Cycling UK 'Top 100 women cyclists' nominee declines over policy change

[mattheus]

First time poster, so it may be a bit rash jumping in on this one, but as one of this year’s recipients I feel like it would be slightly remiss of me not to comment, so strap in, here goes…
Firstly, and slightly pedantically, the programme is called ‘100 women in cycling’, not ‘Top UK women cyclists’. It’s supposed to be about recognising women doing good stuff in cycling, not being the best at doing it. Personally I think that’s an important distinction - it’s a pat on the back but it’s not a competition!
Secondly, please don’t assume every woman who accepted a nomination did so because we agreed with the (hopefully temporary) change to the entry criteria. The SC judgement and the interim guidance, rather than creating clarity, have put organisations like CUK, the WI and Girl Guides between a rock and a hard place and I accepted the nomination in recognition of that fact.

I really despair at how far backwards we’ve gone on this issue in the UK over the past decade, thanks mostly to a huge amount of trans hostile media coverage, and I can’t see it getting better any time soon. Section 28 was in place for what, 15 years?

I genuinely believe we’ll look back on this current period as a shameful moral panic, but until we do have the benefit of hindsight, I’m not going to judge charities and public bodies for making mistakes as they attempt to navigate a really tricky legal path.

Thankyou for your insight Catherine and congratulations on your nomination.

+1 !

[mjr]

It seems obvious there was a motive for culture-warring men to misidentify themselves and stuff that survey to try to prove a point. I'm surprised YouGov didn't defend against it, yet also not, given their founders.

Wow, so now you’re saying that one of the problems of allowing men to identify as being women is that men might deliberately misidentify themselves as women with inappropriate, or even dangerous, motives or intent?

No, that's not what I said at all. I simply point out that you have accepted self-identification in evidence you cited about self-identification, which is absurd. Your position is completely inconsistent, like mobile goalposts in shifting sands.

[Zulu Eleven]

So given that some nasty pieces of work get into sports coaching for kids because they're paedophiles, let's just stamp out sports coaching for kids shall we? Or perhaps we might stand back, realise it's not a general case, and see that despite it being practically inevitable that some bampots will slip through, sports coaching for kids is on balance a good thing rather than a bad one?

Pete.

CRB (now DBS) checks were introduced for this very reason. If you’re suggesting that a background check and certification scheme would be an appropriate solution here, then I would be all for it - As I’ve previously said, if we were discussing the status of trans-women who had been through the extensive process involved in achieving a GRC, then this would be an entirely different conversation.

But as it is, the CUK award scheme, was based on self identified gender. Lobby organisations like Stonewall had, for a number of years, been incorrectly advising public bodies and other organisations that the law was based upon how a person identified, rather than either their biological or legal sex. Similarly, lobbyists groups had been seeking to make changing legal sex easier (either removing the need for a GRC or making it easier to get one).

Your own use of sports coaching as a comparator only supports the need to have a robust vetting and certification process in place. Build that into the GRC process and there could be a solution here.

Or let’s go the whole hog - put some skin in the game - free GRC and unlimited access to women’s spaces with every completed ‘bottom surgery’.

[pjclinch]

So given that some nasty pieces of work get into sports coaching for kids because they're paedophiles, let's just stamp out sports coaching for kids shall we? Or perhaps we might stand back, realise it's not a general case, and see that despite it being practically inevitable that some bampots will slip through, sports coaching for kids is on balance a good thing rather than a bad one?

CRB (now DBS) checks were introduced for this very reason.

So a pragmatic response with the important distinction that potential coaches aren't regarded with fear and suspicion before their check comes back. As an adopter/fosterer, volunteer at kids' clubs, Bikeability Scotland instructor and Scottish Cycling coach I've been "PVG-d" many times, but even though I couldn't start until cleared the impression of the process is it's a formality to go through rather than I'm probably trying to fiddle with bairns and will only be treated as a decent human once the check comes back clear.

If you’re suggesting that a background check and certification scheme would be an appropriate solution here, then I would be all for it - As I’ve previously said, if we were discussing the status of trans-women who had been through the extensive process involved in achieving a GRC, then this would be an entirely different conversation.

I'm not suggesting particular solutions because I don't have enough experience/knowledge, but a bit like I can't make movies I can tell a bad one when it's in front of me. What I have repeatedly stated is my opinion that it is important to treat people with dignity, at least until they prove they don't deserve it. And your contributions to this thread show you haven't really cottoned on to this simple but fundamental idea.

