Female cyclists in podium no-show after being beaten by male cyclist

[EdgeOfACoin]

https://www.outkick.com/cyclists-no-show-post-race-podium-after-biological-male-finishes-1st-in-female-race/

This was in a Colorado - Utah race a couple of days ago. Apologies if there's already a thread. I didn't see one.

Interestingly, this was in the race for cyclists aged 40-49. I wonder if older athletes are less likely to stand for this nonsense. Anyway, good for them. I hope this spreads to younger cyclists and other sports.

Remember Ivy/McKinnon is on record for telling women who disagree to ‘die in a grease fire’.

And admitted that people using pronouns and ‘accepting’ these males as woman, mean that society needs to accept them as ‘female’. Because that is what using pronouns and words for women means. That these male people fully want the world to accept them completely as ‘female’ not just this word ‘woman’. Ivy/McKinnon said it out loud once. I don’t think they quite understand that that is the part they didn’t want known.

NEW: British Cycling is to ban trans women athletes from competitive women’s races. The new policy rules that only those born female will be eligible. A new ‘open’ category will replace the current men’s category.

coming through news services now

Excellent news!

Great news, everyone will be happy with this. Trans women will be perfectly fine to compete in an "open" category I'm sure. They aren't being excluded. They can play sport. That's what matters.

My abiding worry is what happens at amateur competitive level. Schools, clubs, local road races, park events etc.

Are we saying any event deemed competitive ie anything beyond kids running about in a playground or park, will be subject to this rule?

I don't know much about kids sport, but that's from about the age of 9 and upwards?

Will it really be the case that 9 year olds into secondary schools etc will be fully covered by this rule?

Because if there's the merest grey area, trans propaganda on isolating individuals will go on, with the attendant pressure on those running the events to look the other way, and parents/girls being obliged to shut up and look the other way.

Meanwhile the “female category” for any form of competition from elite to grassroots will be preserved for those with a birth sex of female.

There is no 'looking the other way' in sport... rules are rules...

Here is another thread for MN. Why not go over there and ask your question.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4812691-parkrun-and-transgender-record-breaker

And here is Nicole Cooke supporting the British Cycling changes. There are numerous women in the replies who are currently active in cycling.

https://twitter.com/nicolecooke2012/status/1662192949348773888?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

If you are on twitter, this weekend will be full of women active in competition or in grassroots discussing their support for this change. Now a great time to have those discussions you want @MN164 !

I believe that British Cycling (I believe World Athletics and World Rugby did too) had qualitative studies with female athletes in their sport who provided the conclusions for their decisions. Do you expect that the majority of those female athletes did not agree that males should not be included in female events?

Or do you believe these sports organisations had male people in their focus groups skewing the data? That the focus groups did not match the segmented out data from surveys - Ie that the women and girl’s answers in the qualitative research didn’t match those in the quantitative research?

By the way, even Dr Emma Hilton is active in sports at grass roots level. So, when she discusses women competing fairly, she is doing so as someone who is active in sports.

Now is such a great time to have those discussions you wanted! Would you mind coming back and updating us with what you found out though?

Because if there is something missing and the views we present is not the majority of active sportswomen, I think we should find that an interesting discussion.

Remember Ivy/McKinnon is on record for telling women who disagree to ‘die in a grease fire’.

That Twitter thread posted the other day (I believe it linked to EB’s mother) has had many tweets removed now including one image of a gun target with shots through each of the bullseyes. Rather chilling in its message.

There was also a tweet from a Sheffield faculty mentioning MN. Not in a nice way you understand.

Look what has just come out!

Are there enough female athletes talking about their feelings of male inclusion to answer your question MN?

That’s a great video.

We're reaching the business end of the line that cannot be held forever.

A trans activist told the Scottish parliament that evidence that male advantage invested in biological men partaking in women's sport in regards to strength, speed, probability of serious injury was news to her and she would have to consider this evidence, but for now it was irrelevant to the argument.

And now the trans senior (only?) researcher looking at retained male advantage after blockers, told Cathy Newman on Times Radio that male advantages (plural) exist but there is no overall male advantage (singular) to biological men in women's sport.

The line, if there ever was one, is literally being trashed by those invested in promoting and prolonging it.

The line cannot hold. My amusement will be watching over the next few years the 180 reverse ferrets that the elites perform as they try to pretend that they were only being kind, and following the science.

That’s great, well worth 6 minutes of anyone’s time.

And phwoar at Daley Thompson, still fiiiiine after all these years.

That is a very good video.
I just hope more people listen.

I wouldn't have recognised Mr Thompson without the heads-up and I was once an owner of Daley Thompsons Decathlon on the zx spectrum!

