Statement on British Cycling and Cycling Time Trials Policies on Transgender and Non-Binary participation
This statement has been written on behalf of Islington Cycle Club, Klatsch Cycling Team, London Velo Cycle Club, Peckham Cycle Club, Track Nation, and Velociposse by women in our clubs, many of whom frequently race and compete.
We are responding to recent policy changes on transgender and non-binary rider participation from British Cycling (BC) and Cycling Time Trials (CTT). We reject these policies as being in any way representative of the views of our women's racing community. Further, we believe these policies are harmful to those in the cycling community, dangerous in a wider societal context and will damage grass roots racing and participation.
We, and many people in our wider cycling community, engaged with the British Cycling policy consultation in good faith but none of the points we raised are addressed in the published policy. This statement aims to make our position clear and demonstrate our support for trans and non-binary people in the cycling community.
We believe these policies are wrong for multiple reasons:
Cycling should be inclusive and participation should be expanded
We believe that cycling should be fun and inclusive. The future of our sport depends on greater diversity and the widening of participation. Everyone has the right to participate in a sport they love, to feel proud of what they can achieve within competition and to enjoy the community that grows from participation.
Rather than creating policy and activities that encourage as many people to cycle and race as possible, BC and CTT have chosen to further marginalise and effectively exclude transgender and non-binary people from safe and inclusive racing at their events.
These policies contribute to the violence against marginalised communities
The question of inclusion of trans people in cycling is not a theoretical debate or an issue that affects just a few individuals. These policies have real and serious consequences for real people that go beyond their exclusion from a local crit league. These policies feed into a wider movement in our society to enact violence against trans and non-binary people; over the past year there has been a 41% increase in reported hate crimes against LGB people, and a 56% increase in reported hate crimes against trans people. Policies such as those implemented by BC and CTT reinforce a growing rhetoric of exclusion, difference, and hatred that affects our friends, our families, and us.
These policies cannot be ethically implemented
It is not possible to enact these policies in a way that preserves the dignity of all participants and the privacy of individuals. Discrimination is guaranteed in the way British Cycling and Cycling Time Trials propose to police these policies and many people (both trans and cis) will be harmed by this process.
These policies require race organisers and volunteers to report anyone suspected of racing in the “wrong” category. Anyone who does not fit into a heteronormative gender expression (or their opponent's idea of it) will be affected by this. Any woman, trans or not, may need to “prove” that they are a woman, on the basis of a single comment. This could arise from a racer being stronger than the field, from a racer having a muscular body type, choosing to race in the “open” category to gain race experience or through having facial hair - anything that marks them out as “not feminine enough.”
The British Cycling Compliance team and the Cycling Time Trials Gender tribunal will then decide whether the individual meets their expectations of gender. These processes are demeaning to individuals who must go through them, disproportionate to the issue of someone racing at grass roots level, and based on flimsy evidence.
CTT have included in their policy the requirement that anyone competing in the female category must fulfil three criteria:
they must have been assigned the sex female at birth;
they must never have gone through any part of male puberty; and,
they must not have had a testosterone result in serum above 2.5 nmol/L level before
competing even if they satisfy the other two requirements.
The second and third rules will affect women who have endocrine and chromosomal differences. Between 5-10% of cis women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which can increase testosterone levels above 2.4 nmol/L amongst other symptoms. The policy enacted by CTT would exclude these cis women from racing with other women, and instead require them to race against cis men. Should they be denied the ability to race with their friends because of a medical condition?
Any policy that requires women (trans and cis) to test their endogenous testosterone levels in order to race is deeply concerning. We have seen similar policies have particular impacts on non-white athletes1, and we note that much of the medical research in this field is based on western populations. There is no scientific consensus linking endogenous testosterone and sports performance2 so a policy based solely on testosterone levels is both scientifically questionable and philosophically flawed; the essentialist definition of a woman as “someone who has blood testosterone below 2.4 nmol/L” is obviously flawed.
An ‘Open’ category is not inclusive
Both British Cycling and Cycling Time Trials have created an ‘Open’ category with the claim that this is an inclusive approach. We disagree. This approach places trans women, trans men, women with non-standard hormonal profiles, non-binary people and cis men in one category, and all other women in a separate category.
