"Dumped by email": Mother of transgender cyclist Emily Bridges speaks out after British Cycling decision to suspend trans policy

You say tomato, I say tomato...

But then simply define fruit...

"After looking at the evidence that some 'vegetables' might be considered 'fruit', the complexities of bananas and plantains and the existence of the coconut we have decided that mostly it's easier to stick with what we've got and accept the occasional hawaiian pizza."

See, now you've got me thinking about mushrooms...

ktache wrote:

See, now you've got me thinking about mushrooms...

They're definitely male right?

Oh no!  You've brought sex into it, that gets even more complicated in fungi!

Or alternatively shows that human definitions and heuristics only go so far.  Mind you I don't particularly fancy fungi - on pizzas or most places outside of cheese so that's fine.

Oh. My bad. Just presumed being funguys they'd be blokes

Well...

Sriracha wrote:

Possibly so. Or possibly because women did not start the dispute in the first place.

so the cis-women on the side of not being bigots don't count? 

But they are and have always been women (unless of course they themselves do not wish to be defined in this manner). I was just pointing out how ill-defined his definition truly was, and would in fact remove quite a few women from competitive sport, especially the infertility thing.  I have not really been commenting on the trans issue, and do not really have a defined opinion. Which for me is odd and not common.  The best I can come up with it's all very complicated, and over many years my mind may be changed in different ways.

But what I will say is that I don't believe that there have been any large scale genetic analysis done on top athletes. But when you start to really look, there are some odd things that might start showing up.

biker phil wrote:

Well, in my world, a biological woman has a cervix, ovaries, breasts, has the ability to be able to reproduce and have babies. Whereas a biological male does not have any of the above and cannot have babies. That seems pretty clear to me, and anyone else with common sense.

Unfortunately, unless you're a lefty liberal woke, you cannot have eveything your own way in life, just because you want it.

So to confirm you are a misogynist who reduces the gender of "woman" purely to the presence of certain reproductive organs and whether or not they can carry babies. 
Yep, when I said you sound AS idiotic as the GOP senators above, I was wrong. You sound more. 

Not born with cock and balls

sparrowlegs wrote:

What BC have done is actually stand up for biological female athletes.

That's a bit of a stretch. What they appear to have done is thrown their hands up in the air and said 'it's too complicated - we give up'. It's only fallen back to the current position by default, rather than by some definitive decision on their part. It's a bit of a 'plague on all your houses' response.

mdavidford wrote:

sparrowlegs wrote:

What BC have done is actually stand up for biological female athletes.

That's a bit of a stretch. What they appear to have done is thrown their hands up in the air and said 'it's too complicated - we give up'. It's only fallen back to the current position by default, rather than by some definitive decision on their part. It's a bit of a 'plague on all your houses' response.

Most rational people, especially competitive people, expect the regulation to be based on science which is based on evidence and logic. So where the regulation has failed is to make decisions in advance of the science.

We saw this dynamic in the Pandemic where the medicine regulator did not approve new vaccines for use in a population that had not been through a credible collection of pharmaceutical trials conducted and reviewed to industry standards. Thus it was only the scientifically ignorant who disputed the efficacy and safety of approved vaccines. In another country the politicians chose to conflate public health measures with personal freedom because it suited their agenda and their supporters are scientifically ignorant so can be influenced by opinion. Epidemiology is unknown to them.

BC should not take decisions without good science based on good data and practice. That doesn't exist yet so finding a way to enable it in collaboration with ICU & IOC seems the logical next step. It's sad that existing regulation is not yet fully inclusive but wrong to pretend that it can be based on incomplete or bad science. It's certainly wrong to work on the basis of opinion and volume.

Problem is this is not a debate, it's a fight with several parties.  And the problem is one of decision (categories and rules) and identity.  So "science" is not going to help much.  That just tells you what is (or what you measure), not what you might want to do about that.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Problem is one of decision (categories and rules) and identity. So "science" is not going to help much. That just tells you what is (or what you measure), not what you might want to do about that.

British Cycling state "We administer the sporting calendars in all domestic cycle sport and oversee cycling’s development across all disciplines, helping to ensure those who want to race can do so in a competitive and compelling environment."

So they need to decide what information their oversight requires to be credible, and what studies are needed to provide that information.

There are no shortage of UK sports science institutions who could deliver those studies and work with British Cycling to refine what should be studied. Doing that correctly is more important than doing it quickly if the result is to be credible.

A scientific approach is how hard problems are solved with openness and transparency. Thus reasonable people can see the evidence for themselves and be assured that the regulation is fair whilst consistent with the stated objectives..

Slight nit-pick - I agree that using science to tell us what the facts are - and make decisions more credible - is important. And from these threads it appears to be at least some of the required science is out there. Or we have an understanding of how and where to look.  They should be doing that, indeed.

In the end though this controversy is (pinching someone else's phrase) in the category of "predicament" and not "problem". You don't "solve" it, you make choices.   Those may have better or worse consequences, for different people, short or longer term - and will change the shape of the future. The place of science is to inform those choices.  I'd agree that it seems at least it can here.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment about BC's position or their handling of it, though. Did you reply to the wrong post?