But as it is, the CUK award scheme, was based on self identified gender. Lobby organisations like Stonewall had, for a number of years, been incorrectly advising public bodies and other organisations that the law was based upon how a person identified, rather than either their biological or legal sex. Similarly, lobbyists groups had been seeking to make changing legal sex easier (either removing the need for a GRC or making it easier to get one).

That the CUK award scheme was based on self identified gender is because it's a pat on the back to boost inclusivity, it isn't a competition, it doesn't require any contact or interaction between those featured. Treating it as a sports competition or blowing it up into a security of women's spaces issue comes across as deliberately going to war on the slightest pretext. And it's unpleasant characters who'll go to war on any pretext, having gone out of their way to find one, that is quite possibly the basis of the legal advice CUK say this is based on, rather than anyone involved having genuine problems with it.

Your own use of sports coaching as a comparator only supports the need to have a robust vetting and certification process in place. Build that into the GRC process and there could be a solution here.

And again you're confusing a pat on the back to boost inclusivity with something completely different, and totally failing to show any dignity to transgender people in the process.

Or let’s go the whole hog - put some skin in the game - free GRC and unlimited access to women’s spaces with every completed ‘bottom surgery’.

I'm not suggesting particular solutions because I don't have enough experience/knowledge, but a bit like I can't make movies I can tell a bad one when it's in front of me. What this needs is a pragmatic approach that sets out to treat all parties with dignity. Hardline punch-downs on trans people at any opportunity only succeeds at making the world a more hateful place than it already is, and with comments like "every completed ‘bottom surgery’"... like I said, treating people with dignity is actually important.

Looking at the Peggie judgement and commentary yesterday it seems the case that had the first step been a simple "I'm not comfortable with you here" and a bit of calm discussion with line management, rather than starting off at DEFCON 1, an enormous amount of grief could have been averted.

Pete.

[Zulu Eleven]

Looking at the Peggie judgement and commentary yesterday it seems the case that had the first step been a simple "I'm not comfortable with you here" and a bit of calm discussion with line management, rather than starting off at DEFCON 1, an enormous amount of grief could have been averted.

Pete.

She had a discreet word with her line manager saying she was uncomfortable with the Dr using the changing room (prior to saying anything to the Dr) - her line manager took it to HR for advice, HR said (incorrectly) that as a trans-woman the Dr had a legal right to use the changing room.

The lack of support provided to the claimant after she raised her
concerns on 26 August 2023. She was fully entitled to do so as stated
above. Whilst Ms Bumba had given advice, and there appeared to be a
fairly widespread similar view within the NHS both in Scotland and in
England and Wales, it was or ought reasonably to have been apparent
that the claimant was raising her own belief and arguing that the second
respondent ought not to be given permission to use the female changing
room. The claimant was not however given a clear response either initially
or when she raised it again in October 2023, nor was anything put in
writing. She was not given HR support, or referred to the policies with
regard to the matter – including that for Equality, Diversity and Human
Rights (EDHR). In reality her concerns were brushed off rather than being
adequately considered and responded to. In our view the lack of support
for the claimant was a failure by the first respondent. There ought to have
been a timeous and more full response provided to the claimant, which
included how else she could raise her concerns, with whom and how. She
should have been spoken to by an HR officer of some kind, and given a
copy of the grievance policy as well as the EDHR policy. Had that been
done a more sophisticated process might well have taken place. The lack
of support given to the claimant throughout does stand in stark contrast to
the materially higher level support given to the second respondent after
the Christmas Eve incident both by expressions of that to the second
respondent and by being regularly updated on what was happening. The
legal position is very far from simple. Ms Bumba is not a lawyer. Her advice
was given in good faith. Ms Bumba was not however told of the full details
of the claimant’s complaint to Ms Davidson. Had she been told them we
consider it more likely that she would have sought advice, either within HR
or from the legal department. The first respondent is a very large
organisation with about 10,000 employees. It is part of NHS Scotland
which has a Central Legal Office, now acting for the respondents. The
issue raised by the claimant was one that ought to have been recognised
by the first respondent as a belief worthy of respect and considered in light
of that. It did not appear to us that the first respondent did so.

[Jdsk]

Yet according to some on here, that simple act of claiming to be female should settle their eligibility for an award scheme…

Please could you tell us which posters have asserted that, and where.

I'll conclude that there aren't actually any examples.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

If there's any evidence of increased physical risk from trans-women using women's changing rooms please could it be shared.

Pending that here's a good summary of the current state of knowledge:
"Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities"
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... facilites/

The issue of this type of risk to others is explicitly discussed in the judgments in both Kelly and Peggie. It's worth reading both of them on this. I'd expect similar conclusions in similar cases.