Whilst trans women are considered to have an advantage for having gone through a testosterone driven puberty, trans men are not provided with a reciprocal adaptation. Menopausal riders are not given any consideration. Cis-men with low testosterone are not given any consideration. Other elements of advantage (biological, technological or sociological) are not given any consideration. This policy does not make cycling “fair” but does exclude trans women from a social category of “women.”
We note a recent study by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport disputes the idea that trans women have an unfair advantage over cis-women3 and there are further studies that explore how a trans-inclusive policy can be fully aligned with fair competition.4
These policies will damage grass roots racing and the cycling community
When this policy is implemented, race organisers will have to consider whether they are willing to act as “gender police” by running a women's event. We know that some organisers are already reluctant to run womens races because they struggle to get enough participants. This adds yet another barrier to the development of a thriving women's race scene.
Women who race now will be excluded from events they have participated in for years. Even with the encouragement and support from fellow racers, the political and social atmosphere that has led to the creation and implementation of such policies says ‘you are not welcome here’. Community racing venues that organise regional and grassroots racing now have to spend time and energy working out how they can continue to act as the inclusive community hubs when they are subject to this exclusive and non-community focused policy.
These policies do not reflect grass roots racing and the cycling community
We understand that this is a complex issue for sporting bodies, and that there are many aspects to consider. We took part in British Cycling consultation and we shared how grass roots and local racing scenes need to be supported, and to be fully inclusive, even where elite level sport may necessitate different rules. CTT did not, to our knowledge, hold a consultation.
Following our conversation with British Cycling, we were surprised at the competitive / non-competitive dividing line that has been drawn. We recognise that at an elite level, there are international regulations to align with. When competition is someone’s career, there are different nuances to consider. However, at grass roots level, cycling and racing are activities we do for fun with our friends (and rivals!). We have all raced in fields with a large disparity in ability, or at events where self selection into “A, B or C” categories is practised. We do not believe this policy is necessary for, or enhances in any way, fairness at this level.
We engaged in the consultation but British Cycling did not listen
We have actively tried to engage with British Cycling about diversity and inclusion and about trans and non-binary inclusion; taking part in the consultation, sharing our experiences, views and expertise, giving time and emotional energy along the way. The points we raised were not mentioned in the final policy.
Throughout the review and consultation period for the British Cycling policy we expressed our concern about the lack of transparency and the lack of a deadline for the review. British Cycling did not follow-through on invitations for participation in panel discussions for the consultation, they did not publish the findings from these sessions, nor the level of attendance, the reasons for selection to the consultation, or statistics around the composition of those in attendance. They have continuously evaded us and many others, hiding their process and failing in their communication with members.
These policies are putting clubs and individuals between a rock and a hard place
These new policies are affecting both individuals, clubs, and teams and we are now all having to consider what we do if these policies impact us directly, and what we can do as allies to the trans and non-binary members of our communities. We hear from our members that they do not want to be members of British Cycling, or part of a club that is affiliated with British Cycling. We do, however, all have members (including trans and non-binary members) who want to take part in racing and want to represent their club, leaving us in a difficult position. How do we stand by the trans and non-binary members of the cycling community while also supporting our members to race and enjoy the sport they love? This brings us back to our opening point - cycling governing bodies should be doing all they can to encourage participation in racing, and instead they are actively discouraging people from racing and putting clubs and allies in an intolerable position.
Inclusive and competitive cycling racing is possible
We know that inclusive and competitive cycling is possible. Trans people are a part of our racing community and they have been for years - welcomed and included. Moreover, we have experienced and witnessed progressive and inclusive racing events that challenge the traditional categorisation based on the constructed gender binary. The North London Thundercats and Fixed Beers have put on numerous events that showcase this - allowing participants to self-select the category that is most appropriate for them, sometimes including a qualification round to support individual placements. We believe that this is the future of community racing - events where people are recognised, respected and included as they are - and we will do what we can as cycling clubs to support this inclusive future of cycling.
We hope to show all those in the cycling community that we disagree with exclusionary politics, and instead hope to build a stronger, more inclusive and fair racing community. If you or your cycling club wish to join us in this work, please contact us.
1 Caster Semenya and the cruel history of contested black femininity
3 https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/trans-women-athletes-have-no-unfair-advantage-under-current-rules-study-finds
4 Summarised in section 3 of Including Trans Women Athletes in Competitive Sport: Analyzing the Science, Law, and Principles and Policies of Fairness in Comp
Photo credit: Mark James
