Women's cycling - major sponsor pulls out as policies are not 'trans inclusive'

There was provision for surgically transitioned males to participate previously.

I also agree that pressure groups sponsoring races is problematic - suppose Stephen Yaxley Lennon wanted to sponsor Yorkshire cricket...

British Cycling could however put out a neutral crowd funder and the race could be run under their name.

Am I correct in my understanding that the decision to include trans women in women's sports across the board was based on the findings a single study of 8 people? That's truly shocking if so.

Yes. The amount of pressure on Harper to produce the results that backed up their ludicrous study that influenced the OIC to take that extra step is HUGE!

Considering they have had to back track to a large degree, they are really needing this study to save whatever professional reputation they have left.

But in this case, not only are the study group aware, but they actually have a vested interest in behaving a certain way to get a result that rewards them.
Add to that, that the researcher running the study also has a vested interest in getting that same outcome and has expressed belief in that being the true outcome.
It makes for incredibly unreliable results, no matter the topic.

I’d never thought of that. Thank you. Depressing.

I don't want to see pressure groups sponsoring events. Not rainbows, not red hands. Womens sport must be able to attract commercial sponsorship or it can't flourish. A win in this case would be any reasonable commercial concern being brave enough to step up.

While I agree on many levels with this, the fact is that this sponsor pulled out giving the event less than one month to find another sponsor. If it was simply a matter of all of us being able to put the money in and a ' cycling club that was for females only' directed those funds to keep the race going, all well and good.

But if no other sponsorship is available at such short notice, what are the alternatives right here, right now.

This was a political decision by this male. And so, they made it political in nature and even more so due to the timing.

Please also consider that any commercial sponsorship now also has to withstand the barrage of hate and negative publicity to sponsor female sporting events.

That is the environment that has been created by males insisting that they are righteous in participating in female sport.

It will take a very brave sponsor to front up and give funding to a cycling event for females right now.

So, should the event simply be cancelled and probably never truly revived in its current format again?

Just one race, one season and then back to 'commercial' sponsorship!

Fuck being so bloody prim and proper all the time!

My last on it, but I think a story about the red hand itself stems from (pre christian) Irish mythology.

So, you only needed a few invested (or/and mischievous meddling) blokes saying they really were ok to compete against women in the Olympics for rules to be put aside and fairness for half the planet to be dismissed.

However, it now needs a tremendous body of proof to show and convince the Committee that men have any physical advantages over women. You'd wonder why they think there are separate categories for Men and Women in the first place.

I don't want to see pressure groups sponsoring events. Not rainbows, not red hands. Womens sport must be able to attract commercial sponsorship or it can't flourish. A win in this case would be any reasonable commercial concern being brave enough to step up.

I think the stylised red hand being discussed is different from the 'halt' sign one used by the O'Neills. It is more 'arty'.

The explanation from the artist is attached above as the hand is styled on Saul Bass with colours associated with Kali and a "sprinkling of Russian futurism".

Thanks runningslow. I was on my phone and wasn't about to do a search and post that list.

It is always disappointing when you realise that these things are being decided at such high levels by completely biased panels and then the decisions will take decades to fully extricate, if they can ever be.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason Umm, a logo with a big red hand alongside a “says no” campaign might just be a wee bit Ian Paisley.

The Red Hand of Ulster originates from hundreds of years ago and was used as their symbol by the gaelic O'Neill chiefs of Ulster. It stems from an era and people that well predate Ian Paisley in that part of the world.

I think the stylised red hand being discussed is different from the 'halt' sign one used by the O'Neills. It is more 'arty'.

How and ever, moot now as FPFW (a women's organisation) is deemed to be too political for women's cycling. Said by the chappie organising the women's cycle race, I believe.

Thank you for posting that Runningslow. Reading it now I'm really struck that they place their top priority as fair competition (not inclusion) and yet make that decision. I wonder if in 2015 there was any effort made to prevent the relitigation of the 2003 decision and how long the meetings wwre both in 2003 and 2015 that produced these results.