Considering maggoth did not come back with one iota of evidence to back their harmful assertions, I am adding this here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/96b01454-fc8c-11ed-bd7b-4817e327d68f?shareToken=6923b39aabd8433e8609ff66a769d285

There is not a ‘consensus’ unless it is amongst the ideologically driven group called WPATH. And they are in no way all clinicians or scientists in WPATH. Often they are trans people advocating for medicalised treatments with no experience outside their own. And I was suggest male led.

There are now weekly alarms being raised by practitioners. This article refers to a letter that I have yet to see, by another 20 clinicians and scientists. And reading Bethany’s story is chilling when you read how organised this was, even back in 2015. Bethany found the doctor’s names to target , the appropriate things to say, the points to raise to influence the diagnosis to what she wanted, all this.

And maggot is telling us there is consensus and it is evidenced and it is proven. I can only conclude since maggoth couldn’t post one thing to evidence their claim that they know they were repeating dishonest mantras from extremists. That their mates are repeating unfounded mantras as well.

It was good to have a live demonstration of the tactics. It has played out time and time again on MN. And everytime, it convinces more people to dig further and read the links.

The line cannot hold. My amusement will be watching over the next few years the 180 reverse ferrets that the elites perform as they try to pretend that they were only being kind, and following the science.

The other all-in approach - "okay, forget the science" - is also amusing. Some clips of the cohost of some "lefty" US podcast.

https://twitter.com/SunnyMarmalaid/status/1661865906476298240

Transcript of the first two clips:

[Reading a viewer e-mail:] "...tonnes of evidence regarding testosterone levels and height, strength and speed between people with XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes. Matt's citation of cases about the Olympics is pertinent, but an argument for better planning and more transparent discussions. Your argument is really bad on this and you're out of your depth. You're correct that transwomen should be able to compete in women's sports, but your argument for it is just scientifically and factually incorrect."

I'm actually not bad about this. I'm 100% right on this. I don't give a shit about the scientific explanations. People, if they identify as a woman, get to compete in sports. If that's not "fair" in the short term for a variety of little competitions, I don't give a shit! I don't give a shit!

Because the societal interest in including trans people in society trumps stupid competition. Full stop. So I'm right about this, you're wrong about this.

[...]

I mean honestly, women's sports, it's barely an institution. It's only been around for a few decades. Like, if our sources of... our outlets of entertainment, for competition, for, like, whatever, I don't know how to define them. But if they're not able to accommodate trans people, then they're not worthy of existing. It's just, like, we're talking about movie theatres, what are we talking about here? I love sports as much as anyone, but if they cannot accommodate including trans people, I don't give a shit about them being robust. It's just... be inclusive or don't be. That's it. Or don't exist.

Oh… here is another article today that shows exactly who was driving the treatment plans developed by GIDS. there is a link to the telegraph article in the first few posts that bypasses the paywall.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4815136-telegraphmermaids-and-tavi

This shows that Mermaids ( a lobby group) had extensive access to Polly Carmichael . And Mermaids is an important part of WPATH.

Previously, the Tavistock denied this interaction with Mermaids, they had been told to provide the documentation whistleblowers had said should have been available and was being denied. Now it has surfaced. There is a thread about that here too.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4796600-ico-threatens-gender-clinic-with-court-over-mermaids-involvement

Consensus, eh? More like a house of cards built on shifting sands. It is all beginning to crumble now. Hopefully, what will remain is a much higher quality of holistic care and policies and laws that protect children and all female members of the population, regardless of their identity.

And a much wiser population who now understands how easy it is to be manipulated as a society.

I saw this yesterday and could not work out if it was a parody. After the performative melt downs we have been seeing, it is hard to tell.

Very importantly, I'm reading that Kemi Badenoch is personally actively taking the lead in protecting Baroness Falkner.

This can only mean that the EHRC report into definitively locking down "sex" as biological sex not gender, and the parliamentary debate, are finally going to happen, sooner rather than later.

Fewer and fewer places for the gender ideologues to hide, no more control of the conversation.

They could only prevail when only they were allowed to speak. Now that both sides have to be heard, their arguments are collapsing.

I think it's clear some men people see female sport as a nice-to-have and if it causes problems by not being fully accommodating to men and their validation needs, then it can get binned.

Indeed - the language in those quotes is very telling: only women's sport, only little competitions. It doesn't affect anything actually important like men's sports, so why worry?

• men's sports + men's feeling

Indeed, The Right Side of History only cares about actual people, not those silly little partially-sentient support bipeds.

The sports authorities have always known that including TW in women’s sports is wrong IMO, but also know that women have generally been conditioned to be kind and women are too frightened of the vitriol they will incur to complain. This is unlike the aggressive and vocal TRAs who target anyone showing concerns over women’s sports, including at a granular level within organisations. It’s always been about reputation management (and to the devil with women, who cares) not about “the science”. Now those authorities see that their reputations are starting to be damaged by including TW. So they are starting to change tack. “The science” is just useful evidence to defend against TRA attack) - it’s about PR.