Cycling UK seeing sense

[PauliesWalnuts]

I don't doubt there isn't a need for an inclusive awards, but given the number of women who don't ride due to women-specific obstacles (kit, bike frames, traffic, abuse, safety etc) it's good that we've got an awards to ourselves:

'Do we need to exclude people even more?' – Cycling UK's 100 Women in Cycling criticised for not accepting nominations for trans women | Cycling Weekly

Wow. One of the 100 women selected has turned down the accolade because of the decision to only give it to biological women. And she is in charge of women's participation at the Herne Hill velodrome.

Well that's a missed opportunity for the male journalist at Cycling Weekly to celebrate an award for women. Worth noting Cycling UK's comment that:

"We also plan to review the overall format of our 100 Women in Cycling Awards ahead of the tenth anniversary next year - as there may be new and better ways to champion diversity and inclusivity in cycling".

In other words, we're still looking for ways to eradicate women from women's cycling?

A quick Google search revealed that Cycling UK offers a slew of different awards - volunteer of the year, lifetime achievement, community, local/regional awards - just to name a few. All of which people who claim to be trans are eligible for. Each award category is based on a unique characteristic and in one case, people who are female. People who claim to be trans are no more excluded than people who never volunteered with the organization are excluded from eligibility for a volunteer award, or people who are not from Scotland are excluded from eligibility for the Cycle Scotland award.

It'll be along the lines of "if the 100 women can't include men we won't have the award at all"
There's no point having a "women" award if you can't sprinkle a couple of men into it.

@MrsOvertonsWindow I suspect its more that after 10 years they will have highlighted 1000 women*, I know quite a few of them. Thats a lot given its a pretty small world, and I'd say as a campaign it has less impact than it used to. Fair call for them to review it.

Well done them for sorting it out though. I'm sure it wont have been easy given some staff will have kicked off about it.

*not quite, some chaps took a few spaces

Surely females who call themselves NB, having rejected the woman title wouldn’t be bothered about not being part of a women’s award? It makes no sense for the person to be getting upset about this particular group.

I am a member of cycle U.K. and pleased to see the list is solely female.

In my experience, no, they want the title changed from “women” to include “NB” identities of both sexes (they already presume it includes men who identify as women). I’ve seen many Facebook and other groups come a cropper due to the narcissism of these people.

Yep. And in my experience, organisations like Cycling UK will have a good few of this demographic on staff.

The old guard (practical beardy men who like bike touring and are still a bit sad it is no longer the CTC) will have been oblivious to the politics the younger staff have brought to the org until its too late.
Its a shame, I've seen too many decent orgs eat themselves with this. Glad they have sorted it out, hope its not too late for them.

I follow the top 100 and know quite a few women who have been listed. I don’t think a transwoman has ever featured in the top 100 list and all Cycling UK are doing here is affirming that they are following the law surely?

I knew that Cycling UK had quietly changed this a while ago - I didn't post about it as I figured it was best to let it slide quietly under the radar and avoid attracting those who would make it very uncomfortable for the charity.

There are quite a few of the traditional captured sorts in Cycling UK, but there's still a cohort of members who are from the original Cycle Touring Club and less likely to put up with "men are women" bs.

I would think there are quite a few people running various organisations who were very relieved by the clarity of the SC judgement as it enables them at last to refute the fake ‘Stonewall law’ and calmly stand up to trans activist bullying.

I belong to a couple of cycling forums and the "be inclusive", "Let's allow TW's race in women's races", tend to be male riders in their 20's/30's. I still find it amazing, considering the difference between male and female riders.

If anyone reading is a member of the CTC forum (I'm not beardy but old habits die hard), perhaps they could start a thread about this. I would, but I was banned for my GC posts.

Sadly I think this award is going to get cancelled as it looks like a number of nominated women are now asking to be withdrawn from this. Such a shame that we cannot celebrate women in cycling if it doesn’t include biological males also. I do think that cycling does have a wider diversity and inclusion problem but that isn’t caused by this award

@CyclingSam Not sure how long a thread would last on the CTC forum.
Presumably the thread on the separate CChT forum has covered it?
Nice to see Cycling Weekly getting told in the comments on the article.

Really? That's a massive shame. Why are some women so keen to promote men over other women?

Same here.

I have seen "Breeze" rides advertised as women only (part of a different organisation but promoted by a local group) - these rides were for anyone who identified as a woman. When I contacted them to point out that including men would exclude some women, the organiser ignored the points I made and insisted that her rides would always be "inclusive".

Mainly the usual TWAW sentiment

I was banned from the CyclingNews forum a few years ago for exactly the same thing. In my case it was comments made about Rachel McKinnon.

Blimey, what gushing, hand-wringing angst fest that was! She spouted the usual tropes about hateful laws, why oh why oh why can't we have some women who used to be called Kevin etc.

Fortunately, all thd commentators appear to be members of the reality based community. They pointed out exactly why she's wrong on this.

They still should have the right to be considered for it, even if they don't want it. In the same way that I have the right to free association even if I just want to stay at home with a book.

You're right, a thread probably wouldn't last long if the same reality denying moderator is still in charge.

It doesn't appear to have come up yet at the other place.

@oldtiredcyclist Our club of banned cycling forum users is likely a small one, given that most don't seem to care about what's been going on, and once they've been made aware, tend to have what I call Reasonable Man Syndrome, which means they feel there must certainly be a compromise (women being the ones who need to compromise, of course).

The only cycling forum I'm aware of that's run by a sex realist is mine (notanothercyclingforum.net), but it doesn't really count as a forum; I named it well...

I note that CWeakly’s tweet to its article has gone down well too /s
https://x.com/cyclingweekly/status/1985747679130108310
How much will it take for them to see sense?

And their FB post to the article has 601 comments and they’ve limited who can comment on it 😂

Too many cowards in the cycling world.
I've met many of them.