Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

UCI new policy

188 replies

DistantVworp · 14/07/2023 13:55

Changing categories to Men/Open and women. About time!

www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2023/07/14/transgender-cycling-news-uci-bans-athletes-female-races/

UCI new policy
OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
CyclingSam · 17/07/2023 11:53

Helleofabore · 17/07/2023 09:02

Yowsers! That is some statement.

‘I knew it was only a fleeting moment when I could beat women so much and profit from it, and I sunk every dollar into doing just that’ is how I read it.

And why do these male people talk about telling their competition how much they love and care for them. It come across like an abusive male charter. They never see it though.

Show quote history

Austin ("Estro Junkie" is pretty apt) doesn't come across as unhinged as some, and can even write a decent sentence, but I think your reading nailed it.

ANewCreation · 17/07/2023 12:12

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 14/07/2023 15:02

I think this may be partly because a lot of professional cycling teams , even at World Tour Level, have been investing in women’s teams, and the UCI is running ‘female’ tours using the same branding as the Giro and the Tour de France. They get good media coverage and roadside attention, though there is still a way to go.

People have been pointing out to the UCI that this is going to be pretty pointless if the women’s teams were full of second rate or confused ….men.

BTW Ellen van Dijk of Lidl Trek is 30 weeks pregnant and rides 70km of the Tour de France course every day to recce for her team and ITV. Beat that, Veronica.

30 weeks pregnant, you say?
I don't know, looks like Veronica Ivy might be trying to give Ellen a run for her money...

UCI new policy
SidewaysOtter · 17/07/2023 12:19

SabrinaThwaite · 17/07/2023 10:43

I’m struggling to understand why, if people like Killips and Bridges claim to love their sport so much, they are saying that it’s all over for them now?

Nobody is banned. Nobody is being told they can’t take part. Nobody is being excluded.

Because they won't do anywhere near as well in the men's/open classes so they won't win. Which, along with the Validation Feelz, is what they care about. Which I can kind of understand, I compete at sport and I want to win. There wouldn't be much point me competing if I didn't. But the difference is that I don't want to win at any cost when that might mean competing at a lower level than I'm capable of or against kids/much less experienced competitors. When I do well I want to know that I got there fair and square.

The huffing and puffing from the likes of Ivy, Emily et al shows that they're not bothered about competing fairly, IMO.

Signalbox · 17/07/2023 12:35

SabrinaThwaite · 17/07/2023 10:43

I’m struggling to understand why, if people like Killips and Bridges claim to love their sport so much, they are saying that it’s all over for them now?

Nobody is banned. Nobody is being told they can’t take part. Nobody is being excluded.

Because if they just accepted it and moved over to the open events or started setting up their own events they would not be able to claim that they are being genocided.

SabrinaThwaite · 17/07/2023 12:40

There’s lots of things I do because I enjoy them knowing full well that I’m never going to win anything - I like the taking part and the trying to improve.

Whilst Killips, Bridges and Ivy have become accustomed to winning in the female category and the validation that brings, I’m fed up with the emotional blackmail they’re constantly exerting - all the talk of being banned, having their human rights removed, having to give up the thing they love doing.

They obviously don’t love it enough to just do it for enjoyment and the camaderie of being part of something.

user123212 · 17/07/2023 12:55

Signalbox · 16/07/2023 07:33

VI isn’t happy either. Says only “cis men” and TW will be in the open category which means it’s not open at all. I think VI’s got a point. Open really just means men 😂

so a trans male who only wants to race against women but not other trans males....

user123212 · 17/07/2023 12:58

NancyDrawed · 14/07/2023 14:36

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think males can compete in the female competition if they have taken puberty blockers and have not undergone male puberty.

But in reality, I would think an adult male who has had his puberty suppressed is not going to be at the fitness level required (or perhaps even be physically well enough) to compete against women who train.

this is so sad.

puffyisgood · 17/07/2023 13:24

CyclingSam · 17/07/2023 11:53

Austin ("Estro Junkie" is pretty apt) doesn't come across as unhinged as some, and can even write a decent sentence, but I think your reading nailed it.

Show quote history

I totally understand that Austin's livelihood is on the line here, and I totally get the attempts at all of these competitors to make the strongest possible case for inclusion within the sporting category that's most advantageous to their chances of success.

The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women, and it's totally understandable why they would want to emphasise these reasons when they speak on the subject, whilst glossing over/overlooking the dozens of plausible reasons [which, as I'm sure will become ever clearer with the benefit of hindsight, are on balance a lot stronger] why they should not.

It's up the 'powers that be' to take all points of view, most of them made by vested interests one way or another, into account in reaching a balance decision. It does look as if most sporting bodies' decision making seems to be headed in more or less the right decision.

Helleofabore · 17/07/2023 13:33

puffyisgood · 17/07/2023 13:24

I totally understand that Austin's livelihood is on the line here, and I totally get the attempts at all of these competitors to make the strongest possible case for inclusion within the sporting category that's most advantageous to their chances of success.

The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women, and it's totally understandable why they would want to emphasise these reasons when they speak on the subject, whilst glossing over/overlooking the dozens of plausible reasons [which, as I'm sure will become ever clearer with the benefit of hindsight, are on balance a lot stronger] why they should not.

It's up the 'powers that be' to take all points of view, most of them made by vested interests one way or another, into account in reaching a balance decision. It does look as if most sporting bodies' decision making seems to be headed in more or less the right decision.

