Cycling UK seeing sense

Do you want it conciliatory or debate provoking?

@SweatyChamois good innit!

For posterity, here's British Cycling's Breeze rides as of today, Tuesday 14 April:

https://www.letsride.co.uk/breeze

"Inclusive led bike rides for women!
Breeze offers fun, free, inclusive led bike rides for women of all abilities across the UK.

[...]

Our Breeze Champions will lead the group, and make sure everyone stays safe. With inclusion at its heart, the Breeze programme has also always been open to transgender females and non-binary participants who most closely identify as female."

(edited to add ellipsis, to make it clear the explanation is further down the front page)

That’s really clear guidance from Cycling UK. It just shows it’s not had to include everyone whilst also making sure women are included. It’s a shame British cycling can’t do the same for their recreational rides.

Ooh in related news I've just seen this: https://www.cyclinguk.org/local-groups/resources/ride-event-management/group-ride-guidance

The FAQs spell it out, including things like:
"Who is eligible to take part in women-only rides?
Under the legal advice Cycling UK has received, rides described as women-only or women’s rides should be limited to people whose biological sex is female. This means trans women should not be included in these rides. Trans men and non-binary people whose biological sex is female may be included."

I think most of it is pretty good. I'd love to know who is behind it, whoever it is deserves a pint!

I am out of my depth trying to understand how best to phrase a motion for the Cycling UK AGM, and need to do it today. Does anyone have any guidance? I've tried googling sample AGM motions, and not coming up with anything helpful.

I am finally reading the latest magazine, and got to a call for motions for the AGM on Friday 18 September. Deadline for motions is 9am on 15 April. Does anyone here have any good ideas about how to phrase a motion on keeping 100 Women in Cycling going, for one more year at least?

@Camelos PM sent. Fingers crossed we get one more year at least.

@YerWot please can I have the link too

If I’m correct about the trans identified trustee, I imagine the Supreme Court ruling is the reason they will cite for changing the rules over and over is because they will have used it to shut up the trans identified man. Sorry Bob, we must change the criteria because our lawyers have advised us to is easier to say at Board level than Sorry Bob, you’re not a woman so wind ya neck in!

Thanks for sharing the link - have expressed my views.

I am concerned about how this process is being carried out - Cycling UK don’t seem to be trying too hard to consult with the groups they say they are consulting with. I am a member but had to find out about and get the link from elsewhere.

Also, I don’t like how the questions have been framed. They should have asked - Do you want to see 100 Women in Cycling continue? Instead they asked about (paraphrasing here) whether an award initiative celebrating people working on achieving diversity and inclusion in cycling should continue? I suspect they do not want to know the answer to whether the existing initiative should continue.

It was hugely disappointing to see their apology for complying with the Supreme Court Ruling. As you say, they could have implemented this change quietly and without any fuss. This would have avoided controversy and the protests that were made by people refusing or ‘giving back’ their recognition.

Instead it affected the recognition for the women included on the list, somewhat diminishing the celebrations around their inclusion.

Cycling UK had an opportunity to support the protection of women-only spaces, instead they appear to be favouring the dismantling of them. Not really surprising, given the current landscape - such as British Cycling continuing to support trans-women’s inclusion in Breeze and so many cycling clubs and groups choosing to focus on ‘women+’ and ‘under-represented genders’ - whatever nonsense that is meant to mean ….

@SummerDaisyFields I've sent you the link. Absolutely right! And I hope you make it to the 2026 list. I think I was only on the list because my friend who nominated me is really good at writing. Yes, the "women+" winds me up too. Like - we're not good enough for an award of our own and have to share it! Yurk. The "+" people are not three years old! I'm sure they can learn to deal with the disappointment of not having a certificate. 🙄

Anyone else want the link? It does say "members [of Cycling UK] and supporters" which could be anyone really.

@SweatyChamois (nice! can recommend Cavilon) that's interesting, about a trans trustee. Most of the trustees have sort of passed me by - there's been so many.

