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

[jgurney]

"A cycling influencer nominated [by Cycling UK] for a list of top 100 women cyclists said she has declined the honour due to the decision not to include trans women.

Cycling UK .....has compiled its 100 Women in Cycling list for the last nine years, but this year decided only to include biological women following the recent unanimous UK Supreme Court ruling defining a "woman" and "sex" in law.

Claire Sharpe [is] a cycling guide and coach from Bristol ......."

BBC News - Woman refuses Cycling UK award over trans women being left out -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e ... =deep-link

I don't recall seeing any earlier mention of this change of policy in any CUK communication with members.

[Jdsk]

The Cycling UK statement of eligibility:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/100-women-cycling-2025

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

Is the green bit in the eligibility criteria actually true, though?

Presumably yes, if the decision is to go by sex, but what if they decided to go by gender? And, is there any legal reason why they couldn’t go by gender if they so wished?

I’m only asking questions about how the law stands, BTW, not advocating in one direction or the other, or even seeking to understand why they’ve gone with what they’ve gone with.

[Carlton green]

"A cycling influencer nominated [by Cycling UK] for a list of top 100 women cyclists said she has declined the honour due to the decision not to include trans women.

Cycling UK .....has compiled its 100 Women in Cycling list for the last nine years, but this year decided only to include biological women following the recent unanimous UK Supreme Court ruling defining a "woman" and "sex" in law.

Claire Sharpe [is] a cycling guide and coach from Bristol ......."

People make personal choices, another nominee could have declined if the decision making process had instead chosen to include trans women. I know a trans person and have been supportive of them, I see a person first. After that, with trans people, there’s a wider group of (static) people and their - sometimes shattered - feelings to also understand. A women who’s husband decides to transition has her life turned upside-down, I’ve met a couple of wives like that and they say so.

Claire’s made her point, some will cheer her and others will boo; it’s best to just move on, let matters settle, and hope for happier times ahead.

[pjclinch]

I don't recall seeing any earlier mention of this change of policy in any CUK communication with members.

I found out about through a bit of an excremental weather event on BlueSky a bit over a week ago, quite a few folk Not Very Pleased.

Whatever the legal merits or otherwise my feeling is that CUK have failed to treat transgender women with dignity here. It's their award and thus their perogative to say who's eligible, but how they say no to folk they're now excluding (which seems to boil down to a rather abrupt "the lawyers say you can't so you can't, our hands are tied. Next!") matters.

I wrote in to say that, and got back what rather comes across as a form letter in reply:

Thank you for getting in touch with us about the 100 Women in Cycling Awards 2025.

We understand the strength of feeling surrounding the issue of eligibility of transgender people for the awards. The change to eligibility, prompted by clear legal advice, hasn't altered our strong commitment to
supporting everyone who cycles, including transgender and non-binary people. We truly believe cycling is for all, and we’ll keep working to make that goal a reality.

As we look ahead to the tenth anniversary of the 100 Women in Cycling Awards next year, we’re considering new ways to champion diversity and inclusivity in cycling. We will make sure your views are taken into account in this process.

This doesn't really address the issues of dignified treatment I raised, comes across as words rather than deeds, and leaves me with a feeling of "really not good enough, more work needed".

Pete.

[pjclinch]

Claire’s made her point, some will cheer her and others will boo; it’s best to just move on, let matters settle, and hope for happier times ahead.

That may be best if you're not particularly engaged with the issues (and I have no problem with this not meaning much/anything to some people), but in these times if there's something you want changed in an organisation you need to shout about it, not just hope it plays out okay left to its own devices. So if this bothers you one way or another then let CUK know.

Pete.

[deeferdonk]

This is in response to the recent Supreme Court decision which clarified that 'sex' in the Equality Act means biological sex at birth. We have received legal advice which says that for our awards to continue to comply with the law we have to limit who can be nominated to biological women only.

I'm no lawyer but even with my rudimentary understanding of the decision I know this is not true.

[Jdsk]

Is the green bit in the eligibility criteria actually true, though?

Presumably yes, if the decision is to go by sex, but what if they decided to go by gender? And, is there any legal reason why they couldn’t go by gender if they so wished?

I’m only asking questions about how the law stands, BTW, not advocating in one direction or the other, or even seeking to understand why they’ve gone with what they’ve gone with.

Competent legal advice would have included:

• The need to avoid discrimination where there are protected characteristics.

• The implication of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the meaning of the Equality Act, including their plea for narrow interpretation. (They saw the possible misinterpretations and warned against them.)

• The non-statutory guidance from the EHRC, including their two attempts after that ruling. (IMHO this has been a disaster, and there's a current legal challenge.)

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Is the green bit in the eligibility criteria actually true, though?

Presumably yes, if the decision is to go by sex, but what if they decided to go by gender? And, is there any legal reason why they couldn’t go by gender if they so wished?

I’m only asking questions about how the law stands, BTW, not advocating in one direction or the other, or even seeking to understand why they’ve gone with what they’ve gone with.

My emboldening.

As an example to others, and remembering the appalling quality of discussion when this was previously discussed here... please could you expand on what you mean by "sex" and "gender".

And if "sex" means something biological then what the test is.

And if "gender" requires having a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Thanks

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

Sex in this context: defined by biological, chromosomal etc, determinants.

Gender in this context: socially, as opposed to purely biologically, determined.

And no, I didn’t have GRC’s in mind, although I guess if CUK chose to they could.

What I’m trying to get to the bottom of is whether, in setting up an award/recognition system CUK is legally obliged to do so on the basis of sex, which is what their text seems to suggest, or whether they could, perfectly legally, do so on the basis of gender.

My instinct/understanding is that they could legally choose to do either, but that if they chose the latter it would have to have a different title, not one that solely uses the word “women” or “woman”, because those words are legally tied to sex, rather than gender.

So, to repeat just to avoid this spinning off to another place, my question is a purely legal question.

Another question though: did the setting-up and running of the 2025 scheme span the date of the legal ruling tying the word “woman” to sex? I have a hunch that it might have. I nominated someone, and it seems a long time ago when I did that.

[Jdsk]

Sex in this context: defined by biological, chromosomal etc, determinants.

Gender in this context: socially, as opposed to purely biologically, determined.

And no, I didn’t have GRC’s in mind, although I guess if CUK chose to they could.
...

Thanks

A major part of the problem is that if you want the criteria to be based on laws or rules then the criteria have to be precise and applicable. (The Supreme Court didn't define "biological sex"!)

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

So, do you know the answer to my question?

(And, yes, I get that the court left the biology to the medics making the distinction at birth)

[Jdsk]

Upthread, with the three relevant considerations. And I can't go any further than that without knowing either the question that was asked or the advice that was given.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

Hmmm …..

I wonder if they’ve got into a cleft stick by naming the scheme before the ruling, without huge, or even any, thought about gender questions, then found themselves stuck with using the court definition because of the way it’s titled.

[Jdsk]

Yes, that sounds likely. But I would have hoped that the legal advice would have included a warning about overinterpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. And I'm very surprised that it was "clear".

Jonathan