Given that there has now been at least one transwoman competing in women's Paralympian events I wonder if there was any Paralympic representative either.

stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

I once looked up the committee who had decided the IOC guidelines.
If I remember correctly it had 16 men, three women, 1 trans woman (Joanna Harper) and a woman with DSD ie male testosterone levels, who had, from I read quite a traumatic time when it was discovered.

I would love to see the responses from BC’s consultation, and how they came to their transgender policy. I know that a lot of the high profile Sport Scientists responded to it, which makes me think that the policy was written without paying any attention to the consultation.

Interesting news clip from the US territory of Guam, where high school rugby coaches are complaining that girls are being injured by male students, who identify as girls playing in girls' team.
m.facebook.com/kuamnews/videos/716339109536252/?refsrc=deprecated&_rdr

They said their performance dropped after reducing testosterone. But, iirc, the two different readings were 10 or 20 years apart.

It was a poorly constructed ‘study’ based on self reporting, and yes, some results were 5-10 years apart and supposedly age was adjusted for. But certainly I don’t know how general fitness due to not training etc was accounted for.

It was also based one 8 people. If you want more information about Harper’s study you can also read this site. N=8.

nequals8.com/

How was it allowed to happen? Well the committee that made the decision was very male dominant and I think had about 4 females out of 20. And I don’t remember the political leanings of those 4 females. I don’t recall any female athletes being part of that committee but there was of course, transitioned males.

It is like many of these decisions. When you scratch the surface, no women’s rights groups are ever included and often the decision makers are predominantly male. Hence why the policies of labour and lib dems where they advocate for ‘gender’ balanced boards rather than ‘sex’ based is said to be ‘eroding women’s rights’. Even at university student Union level, a transitioned male in a women’s officer role means females are no longer represented- and we have seen everytime that the policy focus goes towards their own gender identity political focus. Every. Time. Only a fool can continue to say otherwise at this point, in my opinion.

[quote NancyDrawed]It really wouldn't be that difficult for an athlete to perform at less than maximum in order to give the desired outcome.

I think Emily Bridges rather let slip something along those lines a fewyears back when he said he would be working with Joanna Harper 'to show how performance drops after transition' or something along those lines.

www.skysports.com/more-sports/cycling/news/15264/12101251/emily-bridges-coming-out-as-trans-in-cycling-is-a-crucial-step-on-my-journey[/quote]
Yes, this is a huge part of it. There are a lot of good practice standards for scientific study.
Generally you'd need a control group as well as the studied group, and ideally neither group would know which was which. That would be impossible in this case due to the nature of it.
But in this case, not only are the study group aware, but they actually have a vested interest in behaving a certain way to get a result that rewards them.
Add to that, that the researcher running the study also has a vested interest in getting that same outcome and has expressed belief in that being the true outcome.
It makes for incredibly unreliable results, no matter the topic.

1. The mobile app is absurdly rubbish.
2. I'm put-out that a cycling organisation for women of which 92% support a sex based approach to sport fairness considers sponsorship from women's organisations a political statement.

Yes sponsorship for years to come is necessary and they've got a year to figure that out. Maybe without liaising with partners who resent the female sex class.

I would actually be surprised if they took the sponsorship from FPFW. It would be quite a news story if they did. But what matters is that the offer is there. Any further sponsor who drops out of anything will know they are handing an open goal to sponsors who would love to show they are proud to sponsor a female only event.

Is it possible to have a truly accurate study if people being studied gain an advantage from a particular outcome? Even subconsciously, would this not affect their performance?

'I have colleagues who have reservations with regard to the potential link to women's rights groups that might indicate to anyone out there, or certain individuals out there, a politicising of the event."

I understand that - but Peter Stanton has made it political by saying that he wouldn't sponsor due to the UCI not allowing males in female races? (I now he said it was BCs transgender inclusion policy, but we know what the reality is)