Trans cyclist Natalie Van Gogh retires from women’s cycling at 47

[CatsOperatingInGangs]

I know Laurel Hubbard springs to mind when we talk about older trans athletes in women’s sport but Van Gogh has been competing in women’s elite cycling for 16 years since transitioning.

Van Gogh avoids scrutiny mainly because women’s cycling is not covered much in the UK unless it’s the Olympics. It’s an incredibly tough life carving out a career in women’s cycling as there not much money and less opportunities for women as there’s fewer teams than in the men’s category.

It makes me sad to think how many women have been denied a place in their own sport due to NVG being included.

cyclingtips.com/2021/10/i-am-just-natalie-not-natalie-the-transgender-cyclist/

Related to my previous comment: www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/nike-runner-mary-cain-female-athlete-triad-reds-2019-11%3famp

It’s forced teaming, putting men and women together despite a whole raft of issues that female athletes have to put up with that male athletes don’t.

No doubt some women excel in ultra sports. However, the huge discrepancy between male and female performances in most sports can't be denied.

We have the evidence now to show that males, whatever drugs they take and whatever surgery they've had, cannot compete in female sport in a way that's safe or fair. How many women have missed out on wins, podiums, racing opportunities, pro contracts, and careers because of these appalling policies?

He’s a bloody disgrace with the morals of an alley cat.

GonadTheGaul

Curiously, I keep coming across the argument that it is all about ‘scale’. That it is not many so women should just shut the fuck up and take it.

Those who push that line may or may not see the issues but they clearly prioritise males over females. Whether they accept it or not.

I’ve no doubt that many who push make inclusion have skin in the game.

What a freaking joke. I guess I have a career in cycling left in me.

@Helleofabore

GonadTheGaul

Curiously, I keep coming across the argument that it is all about ‘scale’. That it is not many so women should just shut the fuck up and take it.

Those who push that line may or may not see the issues but they clearly prioritise males over females. Whether they accept it or not.

The 'tiny' number of transwomen who would be affected by being excluded from female sports is still smaller than the number of women who are pushed down a rung of the ladder or cannot take part at all due to the inclusion of even one transwoman. The scale argument should be about the tiny number of male people who are 'disadvantaged' by not being able to compete in the category of their choice, and have to compete in the category of their sex, like everyone else. This tiny number of people should accept that they cannot disadvantage a larger number of sportswomen in this way and either accept competing in their sex category or push for their own category. Women had to push for many years to get female sports, against plenty of opposition. I'm sure trans sports would be facilitated, after all there are plenty of people and organisations interested in promoting sport for trans people (assuming they are interested in promoting sport for trans people, rather than just promoting trans people getting into the female category).

It's also ridiculous to claim that women should accept a 'tiny' amount of unfairness when it's easy to eliminate that unfairness by having a female only category. As you say, it's still about prioritising males over females, even when it would be easy not to.