They have been warned
Rhys McKinnon should just move to the UK; the policy of British Cycling would suit him perfectly. (No one else, but who else matters?)
British Cycling members have been warned that they will be censored and reprimanded if they have any criticism of their [British Cycling’s] newly updated 2020 “Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy.”
…
In reply to their Tweeted publication announcement the organization stated:
“We take a zero-tolerance approach to instances of hate being targeted at individuals because of their views or gender identity. This thread will be moderated, and if you’re aware of inappropriate or offensive behavior by our members please email compliance@britishcycling.org.uk.”
“Inappropriate” and “offensive” probably means saying men are men.
There’s a list of Roles and Responsibilities:
…all British Cycling employees, members, volunteers, affiliate clubs and Participants should:
• Welcome all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants, just as you would any other Participant;
• Treat all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants with dignity and respect, just as you would any other Participant;
• Respect the private and confidential nature of all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants’ situations and information;
• Accept all Participants in the gender they present; verification of their identity should be no more than expected of any other person;
• Report any incidents of inappropriate or offensive behaviour and language to the British Cycling Integrity and Compliance Department;
And so on and so on. Don’t you dare notice that men are competing on the women’s teams, don’t you dare object, don’t you dare ask any questions, and if anyone else does, rat’em out.
Does this approach cut both ways? Will those holding gender-critical views, and who claim no “gender identity” be protected as well? Why do I get the feeling that the only “views” and “identities” that will be shielded (dare I say validated, celebrated and centered?) are the ones that are being imposed by fiat?
I find this one particularly ironic, since they don’t shut up about being trans nor non-binary.
How is there any privacy when you declare yourself trans or nonbinary? You are outing yourself.
Has any other cycling rule change come with a stipulation that it may not be criticised? Amazing.
I feel like they should have to make an argument as to why they shouldn’t be the target of hate, much like MAGA cultists, Nazis, and country music aficionados. Y’know, odious people…
Just noticed this one plays bait & switch with the word “identity.”
This part of the rules conflates gender identity, “I am a woman because I say I am,” with identity as in “I am the individul named Jane Doe, of this address, registered for this event.” The two are not the same thing, but are being passed off in terms of the need for “verification.” I bet this sort of self “identity” wouldn’t work for any age-based divisions they have. If not, why not? Age is just a number. On Jupiter I would be five years old; I’m even younger on planets further out! Am I allowed to ride in events against Earther five-year-olds? On Mercury, I’d be 240! Can I compete with Earth-octagenarians, even though I’m so much older?
Why do they hate trans-child, trans-senior, and other-aged athletes?
Re: identity
One of the many things that grinds me gears about this whole thing is the mangling of “identity”, because the root phrase is actually “identity integrity”. An identity integrity disorder is when a person’s concept (or sense) of self fails to integrate all features that do, in fact, compose his or her (usually physical) self. That is, the ability to recognize something as part of oneself is severely impaired. The specific aspect that one fails to integrate functions as the category of identity integrity disorder. Thus we have [thing] identity integrity disorder, such as body identity integrity disorder. Nota bene: at issue is not the integrity of one’s “body identity”, because wtfisthat. Rather, there is a point of identity disintegration, centered on some gross portion of the body, which one erroneously perceives as not being part of oneself. Likewise, gender identity integrity disorder should properly be understood to have nothing to do with one’s “gender identity”, because wtfisthatnonsense. Rather, one’s identity would be disintegrating due to misperceiving some aspect of one’s gender as not being part of oneself.
The phrase “gender identity” is bad semantic chunking. It’s analogous to treating “youth hunting season” the same as “deer hunting season”. That is, interpreting it as the season for hunting youths.
Nullius @ 7
Good point. I think they mean “identity” to mean “self image”, except the latter refers to a changeable way one thinks of oneself rather than a fixed way one actually is. Which made me think about “racial identity” and “ethnic identity”, both of which do very much have an element of choice in that people of varied backgrounds decide how they think of themselves. Those are “self image”, but must have a basis in fact to be accepted by others. “Gender identity” is somehow considered fixed and innate but has no basis in fact.
Oh really?
All the rules articulated after this one indicate that there will be 100% tolerance — not to say encouragement — of floods of hate targeted at women “because of their views.”