do you not think that this wider marginalisation and discrimination might just disadvantage someone who was trying to live their best life as a racing cyclist?

Sport doesn't exist in a bubble.

This whole 'debate' is largely theoretical. TERFs love a good theoretical debate about something which isn't a problem in reality - c.f. trans women in women's toilets.

How about we worry about this stuff when it's not actually a problem? I.e. when society has progressed to a point where trans people don't face discrimination, harassment and abuse in their day-to-day lives?

I was thinking about some sort of standardised test that every professional athlete has to take in order to be placed in a competitive field of similar ability. I genuinely don't know how it'd work in reality, but something like a timed run, some throwing, some swimming, a bit of everything - and then your results place you in a class, which is outside of gender, sex, age, race, just a number. And then you compete against others from your class.
Does that all make sense? Would that even work? I have no idea but I'm trying to have a useful input, I guess.

^^ This reminds me of the time I met Graeme Obree. I asked him (given that there's never been any out gay men in the pro peloton) if he was nervous about joining it and becoming a gay world tour level cyclist, with a Hobson's choice of coming out and being first or being closeted.

He told me he never worried about that, he lived on a council estate in Glasgow and was more worried about someone kicking his front door in or beating him up because he was gay.

At least from where I'm reading that is the closest to a working feasible alternative idea for competition that we have come over however many pages ... Thanks for that. Food for thought!

I've literally just explained why they are, and why transphobia shouldn't be tolerated.

For a more extreme example, if you think that a debate about excluding trans people should be tolerated and heard, would you feel the same way if I started a thread about removing certain rights from black people?

If that doesn't convince you, here's another (relevant) quote from that Stonewall page I linked to:

We are constantly questioned on our existence, treated hostilely and ridiculed in the name of debate. We are constantly exposed to hate and criticism in the media and daily life as the public respond to the media’s attitudes. I’m sick of being described as a mentally ill freak.

hard agree

People would sandbag to avoid get into harder categories.

Even just offering standard equipment doesn’t work.

Let’s take motor sport. Do you give everyone the same car? In which case some people may not fit in and others may not be able to reach the controls. On certain courses it may suit someone whose weight is lower down, on others a different body mass distribution might be better. The vehicle might suit one individual’s driving style etc etc.

Running - shoes can make a difference is this a performance advantage? Different lasts suit different feet but should we have a one shoe fits all approach?

Sport is arbitrary and the competitive aspect makes it complicated. Some people play within the spirit of the rules, others play in the edge of what they can get away with.

Sadly I see the competitive aspect often draws out the worst in people. It did in me when I used to compete, and I would look to exploit any advantage I could.

And my point was that not agreeing with the manta that trans women are women does not make one a transphobe .

And not does it mean one wants to exclude or discriminate against Trans people.

I think I'd just refer you back to @brokenbetty's posts on this. One thing that's clear from contributions here is that many people do feel pulled in two directions at once and that, while we're try to protect everyone from hate, when it comes to sport, many perceive there to be competing interests. Sport, as a physical endeavour and an area where women still lag substantially behind in terms of professional opportunities, is where we kind of hit bedrock in this conversation and have to talk about sex and the reasons why women have their own categories at all.

Obviously there are multiple sporting bodies having to make decisions here and this discussion is happening more widely across society. I get the impression that, specifically with regards to sport, the proposal that there is simply no discussion to be had is so far from the majority position for both sporting bodies and the public that it's weirdly counterproductive to assert it.

Competitive sport is bullshit, especially with regards fairness. What governing bodies perhaps fear is the threat the discussion has to exposing that.

Bingo

And my point was that not agreeing with the manta that trans women are women does not make one a transphobe

except it really, really does

And my point was that not agreeing with the manta that trans women are women does not make one a transphobe.

The dictionary state this;

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people.

By saying they are not women/men is discrimination as it implied they’re not transgender.

I thought it's the opposite, insisting on the trans part makes it transphobic, people who say trans women are not women insist on the trans part and mean they are transgender therefor not women.

It’s opposing the use of ‘woman’ as a paradigm for people’s identities. Discrimination and exclusion are implicit.

I cannot see a good reason why anyone would do that.

Because being trans is not derogatory, to insist on calling them by their sex at birth rather than their gender through transition, is saying they are not transgender.