Trans athletes take Gold, Silver and Bronze in women's cycling race

[HootyMcBooby]

Hulking transgender athletes take gold, silver and bronze spots on female podium at Virginia cycling championship | Daily Mail Online

"The sailing fan from British Columbia has worked as a Mechanical Engineering Technologist and was ranked 22nd in the men's Victoria Cycling League this time in 2023.
Second place went to Jenna Lingwood, 43, who raced as a man until 2017 and is now a member of the Oregon-based women's cyclocross squad Team S&M.
She is a physics graduate of the University of Washington who works in Portland for Intel as a Supply Chain R&D Engineer.

Californian Eva Lin, 28, used to race as Henry Lin for San Jose State University's men's team, but his placings have soared since he switched to its women's team in 2022"

Dirty rotten CHEATS
That is all.

Oh hang on, it never happens though.
I must be dreaming.

And in addition to what @UpThePankhurst quite rightly says

There’s nothing in the EA that compels bodies to provide single sex provision (in sport, or education or anything else).

Then public bodies/organisations/sports doing this need to make it very clear when what they provide is mixed sex. IMO Until or unless GRA revoked or updated, they should be compelled to do so. Any hockey club for example with a “ladies” team that includes men need to be open about that.

I think there is. It's the duty not to discriminate unfairly on the basis of sex. They are not specifically required by the EA2010 to provide female single sex competitions, but they will almost always be discriminating against women and girls if they choose not to. That's because the effect of not doing so is discriminatory - females lose out.

The problem is that the governing bodies themselves are supposed to police and promote equality in their sports and they have been complicit in or even pushed, these discriminatory policies. They have been getting away with it because of all the practical difficulties ordinary women face in taking them to court, the laissez-faire attitude of government, etc.

The SSEs relating to sport and positive action are the defence against charges of discrimination against men and males with a GRC. This is how sports governing bodies can lawfully directly discriminate against all males in order not to indirectly discriminate unlawfully against women.

Also there is the Public Sector Equality Duty, which the EA2010 imposes on public bodies, which includes local councils, to promote equality.
And the EA2010 does not allow self-ID males to be counted as women.

Nothing to compell them (in terms of sport) but given the reams of evidence of the unfairness of mixed sex sports by another name, it's hard to see how it can be justified.

Unfortunately to the women excluded from women's provisions that they have paid for through their taxes, it makes no practical difference to them whether or not the man concerned has a certificate or not.

No one wishes there to not be accessible provisions for all services, particularly LA and tax payer funded services, for men with trans and queer identities. It is just a case of requiring that those men must extend equal respect and care to women, and since it's proven now that there is no capacity for this to happen through good will or basic social contract, it is going to have to be compelled by law.

No funding should be given by LAs to services that are not fully inclusive, where 'fully' means 'women as well as men'.

I'm intrigued by the fact of there being 3 shameless male cheats on the podium. Doesn't that mean they all have to encounter cock in the "women's" changing room? Doesn't being with male bodies invalidate their womangender feelz? Or is it ok if there are x amount of female bodies present for validation?

@Snowypeaks this is a very good point - that by NOT providing single sex provision, these bodies actively discriminate against women. However, it does open up a whole minefield - we know for example that girls do better in single-sex schools than in co-ed schools. So are LEAs and MATs discriminating against girls by not providing single-sex schools, or by converting previously single-sex schools into co-ed schools?

Regarding "Then public bodies/organisations/sports doing this need to make it very clear when what they provide is mixed sex." - they already do this, for example take a look at England Hockey's trans-inclusion policy. It makes it very clear that they permit trans-identified males in women's teams. Short of passing legislation that makes it an offence to say "women" when you really mean "women and transwomen" I'm not really sure what can be done legislation-wise.

Of course a very simple solution is to withdraw public funds from all sports that do not have a robust policy on the matter - it could be as simple as the lottery fund and DCMS simply withdrawing funding from all sports bodies that do not have a policy as robust as the UK Athletics one.

This makes for fascinating reading: https://fairplayforwomen.com/sport-timeline-how-did-we-get-here/

My year 5 daughter recently came third to two boys in a mixed sex sports day sprint. Not on.

However, it does open up a whole minefield - we know for example that girls do better in single-sex schools than in co-ed schools. So are LEAs and MATs discriminating against girls by not providing single-sex schools, or by converting previously single-sex schools into co-ed schools?
It's not really a minefield, IMO, but I'll stick to discussing sport, if I may.

