Cycling UK has apparently restricted its nominations to it “100 Women in Cycling” list, to “biological women”.

A contentious term in itself, and, despite those who celebrated the decision of the Supreme Court claiming the opposite, one that’s caused a lot of uncertainty, confusion, and anxiety. And it’s done exactly this again with this decision.

I was nominated in 2018 and became one of those 100 women that year. But now, I’m joining a whole host of women who are really upset by this and who are returning their past awards, asking to be removed from the list or refusing a 2025 nomination.

I’m printing the email I’m about to send to Cycling UK by way of of explanation. It says all I need to say, I think

Hello,

I was nominated and then chosen as one of Cycling UK’s 100 Women In Cycling in 2019. 

I was, at the time, pleased happy and honoured to have been recognised in this way. And proud of Cycling UK for instituting the whole scheme, which was still pretty new back then. I saw it as a powerful strand of support and recognition for those few women working in cycling and a way to raise their profile and inspire greater numbers of women to get involved, to get riding, to get working in cycling of all kinds and at all levels. 

To me, growing up as I did in the sixties and seventies when the barriers I faced in the cycling world were massive, the whole 100 women seemed to be part of the change I was seeing as I grew older.  Welcome change, amazing change, hugely needed. A welcoming and long awaited part of the opening up of the world of cycling to all. 

And now I understand, Cycling UK has been advised to restrict nominations for inclusion in that 100 Women list to biological females only, in the terms stated by the Supreme Court ruling. And, indeed, has taken and acted on that advice this year. 

Of course, I have no legal expertise, but reading the Supreme Court judgement on this, I cannot see how allowing the nominations of trans women goes against the ruling.   The ruling was made specifically with reference to the Equality Act 2010.  Unless the inclusion of trans women in nomination procedure discriminates against so defined “biological” women I, with my laymen’s brain, can’t see why Cycling UK needs to change this. And I also can’t see how the inclusion of trans women discriminates against anyone. Furthermore, how is anyone who nominates a woman who they’ve found inspiring, who fulfils all the criteria for nomination, supposed to know if they’re trans or not!  

This seems to me to be a deeply divisive, unpleasant and unworkable decision on the part of Cycling UK. Some explanation of these issues I’ve highlighted here is surely due to your members.  If I’ve missed or misunderstood the legal issues here, I’d appreciate a clearer informed response. Of course, what is clear, even to someone with no legal training, is that a trans woman has no way of claiming discrimination against Cycling UK if people want to nominate her but are not allowed. 

I can’t tell you how disappointed I am by this decision. Instead of being a way to include and diversify cycling, the list has reverted to the old ways: restrict and exclude. It’s wrong. It’s also destroyed anything good I felt personally about my inclusion on that list and I do not want to part of anything that excludes any group of women from cycling in any way.  So you will be receiving my certificate in the post and I am requesting that you remove my entry from the list online. 

I’ve also terminated my membership of Cycling UK after decades of being part of the organisation.

If Cycling UK reconsiders and reinstates the inclusion of trans women, I will also reconsider my decision. 

Jane Davis