- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Emily Bridges on cover of DIVA magazine“Trans rights are human rights,” says Rapha – “all athletes should have the opportunity to race”
Rapha has said that “trans rights are human rights” in a reference to Emily Bridges, the transgender cyclist who is pictured on the cover of this month’s issue of Diva, the magazine for LGBTQI women and non-binary people, wearing kit from the London-based clothing and accessories brand.
> Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges insists she has no advantage over rivals
Bridges had been due to make her debut in a women’s race at the National Omnium Championships in February after her testosterone levels fell within those allowed by British Cycling under its Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy.
However, world cycling’s governing body, the UCI, subsequently barred the 21 year old from competing at the event and British Cycling has since suspended its policy.
In her interview with Diva, Bridges insisted that the hormone replacement therapy she has undergone means she does not have a physical advantage over riders she would be competing against in women’s races.
“I don't have any advantage over my competitors and I've got data to back that up,” maintained the cyclist, who has been undergoing testing at Loughborough University.
In response to a tweet from road.cc linking to our coverage of Bridges’ interview, Rapha said: “Trans rights are human rights. We believe that all athletes should have the opportunity to race. We don’t have all the answers to how this should be actioned but we’re standing by our athletes and supporting them.”
Transgender cyclist Emily Bridges insists she has no advantage over rivals
“We're the current punching bag in the culture war,” says 21 year old in interview with DIVA magazinehttps://t.co/hmHRBvf9OD #cycling pic.twitter.com/ejzbaiTM2u
— road.cc (@roadcc) May 26, 2022
Trans rights are human rights. We believe that all athletes should have the opportunity to race. We don’t have all the answers to how this should be actioned but we’re standing by our athletes and supporting them.
— Rapha (@rapha) May 30, 2022
There are few issues in sport right now that are as polarising of opinion as whether transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women’s competitions, and SRS Events said in a tweet: “Can’t understand why Emily doesn’t understand that it’s unfair to cis women if she takes part in women’s cycle racing events?”
In response to that tweet, Bridges' mother Sandy Sullivan responded, saying: "Because she's spent the last nearly 18 months as part of detailed scientific research studies which includes muscular biopsy data amongst other DETAILED scientific testing. Compare [the above] to previous data held by BC (5 YRS WORTH).”
Because she's spent the last nearly 18 months as part of detailed scientific research studies which includes muscular biopsy data amongst other DETAILED scientific testing. Compare ⬆️ to previous data held by BC (5 YRS WORTH)
— Sandy 💜💙❤ 🏳️🌈 Ally She/Her (@sullivansa1) May 27, 2022
Bridges also told Diva that transgender athletes are “the current punching bag populist movements like to go for. We are, at the moment, who the culture war is against.
“There needs to be more positive voices and more education. People are constructing opinions off not the whole story.
“The more studies that are done, the more concrete evidence there will be.
“Sport acts as a microcosm to the rest of society, so with the patriarchal structure that exists in the rest of society, that's intensified in sport,” she added.
Rapha is controlled by an RZC Investments, owned by Tom and Steuart Walton, two of the heirs to the Walmart grocery fortune.
The retailer, founded by their grandfather Sam Walton, is based in Bentonville, Arkansas.
Rapha relocated its North American HQ in 2020 from Portland, Oregon to Bentonville, which in January hosted this year’s UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships, with Walmart acting as headline sponsor to the event.
In March, the Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, vetoed legislation aimed at banning gender-confirming treatments or surgery for transgender youth. His veto was subsequently overturned by the state legislature.
Tom Walton said in a statement published at the time on the website of the Walton Family Foundation that he backed the governor’s position, reports Bike Industry and Retail News, although it noted that Hutchinson had previously signed into law legislation banning transgender women and girls from competing in school sports.
“We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas,” Walton said.
“This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state.
“We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.
“Our nation was built on inalienable rights and strengthened by individual differences. Arkansas has been called the land of opportunity because it is a place where anyone can think big and achieve the extraordinary.
“Any policy that limits individual opportunity also limits our state’s potential,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 11 min 43 sec ago
Wonder if the defence was "one slip in a lifetime of safe driving" and "they're very sorry" or whether they made use of the Incompetence Paradox?
- the little onion 24 min 17 sec ago
is that the Richard LIttlejohn who writes a column for the Daily Mail, often about migration issues, from his home in Florida?
- nordog 29 min 59 sec ago
I bet Singleton & Morrestin Hospitals noticed a reduction in injured persons.
- Capt Sisko 37 min 15 sec ago
I can't comment on how easy it is to change the batteries on the Fly 12, but I have just changed one on the rearward Fly 6 CE (Gen 2). The only...
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 6 min ago
It doesn't seem to be the most efficient piece of design. But I don't see why the police should bother about it, given that it's highly unlikely to...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 30 min ago
Have addicts been reduced to baartering for drugs?
- lesterama 2 hours 32 min ago
It was only the Euros, after all - and some epic racing across the categories
- HoarseMann 2 hours 38 min ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr97dl4740o Mother and child escaped unharmed; unclear who was driving.
- mark1a 11 hours 47 min ago
I understand what you're saying, but I think when you get north of £10k, for the average amateur road.cc reader who maybe in the market for a so...
- brooksby 6 hours 35 min ago
They (wheelywheely) haven't been seen for ages- did they get banned?
Add new comment
169 comments
Hum. Newtons Law? Too many to list.
Newton, it's called a law, and it's quite a good approximation, Einstein refined it a bit but then there are some more complexities...
Gravity - not just a good idea, it's the law!
