Emily is not eligible

Comments

5 responses to “Emily is not eligible”

1. 

   iknklast

   Mar 30, 2022 6:28 PM

   Good news! I’ve been down in the dumps all day. This helped pick me up a little. Thanks.
2. 

   Rob

   Mar 30, 2022 8:14 PM

   It seems to me that if British Cycling were truely interested in achieving fairness while maintaining the dignity and respect of athletes, they might have avoided rushing to announce that Emily would be competing and threatening any female athletes who expressed reservations about it, before establishing that Emily was even eligible. That hasn’t been fair to anyone on multiple grounds. Neither has it maintained dignity or respect for Emily individually, nor women cyclists more broadly, who can quite rightly feel they have been bullied and treated like shit.
3. 

   Holms

   Mar 31, 2022 4:16 AM

   Excellent! Now watch all the usual suspects decry this as malicious targeted abuse of this individual and trans people in general. Bonus points for those that claim this will increase the suicide and murder rates for trans people.
4. 

   Sackbut

   Mar 31, 2022 6:32 AM

   It’s a technicality. Bridges is registered with UCI as a male cyclist, and cannot compete in women’s events until his male registration ID expires. Victory for now, and maybe gives some time for sanity to take hold, but not the resounding herald of change I thought it might be.
5. 

   Dave Ricks

   Apr 1, 2022 2:33 PM

   Sackbut is correct, the UCI ruling against Bridges was a technicality. I read The Guardian and The Daily Mail for more details.

   The Guardian article by Sean Ingle noted the technicality, that Bridges needs his male UCI ID to expire. But most interesting to me — in a bigger picture of media covering this issue — is that his article gave the last word to the Sports Council Equality Group (SCEG) breaking the ice about “trans inclusivity” being tacit and sacred:

   However, a comprehensive review of the science, conducted by the five British sports councils (SCEG) last September, said that it was possible to draw conclusions based on the latest research.

   The SCEG said the science showed there were “retained differences in strength, stamina and physique between the average woman compared with the average transgender woman or non-binary person registered male at birth”.

   It also told sports that as a result there was no easy way to balance safety, fairness and trans inclusivity — and that they would have to prioritise which to favour.

   The Daily Mail article was longer, with details:

   • Bridges “competed at the highest level as a man just a few weeks ago”.

   • A figure caption says, “Bridges, who began hormone therapy last year and is now eligible to compete as a woman under British Cycling’s policy, is also currently listed as ‘male’ on her British Cycling profile” [emphasis mine].

   Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies is featured:

   Ms Davies said: ‘I think the very serious threat of a boycott helped hugely to concentrate their minds and cause intervention’…

   I take that to mean that the talk of a boycott prompted the UCI decision, so speaking up made a difference. And without speaking up, the UCI and British Cycling would have put Bridges — registered male with both organizations — in a race for women. Davies also tweeted,

   At some point competing athletes (&those retired still silent!) need to speak/act. They can be respectful saying science before rule changes. All included where biology fits & if in time it can be proved (it won’t) that total male puberty advantage can be removed = change

   So Davies puts the burden of proof on organizations to show scientifically that male puberty advantage can be removed, and parenthetically, it won’t be shown.