Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas

Cycling journalist Tara Seplavy has boycotted the event, saying she doesn’t “feel personally safe going to Arkansas right now as a visibly trans person”

As the world cyclocross championships come to a close this evening, the UCI’s decision to stage the event in Fayetteville, Arkansas has come under fire due to the state’s anti-trans legislation.

In April 2021, Arkansas became the first state to ban gender-affirming treatments and surgery for transgender youth. Later that month Brook Watts, a longstanding cyclocross promoter in the United States, resigned from his role as organiser of the Fayetteville world championships in protest against the new law. 

“The situation in Arkansas remains problematic and unfortunately, I don’t see any satisfactory resolution,” Watts said at the time. “I have sincerely but unsuccessfully attempted to work out my concerns and differences with constituents. However, regrettably, we were not successful”.

At the US national cyclocross championships in December, anti-trans activists representing a group called ‘Save Women’s Sport’ staged a protest, shouting and holding signs opposing transgender participation during the women’s race. 

USA Cycling was heavily criticised for not taking adequate action to prevent the protest taking place at the event in DuPage County, Illinois, with trans rights supporters saying that the governing body did not facilitate a safe and inclusive environment for all competitors and spectators.

> British Cycling launch consultation on transgender policy

Tara Seplavy, the deputy editor of Bicycling Magazine, referenced the protest in Illinois when she announced on social media yesterday that she was boycotting this weekend’s world championships.

“For several reasons I don’t feel personally safe going to Arkansas right now as a visibly trans person,” she wrote. “I also do not feel comfortable rewarding USA Cycling for its continued lack of action or follow-up for allowing a hate group to attend US national championship events to harass athletes. I am not even sure if I will tune in to watch the races online at this point to be frank.

“The ship sailed moons ago on any type of boycott or direct action of the event. Instead of attending Worlds, I urge friends and followers to donate to organizations fighting against hate legislation in the state, doing work for the queer community in the region, or advocating for the rights of trans athletes in cycling.”

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

299 comments

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
2 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

I also wasn't quite sure how we'd got to prisons from cyclocross races but I assumed it was something to do with being in either involved misery...

Probably all come in teh same bracket as commenting on forums....

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
1 like

However as an aside, at least Rich is sort of answering you now Badger, maybe because I won't play their silly games anymore?

The Victorian panopticon , individual cells was indeed mostly religious inspiration with a dash of over bearing "morals" (you couldn't even speak unless spoken to, for example ).  Nothing to do with safety at all, not of an individual. 

Hence why their question got answered, but as I didn't fall into their attempt at a trap they got in a huff. It's a shame, as there might be a valid conversation there one day - but one that "others" all trans-women due to a perceived advantage in sports isn't goi g to be one such, as it is invalid in conception 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
4 likes
nosferatu1001 wrote:

What is your solution, almost your "final" solution, [ ... ]

Alas, that's the second ref in this thread, do we now invoke Godwin's Law?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
2 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

What is your solution, almost your "final" solution, [ ... ]

Alas, that's the second ref in this thread, do we now invoke Godwin's Law?

I assumed that was bringing it back to a sporting reference. Although I am confused as to why you'd have a separate aproach for finals to what you would up to semi-finals.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

What is your solution, almost your "final" solution, [ ... ]

Alas, that's the second ref in this thread, do we now invoke Godwin's Law?

as I explained page one, it's a sadly relevant reference. Trying to exclude some women from being able to live their lives as women has some poor historic precedents and so failing to acknowledge that is never a good thing. 

Avatar
sparrowlegs replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I've gone away, done a bit of research, or, at least tried to but bloody Google must be broken or something. I'm hoping you can help me out here. 
 

I googled "how many transgender women have had cervical cancer". 
 

Stupid Google kept bringing back results for transgender women having testicular cancer and prostate cancer. I'm like, FFS Google! That's not what I asked!!!

I think Google is broken. That's the only option surely?

