It's New Year's Day and I'm watching cyclocross from Belgium on TV, the GP Sven Nys. It's one of the classic races - even though it's not a World Cup event it matters, so there are good people on the start line. As the commentary is going through the riders for the elite women, I kind of recognise the name Austin Killips who has a third-row start today. I Google her, as you do, and find the story of a few protesters turning up at a race in the States to complain about her participation.
That's why I remember the name, she's trans, so I try to watch her progress but it's soon a lost cause as Fem van Empel blasts away from the rest and the coverage of what's happening behind gets patchy. Once the dust settles, and it well and truly has when Miss Killips finishes, she's 7:30 behind in only a 50-minute race. No one is complaining. I'll admit that Van Empel was on fire and even Lucinda Brand was at 2 minutes but the American behind by three-quarters of a lap wasn't exactly a threat to the fairness of women's sport I keep reading in the media.
Fast forward three weeks to the Exact Cross in Zonnebeke and she's on the podium behind Denise Betsema and Marion Norbert Riberolle. Murmurs have started but why the sudden difference? It's simple, Benidorm is hosting a World Cup event the next day and everyone who is any good is there instead - except, of course, Betsema and Norbert Riberolle. I know that's harsh but context is quite important when comparing performances, especially when it comes to the myths surrounding the trans female athlete. The end of women's cycling is in view, apparently.
Austin Killips winning the Tour of the Gila, a 2.2 race, is a scandal for transphobes and while it was kind of OK when she was mediocre, the step up to average is too much to contemplate. Forget that Miss Killips has progressed because she's not working in a bike shop anymore and has more time to train, her improvement is "cheating". I learn a new term: 'Gender doping'.
I'd be tempted to laugh but people believe this rubbish. Even the Tour of the Gila's race director [Michael Engleman -ed] says the transgender issue needs attention and the sport has to do something otherwise girls are going to be put off by these trans women being in the same place at the same time. It's fear-mongering at its most insidious. He blames the UCI for not sorting this out at their level because women and girls are scared to speak out and say the wrong thing.
Looking beyond his veiled disgust for those he describes as "born male", (I'll come to that language later) he's right something does need to be done. Education. Not feelings or opinions, education.
The information is already available, the medical professionals know exactly what happens to the male (XY chromosome) body when it suffers from low testosterone - it's called androgen deprivation and it is what happens under the UCI regulations for trans females to compete. It's just that no one seems to apply what happens to people who have been through gonadectomy or are under treatment for prostate and testicular cancer to what happens to the trans female. The physical and mental outcomes are the same and they are dramatic for performance: if you don't believe me look it up. The information isn't hard to find.
Weight gain, muscle loss, reduced haemoglobin, lethargy, depression, and tiredness are on a list of side effects that contains not one performance enhancement. But what about the "retained advantage" spouted about for having gone through male puberty? Two things with this argument become quickly to the fore. Firstly you can go through puberty and come out the other side anywhere between big or small, 1m 95 or 1m 60. You could weigh 95 kilos or 55, the spread of size and shape is bigger in each sex category than it is between the average of each of those.
Secondly, the only people who are going to submit to testosterone reduction are trans females, not the mediocre male who wants to win prizes by pretending to be a woman because if that person ever existed, and so far they haven't, then they are in for a shock.
Let's continue with the idea that someone will 'gender dope'. To be convincing, they'll probably decide a bit of oestrogen will add to the ruse so then they go through a second puberty: only this time it's a female one: breast growth, fat redistribution and all the other things a girl goes through as an adolescent.
Even without the oestrogen their male sexual functions are done for after six months of androgen deprivation. After 9 to 12 months, it's permanent - there's no going back. Oestrogen just adds to these effects so suddenly the idea of winning a few medals, making some money and then changing back to male mode looks less enticing. The mediocre male pretender myth has yet to happen - but for anyone out there willing to be part of some trials then I'm sure you'll be welcomed by the medical community.
The UCI has the research data from proper studies and has decided on 2 years of testosterone below 2.5 nanogram/litre, and that has not produced any trans female domination. In fact, similar policies have resulted in no trans medals at the elite level in any sports ever since the IOC introduced its rules in 2003. None, zero, zilch. So the idea that there's going to be a tidal wave of men pretending to be women so they can win events hasn't happened. It won't happen, because trans female athletes are rare and even if there was a tenfold increase in numbers, that would still be a minuscule number.
The 'protecting women's sport' crowd have no examples of trans female domination, their dodgy research says trans females are men when comparing any performance to women because all the proper studies have come to a conclusion which doesn't support their exclusion aims. They'll bring up Lia Thomas from swimming and say 'look she was 554th then next year she was winning in the female category'. What you never see from the protectors is pre-transition she had a sixth-best time in the USA - then, after one year of androgen deprivation, she fell to the 554th place you see quoted. One year further on, she was ranked 59th in the female category. So much for retained advantage.
The anti-trans letter that was sent to the UCI by an organisation calling itself Union Cyclist Feminine was typical of the ignorance out there. Amongst the names of signees are cyclists who are Olympians, former champions, Classic winners, Director Sportifs, parents of riders, or people from other sports. Looking through the list, I see people I've talked to, I have to work alongside or engage with, people who have influence over selections and policy decisions and I realise that they consider trans women to be less worthy, a danger to society and somehow shameful. However, they aren't protecting women's sport from any trans menace, what they are really doing is projecting their own bigotry and prejudices.
It doesn't matter how polite they are when they say they "have concerns" or talk about being "born a man" or "male-bodied". As far as I can remember, I was born a baby like everyone else and if I had wanted to be a man, I like every other trans woman wouldn't have transitioned to female and gone through all the issues associated with that process. It is a process which has had only one performance enhancement and that's my own mental wellbeing.
It's not trans exclusion that cycling needs, it's education that we are all different and if you are trying to sell the sport as something for all, then that means everyone.