Regarding "Then public bodies/organisations/sports doing this need to make it very clear when what they provide is mixed sex." - they already do this, for example take a look at England Hockey's trans-inclusion policy. It makes it very clear that they permit trans-identified males in women's teams. Short of passing legislation that makes it an offence to say "women" when you really mean "women and transwomen" I'm not really sure what can be done legislation-wise.
Allowing self-ID males into women's teams in unlawful. The EHRC has been very clear that because self-ID is not the law in the UK, you can't redefine "women" to include men. You can (subject to the the Supreme Court confirming this in a pending appeal) include males with GRCs in women's teams in theory, but if they are in gender-affected sports, you can lawfully discriminate on the basis of GR (s. 195) to keep teams women only. If you choose not to, you are discriminating against women by denying them fair and safe sport.

The problem isn't really the law - it's bad faith actors misrepresenting it, it's people misunderstanding it or being intimidated into not applying it properly and the governing bodies colluding with the destruction of women's sports. Also the fact that this is an area of civil law rather than criminal law means that remedies are expensive.

Of course a very simple solution is to withdraw public funds from all sports that do not have a robust policy on the matter - it could be as simple as the lottery fund and DCMS simply withdrawing funding from all sports bodies that do not have a policy as robust as the UK Athletics one.
Yes, I agree. Some sports, like football, are so rich that other ways of nudging them to do the right thing would have to be found.

For anyone who is interested, or thinks that only a minority of sports are being discriminatory, here is a survey of the state of play by the Womens' Rights Network, assessing inclusion policies in sport. Last updated in February of this year.

Of the sports surveyed, 52 out of 76 got the rotten tomato awards - for those sports that allow males to take part in female sport and activities, and in many cases also allow them into female toilets and changing facilities.
Only eight got the gold award - for those sports that protect female categories from grassroots through to elite level.
Let's note that Cycling got a Silver award - for those sports that protect competition but have yet to protect the rights of women taking part in grassroots / recreational activities.

https://www.womensrights.network/sporting-body-policies

Was confident my sport (rugby league) would be OK, and it is, but disappointing to see the majority lagging behind. Including contact sports like soccer, American football, and hockey?

@Snowypeaks

”Allowing self-ID males into women's teams in unlawful. The EHRC has been very clear that because self-ID is not the law in the UK, you can't redefine "women" to include men.”

Is this really the case? If so it seems to me that many policies (such as the hockey one I linked to) could easily be challenged in court and I’m surprised that this has not happened that I know of. I suppose their defence would be that they believe that TWAW and therefore the category is correctly named. It would make for an interesting case but I’m not convinced that it would go the way we might hope and if it failed it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Coming back to this as I’m interested in the claim the US doesn’t have the equivalent All this rests on legislation doesn’t it? Whether Aus, Ireland, Canada or US by state

They all have the equivalent of a GRC or no?

A series of cases called FWS 1,2 (and possibly 3?) established that the Scottish Government could not bring forward equality measures for "women and anyone who identifies as a woman". The EHRC recently advised the Welsh Government that measures to get more women into the Senedd could not be in favour of "Women and anyone who identifies as a woman", either because self-ID women are not women.

Essentially, a man without a GRC who claims to be a woman is a man with the protected characteristic of GR, not a woman.

It wouldn't be a defence to a claim of discrimination to say that the category was correctly named because of their belief that TWAW. It is discriminatory against women - denying them fair and safe sport - and also to men who don't claim to be women, who are unfairly excluded.

The exemption which they think they are applying is Positive Action, which allows organisers to set up events or competitions or clubs etc for people who share a protected characteristic and are underrepresented in a sport or pastime or area of endeavour. Women and men who claim to be women do not share a PC so the exclusion of men is not justified - that's direct discrimination. Men who are not looking for validation/thrills/easy money/medals don't care about being excluded, so aren't going to sue. Women tend to self-exclude from such competitions, especially at grassroots and non-competitive level. They just want to have a bit of fun and get some exercise.

@Snowypeaks thanks for the additional info. It does rather lead to the question of why none of these policies have actually been subject to a legal challenge yet.

Your argument that allowing women and transwomen (who do not share a PC) access to a service under the single-PC exemption is unlawful certainly seems compelling, but then IANAL.

It's the positive action exemption that they usually rely on. The exemption can be applied to help groups with a shared PC. So all women, with or without identities. But the men have the PC of GR, the women have the PC of sex. Different PCs.

Nobody could have predicted how insane people would become and as for why there hasn't been a legal challenge...
Women tend to self-exclude from such competitions, especially at grassroots and non-competitive level. They just want to have a bit of fun and get some exercise.
To quote myself!

I think that's changing now.

Yes. I think a lot of this was all put through in hopeful naivety that the men involved wouldn't be like other men, wouldn't take the piss, and wouldn't wish to harm women. A belief in generosity and kindness on both sides.

Instead it's all demonstrated very clearly why women must have legally gatekept resources, spaces, services, equalities and rights that men cannot fuck with. Because they will. However they identify.

I agree and the lesson we must learn is that men will exploit women whenever they have the opportunity to do so.
We must always hold them to account and push back as soon as they start.