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to sparrowlegs | 2 years ago
0 likes

An amazing content less post there, thanks!

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

Answer my question. Yes or no. I don't believe I've called for collective punishment. Is it collective punishment to exclude men from women's jails? If not, why not?

here is where you call trans women men. 
in context of course, given your constant call to remove trans women from womens jails

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
0 likes

That is not what I said.

I was talking about men, not trans women.

Please try again.

Avatar
MsG replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
0 likes

In what way are trans women - women?
They have to be men to qualify for the description of trans women. Don't they?

What's your definition of trans woman?
Is it gender dysphoria, born in the wrong body, feminine essence or simply because that biological male says he is?
How exactly is a trans woman, a woman? And why does having a different opinion about this* make it ok for you to call someone a bigot?

*Working on the basis of your other comments, it appears your opinion is trans women = women. If I've misunderstood, then apologies.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to MsG | 2 years ago
1 like

Because they are? In what way are cis men men? It's in the definition of the term. 
 

The existence of someone isn't up for debate, is how it makes you a bigot.  Same as stating gay men didn't exist. Or lesbians. Debating existence of a person is abhorrent. Enjoy. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to MsG | 2 years ago
1 like
MsG wrote:

In what way are trans women - women? They have to be men to qualify for the description of trans women. Don't they? What's your definition of trans woman? Is it gender dysphoria, born in the wrong body, feminine essence or simply because that biological male says he is? How exactly is a trans woman, a woman? And why does having a different opinion about this* make it ok for you to call someone a bigot? *Working on the basis of your other comments, it appears your opinion is trans women = women. If I've misunderstood, then apologies.

Yuck.

If I thought that first question was born from anything approaching genuine curiosity, I'll apologise.

But yuck

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
0 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
MsG wrote:

In what way are trans women - women? They have to be men to qualify for the description of trans women. Don't they? What's your definition of trans woman? Is it gender dysphoria, born in the wrong body, feminine essence or simply because that biological male says he is? How exactly is a trans woman, a woman? And why does having a different opinion about this* make it ok for you to call someone a bigot? *Working on the basis of your other comments, it appears your opinion is trans women = women. If I've misunderstood, then apologies.

Yuck.

If I thought that first question was born from anything approaching genuine curiosity, I'll apologise.

But yuck

If you look at MsG other post you'll see they're directly from the LGB Alliance et al playbook - misquoting the Swedish study, complaining about collection statistics and drawing wild conclusions. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society. Is that correct? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

Rich, that is utterly disingenuous.

The appalling conditions in jails in this country have facilitated the systematic abuse of staggering numbers of prisoners for decades or even longer. And yet it suddenly takes a possibility of marginalised group's human rights being considered for you to care. Except of course, you don't care, except in so much as it allows you to take a pop at that group in general. Job done. Don't have to pretend you give a f*ck about people in jail now.

 

 

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
0 likes

I also notice you've singularly failed to answer captain badgers excellent post just below.  Care to do so? 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
3 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

This is a strange viewpoint.

Are groups that advocate for gay rights or black lives not interested in human rights?

Cis women may only represent 99% of women on the planet but being pro cis women's right doesn't make you a hate group.

If increasing the rights of group X will diminish the rights of group Y then surely group Y should be able to say something about that without being labeled bigots?

Can you demonstrate how trans people are trying to diminish women's rights? I presume that's what you meant.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
3 likes

Increasing the number of people that can access a finite resource or opportunity will clearly be to the detriment of those people who previously enjoyed access to it.

This is particularly true is the extra people given access are better placed to utilise said resource/opportunity. This is the case for women's sport.

There's also the issue of safety. We exclude men from women's only spaces because men pose a significant danger to women.

As trans women used to be men and therefore used to be excluded on the basis of potential threat is it wise to now allow them access and assume they no longer pose the same threat?

There have already been cases where trans women have committed acts of violence against cis women when given access to women's only spaces.