And it's going to be very hard for both the EHRC and the government to ignore this.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

First time poster, so it may be a bit rash jumping in on this one, but as one of this year’s recipients I feel like it would be slightly remiss of me not to comment, so strap in, here goes…
Firstly, and slightly pedantically, the programme is called ‘100 women in cycling’, not ‘Top UK women cyclists’. It’s supposed to be about recognising women doing good stuff in cycling, not being the best at doing it. Personally I think that’s an important distinction - it’s a pat on the back but it’s not a competition!
Secondly, please don’t assume every woman who accepted a nomination did so because we agreed with the (hopefully temporary) change to the entry criteria. The SC judgement and the interim guidance, rather than creating clarity, have put organisations like CUK, the WI and Girl Guides between a rock and a hard place and I accepted the nomination in recognition of that fact.

I really despair at how far backwards we’ve gone on this issue in the UK over the past decade, thanks mostly to a huge amount of trans hostile media coverage, and I can’t see it getting better any time soon. Section 28 was in place for what, 15 years?

I genuinely believe we’ll look back on this current period as a shameful moral panic, but until we do have the benefit of hindsight, I’m not going to judge charities and public bodies for making mistakes as they attempt to navigate a really tricky legal path.

Welcome, Catherine.

Congratulations on your award and thanks for this post. I hope that it isn't your last.

Jonatha

[pjclinch]

Looking at the Peggie judgement and commentary yesterday it seems the case that had the first step been a simple "I'm not comfortable with you here" and a bit of calm discussion with line management, rather than starting off at DEFCON 1, an enormous amount of grief could have been averted.

She had a discreet word with her line manager saying she was uncomfortable with the Dr using the changing room (prior to saying anything to the Dr) - her line manager took it to HR for advice, HR said (incorrectly) that as a trans-woman the Dr had a legal right to use the changing room.

Without knowing exactly which summary sources I can trust how far, and not having had time to read the full judgement, I have otherwise read that...

The tribunal that Peggie went on to initiate released its verdict today. It found that Peggie questioned Upton in a manner that clearly invaded her privacy, and that she intentionally compared her to a rapist.

Given the range of reporting I am not inclined to take your version on trust, given nothing much of the fight-picking you've done in this thread has earned you any.

Pete.

[Zulu Eleven]

Without knowing exactly which summary sources I can trust how far, and not having had time to read the full judgement, I have otherwise read that...

The tribunal that Peggie went on to initiate released its verdict today. It found that Peggie questioned Upton in a manner that clearly invaded her privacy, and that she intentionally compared her to a rapist.

Given the range of reporting I am not inclined to take your version on trust, given nothing much of the fight-picking you've done in this thread has earned you any.

Pete.

Perhaps you should go and read the judgement then, instead of trying to cast aspersions against those who not only bother read it, but offer you direct quotes from it.

ps, love the 'nasty man disagreed with me, must be picking a fight' passive aggressive victimhood there. Have you made a note on your phone about it?

[Jdsk]

I've now read both judgments in full. I'd encourage everyone to do the same.

But for the topic under discussion the conclusion is very simple: none of the claims of harassment or discrimination were successful.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

Perhaps you should go and read the judgement then, instead of trying to cast aspersions against those who not only bother read it, but offer you direct quotes from it.

Selective quoting from a very long document doesn't prove much.

I will read it when I have the time.

ps, love the 'nasty man disagreed with me, must be picking a fight' passive aggressive victimhood there. Have you made a note on your phone about it?

You've suggested the SC judgement means more than it does, you've said that people have made claims here that they clearly haven't, you've repeatedly pulled in completely irrelevant FUD by way of "argument".

I don't trust you on this because you've demonstrated over and over again you can't be trusted on this.

I've said you seem to be picking fights because you seem to be picking fights.

Pete.

[Zulu Eleven]

none of the claims of harassment or discrimination were successful.

Jonathan

Sure, sure….

[Jdsk]

In that quote you deliberately edited what I wrote, but of course you know that. The full statement is upthread.

Jonathan

[Zulu Eleven]

In that quote you deliberately edited what I wrote, but of course you know that. The full statement is upthread.

Jonathan

I didn’t edit anything, I quoted you - so which bit do you feel misrepresented your utterly untrue claim that the claims of harassment were dismissed?

The tribunal specifically found that allowing Dr Upton to continue using the bathroom, in those circumstances, was an act of harassment against Sandie Peggie