Poor Emily being banned from cycling again

The TRAs have used "literal violence" since they started this with the #nodate.

Its interesting that EB says that they left the team when they didn't make the cut for the team.

Rachel Rooney channels Elinor Rigby

https://twitter.com/RooneyRachel/status/1760068083056861627

The video is really interesting watching.

Some of these biological men are getting scholarships for their tuition based on their playing their sport in the women's team. They stayed on the court throughout the match whilst biological women without their strength, size and advantage, were kept watching on the sub bench. Pushed aside by biological men who say they are women.

Why don't more women stand up against this nonsense. Why simper for the men who feel like women. Woman up and stand up for women.

Ooh, I missed that one!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12462811/trans-olympic-cyclist-Austin-Killips-shove-scandal.html

I assume Emily has heard women talk about their fears for safety in sport if categories become mixed sex and has seen it as an opporchancity to try and coerce people into imagining Emily has the same fears, being as Emily is a proper woman with nail polish and long hair and everything.

Why does no one ever ask for an elaboration of these ‘concerns’? What does Emily believe that male cyclists would do to her?

TRA use saftey to mean lots of things physical saftey, the saftey around passing, and emotional saftey - the idea that others respect their identity.

Given that theres no physical danger to compete with other men, and he is publicly fighting to be in the womens race- he could be doing this anonymously, my guess is it's all about emotional saftey.

I think that as it becomes clear that there is and will always be physical differences between men and women, TRA will try to redefine women sport away from physical ability to something around mental heath.

The mens and open categories will be about finding the best athlete, the womens will be about participation, or something.

Bridges expressed concerns about her safety if she were to compete alongside men

Why does no one ever ask for an elaboration of these ‘concerns’? What does Emily believe that male cyclists would do to her? Try to barge her ( well, that happens, but it’s not restricted to TW as victims). Laugh at her in the changing rooms, Aka ‘banter’ ? Not invite her for a drink after training? Look the other way in the locker room ? All quite possible.

Physical assault ? Pretty unlikely since it would result in disqualification, professional cycling has a lot of oversight about that sort of behaviour. Sexual assault ……🫣, well, yes , that’s always a concern for women who are around men in intimate situations, so I understand and sympathise totally.

Yep.

Bridges’ mum flounced from Mn after not being able to handle discussing the studies in any mature and reasoned way. It all got too much that we kept rejecting her accusations of hate and phobia towards us and that we just wouldn’t stfu.

They's arrogance is highly unedifying. In a court case, I wonder if them would speak for theyself, or leave it to a lawyer? Spouting counterfactual cack and getting pissy in a courtroom certainly wouldn't be helpful to they's case.

I suspect that many on this thread would pay good money to see that, in a very literal sense by chipping into Bridges's court fund.

Mrs Bridges seems like what in the performing arts is called a "stage mother".

His mother sounds like a proper dollop.

Zachily is simply trying to bully them's way back in, using emotional blackmail. The histrionics from they and Mum in the interview last year was a sight to behold, an entirely truth-free tantrum of a spoilt, selfish brat.

Mum said, "Follow the science," I'm not sure that she understands the meaning of science. Studies, as us lot know, show that transw retain an overwhelming physical advantage over women, even when they take testosterone suppressors and oestrogen.

They's arrogance is highly unedifying. In a court case, I wonder if them would speak for theyself, or leave it to a lawyer? Spouting counterfactual cack and getting pissy in a courtroom certainly wouldn't be helpful to they's case.

Let’s face it, if the likes of LT and EB had continued to compete alongside other men nobody would have heard of them in the first place. It’s when they switch from the male to female categories that they out themselves. The feeling of unsafeness comes hand in hand with doing something so completely socially unacceptable that people are bound to start criticising you very harshly.

@Itscatsallthewaydown

Ah thank you, yes I remember that utter cunt.

This ghastly prick

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/26/prominent-lawyer-jolyon-maugham-tweets-about-clubbing-a-fox-to-death

Who's a Fox killer? 😮

So frustrating the interviewer did not pick up on Emily’s statement they would not be safe if they raced in the men’s category.

Why - what would the men do? Don’t you understand women feel unsafe with you racing in their category? In their changing rooms?

An interesting and informative area of study distorted into "not giving me what I want is exactly the same as punching me in the face". A bit like intersectional theory.

MTF, not FTM, surely?

What's next, calling up the ICC to report a trans genocide?

Aww poor Bridges

Given that a pregnant 18 year old could
now enter men's boxing, rugby or MMA, Bridges seems to have had quite the logic and common sense bypass.

You'll understand that I'm reaching here but you can blame Jo Phoenix vs OU for me hearing about zemiology (Avi Boukli was one of the OU witnesses, see list in OP https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?).

Zemiology would suggest that social harms that arise from state structures extend beyond the codifying of law to other areas. Zemiology originally presented itself as a critique of criminology and the notion that crime serves to focus on 'individual level harms', rather than acknowledging that potentially more injuries and harms result from the activities of states, corporations, or social structures.

Apparently, there's been quite the 'epistemological shift' (if I remember the tribunal discussion correctly) away from the restrictions of considering only criminology to what are now considered to be social harm studies. This makes zemiology a hot discipline and quite the opportunity to be a rising academic star as Boukli is. (And probably still is as there's no recording beyond Tribunal Tweets of Boukli's memorable cross examination by Ben Cooper).

So, back to Emily, who experiences not having personal needs satisfied as unsafe, a social harm, and structural violence. Because it's organisations and social structures that are the barrier. And the individual harms accrue to women but ceding to Emily would prevent more injuries and harms and be a greater contribution to social justice. Because…reasons.

That's all I've got. Zemiology. (And the usual.)