Show quote history

It defies the premise that sports should be fair to have ever wedged their way into the female category of sport. I cannot believe these supposedly intelligent male athletes did not fully realise that it was always a false premise that their efforts were based on. They seemed to be desperate to use it for their own purposes and now cannot accept they have been excluded from a category they should never have been in.

I actually don't believe they could have siloed their thinking to this degree unless they were fully supported by equally complicit people who were fully immersed in theoretical thinking without any basis of material reality.

There is competitiveness, and there is cheating. I know where I believe these efforts have fallen into.

SidewaysOtter · 17/07/2023 14:30

The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women

What are they? Because the only reason I can only think of is “Because they think they are women and/or want other people to think of them as women” and I don’t think that’s plausible at all, given biological reality and the concept of sporting fairness.

titchy · 17/07/2023 14:45

SidewaysOtter · 17/07/2023 14:30

The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women

What are they? Because the only reason I can only think of is “Because they think they are women and/or want other people to think of them as women” and I don’t think that’s plausible at all, given biological reality and the concept of sporting fairness.

Stamping and saying 'I'll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I'm sick'?

Signalbox · 17/07/2023 14:48

SidewaysOtter · 17/07/2023 14:30

The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women

What are they? Because the only reason I can only think of is “Because they think they are women and/or want other people to think of them as women” and I don’t think that’s plausible at all, given biological reality and the concept of sporting fairness.

I'm also struggling to think of any plausible reasons why certain men should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

Backstreets · 17/07/2023 15:59

Yeah dozens is pushing it a bit init? “They think they’re women”, “they’ve disadvantaged themselves against other men by messing with their hormones” and “they really, really want to” are the only three I can think of and 0 of them are a good reason women should shove over

Baldieheid · 17/07/2023 19:18

Good. Males don't belong in female anything.

Bridges enjoys cycling so much that I'm absolutely sure he'll be determined to compete in the Open Category and will TRAIN FUCKING HARDER in order to win.

Won't you, sweetie?

head tilt

KiteofUncertainty · 17/07/2023 19:31

@puffyisgood
The fact is that there are dozens of plausible reasons why the likes of Ms Ivy and Bridges should be allowed to compete against women, and it's totally understandable why they would want to emphasise these reasons when they speak on the subject

What did you mean by this? Do you have any examples of plausible reasons?

Is Ivy a "Ms"?

SerafinasGoose · 17/07/2023 19:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Emily Bridges has already threatened to go abroad and compete for another country. One that is not so 'transphobic' as to ensure fair competition for women athletes.

What a deplorable loss to British cycling this will be.

👀

SidewaysOtter · 17/07/2023 19:36

SerafinasGoose · 17/07/2023 19:32

Emily Bridges has already threatened to go abroad and compete for another country. One that is not so 'transphobic' as to ensure fair competition for women athletes.

What a deplorable loss to British cycling this will be.

👀

Show quote history

Well, Emily can take Emilyself anywhere Emily chooses but I don’t think many countries tolerate men in women’s sport.

SunnyEgg · 17/07/2023 19:37

Great news

SerafinasGoose · 17/07/2023 20:02

Helleofabore · 16/07/2023 10:06

Yippee!! Female riders will now take all the places in that race. And not one that used linguistic trickery of ‘but people use my pronouns’ so society sees me as a woman, therefore I am female!

I don’t have a shred of sympathy for any of these males. It they respected women and girls and respected sport they would never have sought to compete in female sporting events. But they did. They cannot try for sympathy for being strung along either. Why did they ever insist on forcing this issue in the first place?? Or are they so desperate to in forcing their own perceptions onto society that they fully believed those assuring them with falsehoods that they really were like all those other female athletes, and it was totally fair ! Gosh they were just better at it than those female athletes!

Ivy was a fucking university lecturer, and Bridges is or was in uni! These are supposedly intelligent people!

Show quote history

Ivy's PhD was on the art of bullshit.

Go figure.

SerafinasGoose · 17/07/2023 20:22

TheBiologyStupid · 15/07/2023 13:50

Stonewall lying as usual:

Liz Ward, director of programmes at Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, said blanket exclusions on trans people were “unfair”

She said: “Trans people deserve the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy the benefits of sport. Blanket exclusions on trans people participating are fundamentally unfair, which often causes trans people to stop playing the sports they love."

Of course they can still do sport - just not in the wrong sex category. FFS!

Why do they disseminate such demonstrable lies?

The statement from UCI is available for all to read. It's there in clear black and white: by no criteria are trans people are now banned from cycling events.

They know they're lying; everyone else knows they're lying; precisely what is the point?

KiteofUncertainty · 17/07/2023 21:20

SerafinasGoose · 17/07/2023 20:22

Why do they disseminate such demonstrable lies?

The statement from UCI is available for all to read. It's there in clear black and white: by no criteria are trans people are now banned from cycling events.

They know they're lying; everyone else knows they're lying; precisely what is the point?

Show quote history

They do literally think they count as women, ridiculous as that seems. They see the revised ruling as them being expected to take part under unacceptable and unfair conditions, which is tantamount to being banned. Reality is hitting hard.

KiteofUncertainty · 17/07/2023 21:21

So they would not see their statements as lies.

Truthlikeness · 17/07/2023 21:55

Austin's statement reads like they've sacrificed and slogged away at this for decades to achieve some level of success. They took up cycling 2019. Four fucking years ago.

Swipe left for the next trending thread