Those cases have increased the threat felt by women when using women's only spaces, diminishing their ability to utilise and enjoy said safe space.

Given that women must live with the ever present fear of violence removing the few spaces where that fear is minimised is a significant reduction in their rights.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

Increasing the number of people that can access a finite resource or opportunity will clearly be to the detriment of those people who previously enjoyed access to it. This is particularly true is the extra people given access are better placed to utilise said resource/opportunity. This is the case for women's sport.

It seems you are putting the maybe shortage of an unspecified commodity before the principle of rights

In any case it doesn't address the question, of how are trans people eroding women rights? Which rights of women are being revoked, and, just as importantly, who actually is revoking them?

Rich_cb wrote:

There's also the issue of safety. We exclude men from women's only spaces because men pose a significant danger to women. As trans women used to be men and therefore used to be excluded on the basis of potential threat is it wise to now allow them access and assume they no longer pose the same threat?

I can't remember, in any of the sports I participate in, being excluded from participating with women on teh basis of the threat I post to them.

In terms of safety you seem to be saying that trans women must be excluded because cis men are dangerous

Rich_cb wrote:

There have already been cases where trans women have committed acts of violence against cis women when given access to women's only spaces. Those cases have increased the threat felt by women when using women's only spaces, diminishing their ability to utilise and enjoy said safe space.

There are also examples of cis women committing acts of violence against cis women, and cis women committing violence against trans women (and trans men for that matter). Should cis women be excluded from women's spaces?

Rich_cb wrote:

Given that women must live with the ever-present fear of violence removing the few spaces where that fear is minimised is a significant reduction in their rights.

Your argument here seems to be that women must be isolated from the rest of society for their own safety....

I'm going to go back to the question

How are trans people eroding women's rights? Specifically which rights are being revoked? by whom?

Are trans people demanding that gender equality legislation is peeled back?

Are Trans people demanding the revocation of the emancipation of women? removal of women's votes?

The repeal of domestic violence laws?

Campaigning against pay equality?

I put it to you that recognition of trans people's rights to be themselves does none of these things.

 

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
Rich_cb wrote:

Increasing the number of people that can access a finite resource or opportunity will clearly be to the detriment of those people who previously enjoyed access to it. This is particularly true is the extra people given access are better placed to utilise said resource/opportunity. This is the case for women's sport.

It seems you are putting the maybe shortage of an unspecified commodity before the principle of rights

In any case it doesn't address the question, of how are trans people eroding women rights? Which rights of women are being revoked, and, just as importantly, who actually is revoking them?

Rich_cb wrote:

There's also the issue of safety. We exclude men from women's only spaces because men pose a significant danger to women. As trans women used to be men and therefore used to be excluded on the basis of potential threat is it wise to now allow them access and assume they no longer pose the same threat?

I can't remember, in any of the sports I participate in, being excluded from participating with women on teh basis of the threat I post to them.

In terms of safety you seem to be saying that trans women must be excluded because cis men are dangerous

Rich_cb wrote:

There have already been cases where trans women have committed acts of violence against cis women when given access to women's only spaces. Those cases have increased the threat felt by women when using women's only spaces, diminishing their ability to utilise and enjoy said safe space.

There are also examples of cis women committing acts of violence against cis women, and cis women committing violence against trans women (and trans men for that matter). Should cis women be excluded from women's spaces?

Rich_cb wrote:

Given that women must live with the ever-present fear of violence removing the few spaces where that fear is minimised is a significant reduction in their rights.

Your argument here seems to be that women must be isolated from the rest of society for their own safety....

I'm going to go back to the question

How are trans people eroding women's rights? Specifically which rights are being revoked? by whom?

Are trans people demanding that gender equality legislation is peeled back?

Are Trans people demanding the revocation of the emancipation of women? removal of women's votes?

The repeal of domestic violence laws?

Campaigning against pay equality?

