The governing body said the fine was for “unseemly or inappropriate behaviour during the race and damage to the image of the sport”.
The governing body said the fine was for “unseemly or inappropriate behaviour during the race and damage to the image of the sport”.
The UCI’s stance on trans women is not transphobic. In line with other sporting federations, they have found that going through male puberty gives a person who transition afterwards an advantage over cis women. So, they have decided to have prioritise the fairness of competition. There are plenty of valid reasons for criticising the UCI, but this is not one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseyedarvin/2024/04/25/transgender-athletes-could-be-at-a-physical-disadvantage-new-research-shows/
Did they also find that short women have an advantage over tall women? How about lighter women having an advantage over heavier women? How about women having an advantage for having more muscle mass? How about people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or XX male syndrome? Intersex people?
My point is people will always have advantages somewhere (and there’s no clean place to draw the line); no two people are built the same, which means you absolutely can have – and do have – trans women (who went through a male puberty) with no advantage over cis women. The UCI won’t even allow those women on a case-by-case basis, which is absolutely 100% transphobic.
An actual solution is to divide racers up by skill class and stop gender segregating sports, and to stop caring so much about who wins, but that will never happen as long as money is involved.
Everyone cries about “fairness to women” and “fairness in women’s sports” when what they mean is “keeping sports exclusively for cis women”; trans women are women, but almost no one cares about fairness for them.