Although I didn't "google it" it does seem we're getting stuck in an actual rather than potential well here though.
all companies should have the right to profit from situations
Yes, literally everyone believes that. Unless you mean "all athletes should have the opportunity to race in whatever race they choose", then literally no one believes it. (Or will you be supporting my petition to race TDF this year?)
Well that's the rub, isn't it? It's one thing to express airy feel goodisms, quite another to develop real policy that responsibly takes a multitude of complex and often contradictory factors into account.
It doesn't get much more patriarchal than a male saying, "Hey imma go race females and demand that everyone accept my decision."
It doesn't get much more patriarchal than a male saying, "Hey imma go race females and demand that everyone accept my decision."
That's also the Chappelle arguement expect he goes one step further by saying white males and in IMHO from a philosophical pov it's hard to argue against. 🤷♂️
British Cycling did develop a "real policy". Emily did followed that "real policy". UCI pushed Emily and British Cycling "under the bus". Regarding your implied fairness argument, do you have any scientific evidence to support this or just your own opnions.
Emily's testosterone level had to be below 5 nmol/dl for 12 months to qualify her being able to compete as a woman. A normal range for female testosterone is 0.7 - 2 nmol\dl. If any non-trans females returned a testosterone level of 5 nmol/dl they probably be banned for a long period of time.
How was the 5 nmol/dl level set? What studies was this based on?
People keep screaming "scientific studies" but no links have provided so that the scientific community can make reasoned conclusions.
So no links to studies disproving their method, nor any comment on why they'd develop a policy only to scrap it last minute. Doesn't seem too fair to follow all the rules then have the rules ripped up does it...
Come again? I was replying to Rapha's tweet, not to British Cycling or anyone else. And I didn't make any fairness arguments, or any kind of arguments/claims that depend on scientific evidence.
It's good to see Rapha standing up for trans rights in cycling. British Cycling's abrupt u-turn on their policy without consultation or evidence, presumably because someone high up there has transphobes round for dinner parties, was absolutely craven, disgusting behaviour. British Cycling need to either develop policy and a plan to actually support Britain's LGBT+ people, or be stripped of sporting body funding.
I think many of us are unclear what - specifically - trans rights are in this context, and how they differ from others'. Could you be specific?
Maybe not u turning on a policy developed over years with full consultation from members would have been the best start.
The U-turn wasn't good. But do you or alexcr have an answer to my question, please?
That Emily followed all the rules laid down by the sports governing body and the sports gove bring body threw those rules away. That's her rights being trampled upon.
We need to be clear on which body. UCI banned Emily and pushed Emily & British Cycling "under the bus". What I want to know, is whether UCI have made a decision on Emily re-registering or just ignoring it. If they are ignoring / delayed it, shame on them.
I don't recall being consulted before they developed the policy, can you show where i missed an opportunity to have my say?
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20210325-about-bc-news-B...
Again. What an amazing thing Google is...
What's amazing is that you've spent thirty-nine posts refusing to supply any links to support your assertions, then suddenly you've managed to find one. One can only draw the conclusion that you didn't have evidence for what you were saying previously and so fell back on the somewhat weaselly tactic of saying "Google it" whenever challenged.
If you are a genuine supporter of Emily's cause, rather than a tiresome troll (your posts thus far are so ridiculous that one does wonder if you are actually an agent provocateur), I seriously suggest that you rethink your approach. At present, your aggressive, patronising and evidence-free posts, along with your refusal to engage in any debate, simply repeating ad nauseam what you have already said, is far more likely to push any neutral away from supporting her than to convince them that her case has merit.
Rendel. People who looked, found some of the research quickly. I have concluded you could not be bothered and therefore not open minded or will to understand this complex challenge. "A closed mind is like a closed book just a block of wood".
I am not a supporter or a hater, just feel that simplistics reasoning and anecdotal comments, when the science is more complex, is unhelpful and unconstructive in the debate.
And finally, I wish you and your bias all the best.
Thank you for so comprehensively proving my point.
Laughing Out Loud. If you think my response proved your point, you need to sells your bikes, dust off your golf clubs and join Alliance of British Drivers and Fair Fuel UK. Your closed mind and bias opinions will be more welcome there, especially because you can start with "I am cyclist...".
It's OK, you've proved my point comprehensively, you don't have to keep on making of fool of yourself, job's a good 'un.
How is the golf? Suit you sir! I need a new bike, what you selling?
Oh dear. Your first attempt at this joke fell flat on its arse but hey, pick it up and throw it out there again. One can only reiterate that if you genuinely support Emily's cause, rather than simply trolling for sad egotistical purposes of your own, the best thing you can do is to wind your neck in; your aggressive, fact-free and arrogant postings are an embarrassment and encumbrance to those who support her and will only serve to confirm her opponents in their beliefs. You will of course carry on posting, because in the end it's not about the issues, it's all about you. It's very sad.
Y'know, looking back... if you just took the "I don't think anyone's sufficiently over the detail for a cool and rational discussion of that" from those posts and ignored the rest I bet that would be true. Sadly it's tempting to post a comment when I should just
No, that is consultation after they published the policy, that doesn't show that they developed the policy in full consultation with the membership, dates matter!
you do realise you sound as uninformed as the drivers reacting to the Highway Code changes, who also claim they didn't get their say, when they did ?
it's not BC fault you didn't pay attention.
If I missed it I may be at fault, depending on how it was publicised but I asked for a link to show that I missed it and no one seems to have been able to find one.
Whilst British Cycling could have handle the situation after the UCI ruling better, the UCI throw Emily and British Cycling "under the bus".
Pages