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

[pjclinch]

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

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?

Keeping true to your thing of selective quoting to help twist meanings, you left out the very deliberate qualification of what the bit you did quote referred to and then implied it was made as a general case.

So either you're an incompetent arguer or a bad actor, but either way it's time for the ignore button.

[roubaixtuesday]

So either you're an incompetent arguer or a bad actor, but either way it's time for the ignore button.

I always admire your patience and knowledge on the forum. Again in this topic, you did far better than I managed.

viewtopic.php?p=1930427#p1930427

[deeferdonk]

I found this article interesting.

https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/16/anti ... them-one/

and this section relevant to the Cycling UK decision

O’Thomson points to the recent decisions of Girlguiding and the Women’s Institute to exclude trans women and girls following targeting by gender-critical groups. As well as being modestly resourced, it is not coincidental, O’Thomson added, that both groups are charities, and therefore mindful of “what view the regulator [the Charity Commission] will take of them undergoing organisational risk” by risking litigation as a result of trans-inclusive policies.

“Even though, as far as I’m concerned, their interpretation of the law is wrong, they’re able to create a world in which it’s de facto enforced.”

This, White said, is unacceptable: “It shouldn’t be, should it, that [the] position in UK [law] is determined by which billionaire is going to fund your litigation? That has to be wrong in a civil society, that the right of a nine-year-old trans Brownie in Newport, South Wales is determined by a billionaire in Scotland prepared to fund cases that are negative for trans people. We need the government to rediscover a bit of courage.” She wants “clear guidance”. As things stand, that appears unlikely.

[Jdsk]

That's a pretty good summary of where we are now. I've posted links to the judgments in Peggie and Kelly upthread. The next legal pronouncements will probably be from the Darlington employment case and the judicial review of the EHRC guidelines:
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... t-32855849
https://goodlawproject.org/update/were- ... -in-court/

Jonathan

[Morzedec]

When I'm cycle touring, which I still do every year - unlike some of the posters on this Forum - I know who I would prefer to share a tent with at the end of a hard day's ride .........................

[Jdsk]

I found this article interesting.

https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/16/anti ... them-one/

and this section relevant to the Cycling UK decision

O’Thomson points to the recent decisions of Girlguiding and the Women’s Institute to exclude trans women and girls following targeting by gender-critical groups. As well as being modestly resourced, it is not coincidental, O’Thomson added, that both groups are charities, and therefore mindful of “what view the regulator [the Charity Commission] will take of them undergoing organisational risk” by risking litigation as a result of trans-inclusive policies.

“Even though, as far as I’m concerned, their interpretation of the law is wrong, they’re able to create a world in which it’s de facto enforced.”

This, White said, is unacceptable: “It shouldn’t be, should it, that [the] position in UK [law] is determined by which billionaire is going to fund your litigation? That has to be wrong in a civil society, that the right of a nine-year-old trans Brownie in Newport, South Wales is determined by a billionaire in Scotland prepared to fund cases that are negative for trans people. We need the government to rediscover a bit of courage.” She wants “clear guidance”. As things stand, that appears unlikely.

That's a pretty good summary of where we are now. I've posted links to the judgments in Peggie and Kelly upthread. The next legal pronouncements will probably be from the Darlington employment case and the judicial review of the EHRC guidelines:
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... t-32855849
https://goodlawproject.org/update/were- ... -in-court/

The first day of hearings in Sex Matters -v- Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, that's the one about the swimming pool on Hampstead Heath:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/a ... review-sex

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

The judgment in the Darlington case:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

This suggests that the EHRC now recognise the problem:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... stephenson

Jonathan

[Morzedec]

Quite honestly, I would rather talk about cycle touring - after all, that's what we are on this Forum for.

[roubaixtuesday]

Quite honestly, I would rather talk about cycle touring - after all, that's what we are on this Forum for.

Just to reassure you, there's no requirement to respond to, or even to read threads you're not interested in.

[pjclinch]

Quite honestly, I would rather talk about cycle touring - after all, that's what we are on this Forum for.

Then simply don't look at the Campaigning & Public Policy list, or indeed any of the other self-described sub-forums you're not interested in.

CUK doesn't go by "Cyclists' Touring Club" any more because it covers more, including e.g. urbanists and active travel promoters who aren't actually that interested in cycle touring. There's room for them too.

Pete.

[deeferdonk]

Quite honestly, I would rather talk about cycle touring - after all, that's what we are on this Forum for.

Headings can be confusing. Here's a link to to cycle touring section:

viewforum.php?f=16

[Jdsk]

I found this article interesting.

https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/16/anti ... them-one/

and this section relevant to the Cycling UK decision

O’Thomson points to the recent decisions of Girlguiding and the Women’s Institute to exclude trans women and girls following targeting by gender-critical groups. As well as being modestly resourced, it is not coincidental, O’Thomson added, that both groups are charities, and therefore mindful of “what view the regulator [the Charity Commission] will take of them undergoing organisational risk” by risking litigation as a result of trans-inclusive policies.

“Even though, as far as I’m concerned, their interpretation of the law is wrong, they’re able to create a world in which it’s de facto enforced.”

This, White said, is unacceptable: “It shouldn’t be, should it, that [the] position in UK [law] is determined by which billionaire is going to fund your litigation? That has to be wrong in a civil society, that the right of a nine-year-old trans Brownie in Newport, South Wales is determined by a billionaire in Scotland prepared to fund cases that are negative for trans people. We need the government to rediscover a bit of courage.” She wants “clear guidance”. As things stand, that appears unlikely.

That's a pretty good summary of where we are now. I've posted links to the judgments in Peggie and Kelly upthread. The next legal pronouncements will probably be from the Darlington employment case and the judicial review of the EHRC guidelines:
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... t-32855849
https://goodlawproject.org/update/were- ... -in-court/

The first day of hearings in Sex Matters -v- Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, that's the one about the swimming pool on Hampstead Heath:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/a ... review-sex

And the first judgment in the Hampstead Heath case:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... London.pdf

Guardian coverage:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/ ... facilities

Good Law Project response:
https://goodlawproject.org/hampstead-he ... 29-01-2026

This might help Cycling UK in thinking again about their awards, and in looking for new legal advice.

It could also be very helpful in inhibiting legal interventions by groups who aren't directly involved.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

<snip>
This might help Cycling UK in thinking again about their awards, and in looking for new legal advice.

It could also be very helpful in inhibiting legal interventions by groups who aren't directly involved.

I'd hope so, though I suspect the next move is for Sex Matters to find someone who's prepared to say they've been discriminated against and lever that accordingly. And anticipating that, I imagine the various bodies seemingly afraid of litigation from Sex Matters or the like will hang back and wait for the dust to clear before deciding their next move.

It's still maddeningly inconclusive

Pete.

[deeferdonk]

This might help Cycling UK in thinking again about their awards, and in looking for new legal advice.

Unfortunately the legal advice probably won't change, as it will still be that that making the awards inclusive was never against the law, but they might be subject to expensive vexatious litigation by very well funded gender critical groups.

Cycling UK (and the girl guides, WI etc) just need to grow some balls and not let themselves be bullied. (apologies for the unfortunate turn of phrase for this issue!)