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

[Xoxoxoxoxoxox]

Helen joice has just put this up on twitter.
A new major sponsor is being sought to ensure that the 6th Women’s CiCLE Classic and 8th Junior Men’s edition of the race can go ahead as planned, following the decision of longstanding sponsor Pete Stanton to withdraw his sponsorship of the races...due to the decision to not include trans atheletes.

• A man tries to use his money to force women to accept transwomen in women's races.

I hadn't thought about the trans activism behind sponsorships deals that fund women's sport that must go on behind the scenes but here is an example laid bare. The men's races are not under threat just the women's races of course.

www.velouk.net/2022/04/12/news-sponsors-needed-for-womens-junior-cicle-classic/.

It would have been great if they could've been sponsored by FPFW, but I could totally understand it if the organisers decided it would be too hot a potato.

Interesting rewording in the bbc article: 'Boris Johnson said transgender women should not compete in female sporting events.'

Actually he said biological males, which is an awful lot clearer.

I agree with the hot potato comment. However, the offer was there, the publicity was there, and if this has alerted other potential sponsors to the race then it's all good, and we can save our gardening for more court cases.

@Datun

Please, please, please tell me that fair play for women will have a massive red hand logo, and their words 'hands off our rights' emblazoned across every bit of their sponsorship.

The optics would be phenomenal.

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

What is Mx Stanton's source of wealth?

Um. Wouldn't use the big red hand. Bit too close to the MMIW red handprint across the face image. Would not want to risk detracting from their work highlighting some incredibly vulnerable women.

I'm completely baffled about how we've ended up with males (even post transition) competing against females and sporting bodies saying it's ok, studies apparently showing trans women have no advantage against biological males?! I'm no biologist but that just seems so obviously untrue.

And I'm equally baffled that trans women can't just compete alongside males - it's just physical sex categories, it doesn't make anyone less trans, surely. I understand that taking hormones will negatively affect performance but it's a personal choice to do that.

It's just completely illogical to me! How is this the mainstream position?

Then 'red hand' and 'hands off our rights' is the FPFW logo. It's used in their campaigns. And, iirc from the maya Forstater case, is based on a well known artistic style.

It's not a new thing.

Here.

@nepeta

What is Mx Stanton's source of wealth?

Stanton’s Twitter suggest they/them is an employee of Atkins.

So likely not a wealthy entrepreneur type.

And also highlights that any sporting event dependent on a single sponsor needs to have a back up plan for funding in case that sponsor pulls out unexpectedly (been there, done that).

I've gone through the fpfw and sex matters tweets but can't find the garden... help please? Or is this being organised differently to the previous gardening events?

@Aspiringmatriarch

I'm completely baffled about how we've ended up with males (even post transition) competing against females and sporting bodies saying it's ok, studies apparently showing trans women have no advantage against biological males?! I'm no biologist but that just seems so obviously untrue.

And I'm equally baffled that trans women can't just compete alongside males - it's just physical sex categories, it doesn't make anyone less trans, surely. I understand that taking hormones will negatively affect performance but it's a personal choice to do that.

It's just completely illogical to me! How is this the mainstream position?

The early studies apparently showing that trans women had no advantage had big methodological problems. The reason why those didn't ring any alarm bells was probably in the fact that no critics of trans inclusion were heard in the proceedings which led to changes in the rules. Or that's what I have read.

It's only in the last two years that more professionally done studies have shown the lasting effects undergoing male puberty have on the male advantage. Current levels of testosterone don't matter very much compared to the levels that existed for decades before a male person transitioned.

The early studies apparently showing that trans women had no advantage had big methodological problems.
That's interesting. How did they come to those conclusions? Do you know much about the studies?
I'm just really surprised because I know how strict they are about everything else!

I hope the TRAs are inclusive in their protests and turn up at the tour de France too. Or is it still only women who have to make space for everyone else?

@Aspiringmatriarch

The early studies apparently showing that trans women had no advantage had big methodological problems. That's interesting. How did they come to those conclusions? Do you know much about the studies? I'm just really surprised because I know how strict they are about everything else!

Google Joanne Harper, a transwoman who works for the ioc, who did a study based on about 8 of her transwomen mates.

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

Harper has since said maybe the more recent, proper studies are more accurate.

@Aspiringmatriarch

The early studies apparently showing that trans women had no advantage had big methodological problems. That's interesting. How did they come to those conclusions? Do you know much about the studies? I'm just really surprised because I know how strict they are about everything else!

This is a very good summary from Emma Hilton www.stateofswimming.com/fond-of-womens-sport-dr-emma-hilton-the-science-that-shows-why-biological-sex-not-gender-choice-says-who-swims-as-man-or-woman/

Dr Harper has said, disingenuosly in my view, that she was surprised that the IOC took her study of 8 transwomen who were distance runners of varying standards (not particularly elite IIRC) and applied it to all sport, across the board in 2003.

The really remarkable bait and switch has been sport organisations saying people can compete by gender with minimal evidence on why that should be, who now present this situation as the status quo which will need evidence to change. A really remarkable political fuck you to women.

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

@Mysterioso

I've gone through the fpfw and sex matters tweets but can't find the garden... help please? Or is this being organised differently to the previous gardening events?

There’s no appeal for funds yet. If you read the statement from Sex Matters is says they’ve put the money on the table but if people are needed to contribute later, they let everyone know in time.

'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)

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 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.

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.

Women are putting their money where their mouths are and we still need permission to be seen.

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.

[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.

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.