UCI reconsidering rules for transgender cyclists

[SidewaysOtter]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/04/uci-recognises-transgender-policy-concerns-reopens-consultation-cycling?fbclid=IwAR3nCo1Yt6ALf6SpD_4Fl2wicOuALtL4_0VHJQWC8fdL7Pf1LxypcmgE58s

Thank goodness for that. They’ve finally started listening, and realised what the effect on women’s cycling events could be.

The turnaround by UCI in less than a week is hilarious.

They need to give this man the Lance Armstrong treatment: strip away his medals and ban him for life from all cycling competitions for cheating.

But the article still says that

"The UCI’s objective remains the same: to take into consideration, in the context of the evolution of our society, the desire of transgender athletes to practise cycling."*

With this as secondary:

The UCI also hears the voices of female athletes and their concerns about an equal playing field for competitors, and will take into account all elements, including the evolution of scientific knowledge.

Will be interesting to see what they decide.

Sport ruling bodies need to woman up and make fair decisions for women.

Male athletes in women's sport is such an obvious issue that I've no idea what these organisations are thinking. It can't be healthy mentally to be denying a very clear truth. Can't get my head around it at all.

What 'new' scientific knowledge?
We know males have an advantage over females and testosterone suppression in no way changes this in any meaningful way.
So what 'new' science is so compelling that we have to throw everything out of the window and allow males to compete in the female category?
Surely it is up to the activists to prove this beyond doubt before we consider including males not the reverse situation of including them until we prove otherwise (which is already proven but wilfully ignored by those keen on male inclusion).

Maybe scientists should research why so many sports organisations are pandering to lying men.

This was the 1st time that the men's and women's prize pot was the same and both were won by male competitors. it really is not good optics at all, looks terrible for cycling.

I suspect the main “knowledge” is the realisation that this is something that they actually need to care about. They were probably told that it wouldn’t matter anyway - that there would just be the odd rubbish 45 year old winning some local race that they don’t care about. And isn’t it nice to be inclusive.

But now they have realised that they are staring down the barrel of a women’s Olympic podium with 3 penises on it. 3 penises in nice tight lycra to make sure everyone knows exactly what has happened hear. And that makes them look a bit silly and useless. And they’ve only just got over looking silly and useless post Lance Armstrong.

I also suspect that it has finally occurred to them that no matter how low their testosterone is - a man’s body is different to a woman’s body - so they can’t just make a rule about this and be done with it.

They already reduced the testosterone requirement from 5 to 2.5 mol / L and increased the time an athlete had to keep their testosterone to that level from 1 to 2 years a few months back didn't they after the Emily Bridges fiasco?

I wonder if there are there any other arbitrary and meaningless tweaks they can make to the rules that will allow them to pretend they are taking women's concerns seriously? Reduction of testosterone down to 1 nmol / L for 3 years rather than 2 perhaps. Or making men cycle with a weight to slow them down. Or allowing actual women to set off a minute earlier to give them a time advantage.

If transgender people want to participate in cycling then have a trans person category.

Wouldn't be surprised if their new rules will just require the male cyclists to tuck harder on the podium and wear more makeup.

There's no need for a separate "trans" category any more than there's a need for a category for people who like shellfish. The best solution is just to have "female" and "open" categories. Perhaps with weight and/or age subcategories.

I’ve posted this on a few other threads, but it’s worth remembering that not only is the testosterone policy anti-scientific, it’s unenforceable. How does the UCI propose to check on testosterone levels? How can they be sure a male’s testosterone is below 2.5 the entire time throughout their life, during training, as well as competition? How do they ensure a male doesn’t just drop their testosterone level just prior to a scheduled test? Are they going to make all these males sign up to the WADA ADAMS and have testers ring their doorbell at 6am on random days?

No.

The expectation is likely that the male will have to honestly keep their testosterone levels below 2.5 and demonstrate this from time to time.

So even the anti-scientific system they’ve come up with won’t work.

Don't give them ideas! I'm sure they'd see that as a fair solution.

Regardless whether or not there is a need (which is a debate in itself) TW don't appear to want 3rd categories. AFAIK there are no campaigns for 3rd categories for TW. In fact when people have suggested third categories this has been compared to apartheid. I suspect that most people would be broadly supportive of third categories if it fully protected the women's category but it's unlikely to happen the whole time that sports bodies are mucking about rule tweaks that aim to handicap men by reducing their testosterone levels.

i think they need to question their assumption that they need to make changes and accommodations to enable “the desire of transgender athletes to practise cycling”.

What is it - other than these athletes wanting to be allowed to compete against women - that is stopping them from practising cycling?

Winning is not a basic right. Nor is getting qualifying times for your sex category. Loads of athletes have to practise their sport at lower levels than they might like due to a whole range of choices and circumstances. It might be just not being good enough. Or injury. Or having to prioritise your career so you can afford to live. Or caring responsibilities. Or deciding you want to undergo medical ‘transition’ via a gender identity clinic.

These don’t necessarily stop you from practising cycling. You can still get on a bike and cycle in a Lycra clad pack on country roads on a Sunday morning if you like. That’s practising cycling. Just because you aren’t able to compete at the highest levels, it doesn’t mean you’re not practising cycling.

The assumption that the structures of cycling must be changed to ensure that males can compete in the female category is pretty dubious as a starting point.

If someone decides that it is vital that trans gender male humans are able to win and get the prize money. Then the answer to that is not putting them in the female category. It’s setting up their own category. Depressingly, money to do that would probably be much easier to come by than money to promote women’s participation in elite sport.

There shouldn’t need to be.

But, if the problem is actually that transgender people who are biologically male can’t win in the male category… and their winning is viewed as the most important outcome… then there is a need for a separate category. They can win that instead.

There is not a want for that though. The athletes and activists here want them to
win and specifically to win the women’s events.

It honestly blows my mind that the cycling bodies thought there would be any other outcome other than the women's podium being dominated by males.

That any trans identifying male could ever win anything without there being huge controversy and outcry.

Thankfully reality is now becoming clear to them. Let's hope they do the right thing.

I think it’s more that they simply didn’t care or think it mattered if that happened.

They didn’t need to think any of that through.

There’s a lot more harm that will be done if they wait until August to review the rules. According to this tweeter the “Tour de Bloom stage race in Washington this weekend has 4 males racing in the women's fields: 2 in the W's P/1/2/3 and 2 in the W's 4/5: Jenna (James) Lingwood, Claire (Ivan) Law, Henrietta (Henry) Watts, and Prim Rose.”

https://twitter.com/i_heart__bikes/status/1654618095741448193

It's just criminal. It's literal theft.