British Cycling has announced an amendment to its Transgender and Non-binary policy stating that trans women, regardless of testosterone levels or other medical indicators, will not be allowed to compete in the ‘female’ category.Moreover, the categories are being renamed, with the male category merged into an ‘open’ category, in which cis-men, trans men, trans women and non-binary people will compete.

British Cycling says the decision has been made following a nine-month consultation period, which included 14 focus-group sessions, numerous one-to-ones and a full medical science review.

The controversial point here is that previously if a trans woman’s testosterone levels met the specified requirements, she could compete in the women’s category. British Cycling now says that, ‘Studies indicate that even with the suppression of testosterone, transgender women who transition post-puberty retain a performance advantage.’

The problem is where that data is coming from. Not only do some authors cited have histories of discriminatory language towards trans women, but several aren’t even correctly referenced.

Moreover, there is a much bigger issue at play, in the social/political context and the precedent that this policy sets. Trans people are currently facing unparalleled levels of discrimination and violence, both here in the UK and globally. In the US, trans policies that at first pertained to the likes of sport or education have spawned into laws that strip trans people of healthcare and basic human rights.

No one person or governing body exists in a vacuum. In making such a policy, British Cycling has taken a political standpoint which, in my opinion, will sit on the wrong side of history.

Get your facts right

Citing information is a powerful thing. It gives credibility to what you’re saying and can make people listen to you. There’s a fundamental flaw though if you’re using biased or incomplete information. British Cycling lists four different studies it has used during its decision process and almost all of them are problematic.

Emma Hilton, co-author of one of the studies, also co-authored a frankly discriminatory article in which she argues that ‘transgender ideology harms women [and] gays’. If you reference someone’s identity in quotation marks in your essay, as occurs in this piece, you’re not scoring big points on neutrality as a ‘scientist’ in my books – see what I did there?

The paper by Joanna Harper doesn’t even advocate excluding trans people from sporting categories, rather it highlights the need for further investigation into the ‘intricacies and complexity of factors that feed into the development of high-performance athletes’.

The absolute icing on the cake is the Alvares study. Corrected in February 2023, the Alvares conclusion was changed from stating that trans women had a V02 max advantage over cis women, to saying that actually, when normalised to body mass (as should be done for any rider), ‘the relative CPC (cardiopulmonary capacity)… showed no difference between trans women and cis women or cis men.’

Not only does it appear that authors’ biases have been ignored, the actual data cited doesn’t look like it’s being used correctly. And these are the only papers chosen by the British Cycling to support their argument, not withstanding the many others that are out-and-out for trans inclusion.

The study also does little to acknowledge the side effects that those who transition struggle with. In 2021, research commissioned by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport found that ‘they notably often ignore any significant disadvantages that affect trans women during and after testosterone suppression’. These includes issues such as diuretic effects as well as reduced speed, endurance or recovery from reduced muscle mass in a larger body alongside reduced aerobic capacity.

A fairer playing field… for who?

I am a cis woman living in the UK who races my bike in various disciplines, so I am the target demographic ‘protected’ under British Cycling’s policy change. Speaking only for myself, the decision has not made me feel better about the state of women’s cycling at all.

While the committee has spent an undisclosed amount on this period of study, domestic cycling in the UK has been slowly dying. Men’s racing might be slightly worse off but, with the likes of The Women’s Tour being cancelled and others possibly following suit, it is not looking promising.

I’d like to make it clear that I support some level of regulation into who can compete in what categories. I believe that any physiological advantages should be fairly reviewed and accounted for, but as already shown, that is not what British Cycling has done. It appears to be misrepresenting data to suit a political purpose and frankly that doesn’t make me feel safer at all.

Not thought through

Despite taking almost a year to come to this conclusion, there are gaps in the new plan that don’t seem to have been thought through.

British Cycling makes distinctions between some types of races in different events, such as cyclocross (CX). For example, many summer CX races feature as ‘Go-Race’ events, while those in the winter fall under the regular competition calendar.

Under the new policy, a trans woman can compete in the women’s category of the summer events. Come winter, she would have to switch to the new ‘open’ category. The National Series however is run under UCI ruling and, as long as she conforms to the UCI trans policy, she can compete in the women’s category again. As she wouldn’t have any points from the winter series though, she’d be gridded right at the back.

Bouncing between categories is not only going to be detrimental to a rider’s mental wellbeing but is also clearly nonsensical. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that no UCI-level trans woman will be able to compete in the UK in her pre-existing category, making the UK a less attractive race ground for trans athletes full stop.

The wider context

The British Cycling trans debate does not exist in a vacuum. Hate crimes against trans people in the UK increased by 56% between 2021 and 2022, according to Home Office statistics. Over in the US, a survey by the Trevor Project in 2022 showed that more than 50% of trans people had seriously considered suicide. We cannot say that this decision doesn’t have an impact. It will have wider implications on society as well as future laws and policies.

No one is saying that there should be zero regulation, or that men and women should be able to swap category at will to suit their own personal agenda. We are calling for fair and truly impartial decisions that are founded in facts rather than politics. It would make the sport better, safer and more inclusive and, ultimately, be on the right side of history.

Tags: Women’s Cycling