There's definitely some reading between the lines on this issue. I wonder why they felt the need to do a press release to say that 100 Women in Cycling would follow the Supreme Court - I'm surprised they didn't just do it but keep quiet about it. It feels to me like CUK have been quieter on the trans issue than they could have been - in a good way! I feel like, apart from the brief rainbow laces thing (what a stupid idea - who has laces on their cycling shoes!), they've largely side-stepped it where it could have been embraced. The magazine is a bit rubbish on hearing about member groups, though, so you can't really tell what's going on in other member groups.

Thanks Sweaty for that insight about Emily Chappell. I really fangirled her when she was on the desk for the women's dorm at LEL, and then felt so disillusioned to read that blogpost. I am sure you're right; she's evidently lucky enough to have never have had an appalling man experience, and lacks the imagination to see that she's lucky. And will most likely (I do hope) continue to be lucky, and not have an eye-opening experience all of her own. Such a lack of imaginative empathy is saddening.

edited to add: actually, I've just remembered that I did have a pair of cycling shoes with laces - about 20 years ago and they were off the reduced shelf then...! Can't really see rainbow laces going with the Italian leather cycling shoes aesthetic - no wonder that scheme didn't last.

Hello, I’ve just found this thread. I saw Emily Chappell in conversation at a theatre once after having loved her books. She came across as a posh, privileged twat who never had to worry about money so could do literally anything she liked in like, with very little consideration to the financial consequences. Her blog is unsurprising but still disappointing.

Anyway, I received the email from Cycling UK too as a past recipient. They used to have a trans trustee. I wonder if it’s all kicked off internally.

I’ve heard ‘gender-affected’ sport being used. It’s like there isn’t a system of oppression based on biological differences related to sex, favouring males, where historically women have had to fight for rights and access to public life, whose effects continue to permeate across society.

Women as a single-sex category deserve our own spaces, awards and recognition.

As there's phrasing being used now like "where females suffer a physical disdadvantage....", doesn't this make female-only competition where there is no physical factor (chess, for example) harder to justify? Surely if you concede the point about physical disadvantages, you lay yourselves open to this. Is the "a separate comp for females only, just because that's what we want" line too difficult to hold/?

It's so fucking sexist isn't it?

Straight Men.

Everyone else.

Because what is significant is simply that we are not Straight Men. Our actually individual differences don't matter, all that matters is that we are not Straight Men.

They think they are outside the box but they are fucking defined by the box.
😡

Yes please! I will be cross if this is stopped before I get featured on the list - genuinely! I know lots of brilliant women in cycling yet to be featured. But mostly I want to retain a women-only award, because there is too much ‘women+’ and ‘underrepresented genders’ nonsense for my liking. Women as a single-sex category deserve our own spaces, awards and recognition.

DM sent! Anyone else? It's only a quick survey, and doesn't ask for any personal details. It's an easy opportunity to thank an organisation for respecting the Supreme Court! Deadline Mon 2 March 9am.

The consultation says "we want to consult our members, supporters, past winners of 100 Women in Cycling, partners, Community Cycle Club reps and staff about the best format for any future awards".

So that's any Cycling UK member - presumably including affiliated groups, like local cycle campaign groups or small cycling clubs who are affiliated (ie., groups who get their insurance through Cycling UK). No idea who counts as a supporter - presumably anybody?! I don't think I am allowed to put links here? Do let me know if you'd like the link to the consultation form.

Any Cycling UK members here want the link for the consultation? It's only three questions; the third is a free text field for your brilliant ideas. I've said a few things, but mainly that I'd like 100 Women in Cycling to continue for one more year so that it's a nice round 10 years. 1000 Women in Cycling, ace! Deadline is Mon 2 March 9am.

Me too. Yuck, things like that just make me run away. No thank you.

And using the out-dated term intersex just because it makes your acronym work, that's gross. The only person I've known with a DSD would be mortified to be included in that list!

Hmm, maybe we do need to push for the 100 Women in Cycling to carry on - Cycling UK are clear now that is has to be for actual women. Step right up with your persuasive arguments and genius ideas please...

It could be putting women off joining as it's the group rules to sign up to. It put me off!

Yeah, it's someone with an agenda all right.

Flinta for anyone who hasn't come across it before is
Female
Lesbian
Inter(sex)
Non-binary
Trans
Agender

How the occasion of a man being asked to leave the group actually happen then?

Holy moly - really?! god I am SO CROSS. Is that from the Facebook page?