I put it to you that recognition of trans people's rights to be themselves does none of these things.

exactly

Comparing trans exclusionary groups to gay rights, or BLM, misses a very important point.  The latter groups do not want to reduce the rights of others, but improve their own. The "separate but equal " anti-trans hate groups are attempting to dim8nish the rights of not-their-type-of-woman 

Avatar
alchemilla | 2 years ago
6 likes

With so many locations to choose from to hold the championships, why choose a state with laws from the dark ages. Find somewhere more inclusive and enlightened

Avatar
joe9090 replied to alchemilla | 2 years ago
1 like

Erm... one word answer to that one... the sponser, Walmart. They are based and originated in AR.

Avatar
Sriracha | 2 years ago
12 likes

When did women's rights become a "hate group"? And when, in a democracy, did authorities incur censure for allowing protest?

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 2 years ago
7 likes
Garage at Large wrote:

Well said

oof, a racist and anti-trans. Shocked, shocked I am.  

Avatar
Dogless replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
4 likes

How is being anti-trans anything to do with 'women's rights'?

Avatar
MsG replied to Dogless | 2 years ago
9 likes

Presumably you're fine with women being forced out of sport because biological men with demonstrable retained advantages are competing in the same category as them? That's not fair. Trying to link this to white power and black athletes, is false equivalence and designed to distract from the issue at hand.

https://savewomenssports.com/

Avatar
Dogless replied to MsG | 2 years ago
4 likes

Thanks for the link, the one which leads with a quote from a daily mail article. Says it all really.

Not getting into an argument about something which I have no stake in or lived experience of as to do so would be extremely patronising, so will just leave it to the ACLU who I feel may (?) know what they're talking about.

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-d...

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to MsG | 2 years ago
3 likes
MsG wrote:

Presumably you're fine with women being forced out of sport because biological men with demonstrable retained advantages are competing in the same category as them? That's not fair. Trying to link this to white power and black athletes, is false equivalence and designed to distract from the issue at hand.

https://savewomenssports.com/

Please define "biological men". Is it a new brand of washing powder?

Avatar
wtjs replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
5 likes

Please define "biological men". Is it a new brand of washing powder?

This Paroxysmal Political Correctness is getting out of hand: we all know what biological males are: 23 X,Y without any mosaicism or other chromosomal abnormalities, and biological females are 23 X,X. That's all there is to it. It's just carping to criticise the substitution of 'men' for 'male'. It seems to have been generally accepted that people can claim to be whatever gender they choose, but it has not been generally accepted that athletes can compete in whatever sex-separated event they choose. There are arguments on both sides.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
2 likes
wtjs wrote:

Please define "biological men". Is it a new brand of washing powder?

This Paroxysmal Political Correctness is getting out of hand: we all know what biological males are: 23 X,Y without any mosaicism or other chromosomal abnormalities, and biological females are 23 X,X. That's all there is to it. It's just carping to criticise the substitution of 'men' for 'male'. It seems to have been generally accepted that people can claim to be whatever gender they choose, but it has not been generally accepted that athletes can compete in whatever sex-separated event they choose. There are arguments on both sides.

The XY chromosome is just that. It determines primary sexual characteristics. But that's about it (and it's by no means fail safe in that regard either)
Nobody looks at each others tackle (much less less a genetic test) to categorise them on first meeting. The assumptions we make a more about cultural differences. hair, clothing, presence of make up, type of scent.
It's really (really!) rare that we put any more thought in it than that. Yes, even when completing in sports events. I've done a few and I've never been asked for evidence of gender.
Of course there are arguments in both sides, that's why there's an argument.
Only I'm finding it harder to see how we can say with any conviction of integrity, yes I accept you as a woman (or man), and you have a right to live your life as you see fit. Except in this part of public life that I feel uncomfortable about.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:

[...]Yes, even when completing in sports events. I've done a few and I've never been asked for evidence of gender.

Presumably because everyone knows attempting to sex a badger always offends?

Pages

Latest Comments