Emily Bridges and Male Entitlement

Emily Bridges — a man who says he’s a woman — is a British cyclist. Lately, Bridges has caused controversy by seeking to switch from the men’s competition to the women’s competition. The UCI barred Bridges from competing against women at the British National Omnium Championships in response to public outcry.

However, last week, Bridges was still permitted to compete in a women’s race in London and came in first place. In second place was another man who says he’s a woman, Lilly Chant.

As the men celebrated their victory over women, they shared a kiss. Nearby, in third place, an actual woman, Jo Smith, cared for her small child.

Obviously, this is outrageously unfair. As recently as February, Bridges was competing, and winning, against other men. But somehow he sees himself as the victim in this. In an interview with ITV News, Bridges complained that he’s received “physical threats” of violence ever since Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that biological males ought not to compete against women.

Of course, nobody deserves to be physically threatened. But the fact that online trolls exist as a public menace in no way legitimizes a man’s participation in women’s sporting events. What the prime minister said was an expression of common sense and decency, not an incitement to hatred or violence.

Bridges told his interviewer that the objection to his participation is unwarranted since his transition: “My performance has decreased massively. I’ve lost aerobic performance; I’ve lost more than the gap is between male and female athletes. Over explosive differences, I’ve gotten worse comparatively. And I’m not near the top female athletes when it comes to explosive power.”

I’ll say it again — a woman is not, and never will be, an impaired man. To suggest otherwise is deeply sexist.