Sharron Davies hits back after trans cyclist Emily Bridges laughs off competitive advantage probe
The former Olympic swimmer questioned 'Where is the consideration for the feelings of the females'
Sharron Davies has hit back at transgender cyclist Emily Bridges after she laughed off claims she was gaining a competitive advantage over biological women.
The 21-year-old Welsh athlete made headlines in March when her attempts to race at the British National Omnium Championships in the women’s category were thwarted at the 11th hour by world governing body UCI.
Last week, Bridges won an “inclusive” cycling race, while another trans athlete finished second.
In a series of tweets, Ms Davies, a former Olympic swimming champion, has slammed Bridges, hinting that the cyclist was receiving an "unfair advantage".
Ms Davies said: “Emily Bridges has never been barred from sport or ever will be.
“EB was competing last year & earlier this year successfully in the men’s category.
“Inclusion is being able to compete it’s not getting an unfair advantage.”
Ms Davies added: “If we get to the point where we can’t talk facts because it might hurt someone’s feeling where the hell is this going to lead us?
How can we measure feelings? Why is one person’s feelings more important than another person’s feelings?
“See… feelings cannot be a measurement of truth."
She continued: “That’s what we’ve been saying for years. Where is the consideration for the feelings of the females pushed aside in their own category of sport?
“Everyone can race where their sex applies. It’s about acceptance in your sex class however you identify.”
Her comments come after Bridges spoke out about her competing in female events as the trans debate rages on.
She told ITV News: “All of the research that's been done previously has not been done on athletes, it's been done on sedentary individuals.
“Many of them are flawed - they're using grip strength and lean body mass, sometimes on individuals who haven't completed 12 months of hormone therapy, so they're not relevant.
“It's laughable, there's a number of papers that they cite and reviews that they cite and a lot of the data that's in those papers just isn't relevant - especially to cycling.”