Women and LGBTQ+ in urban events
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I am opening this threat to share some discussion points, which were raised as part of a discussion group on women and LGTBQ+ in urban unicycling, and particularly flatland (and street), at the last UNICON.
There were voices in this group sharing experiences of feeling marginalized in the urban scene and at previous competitions - some of which were related to attitudes of some fellow riders (e.g. flatland circles during the junior and female competition) and others related to the current competition format.
For simplicity, I would like to draw attention only to the points raised with respect to the competition format, which mainly relate to the timing of female prelims and finals. The group felt that the current format places greater emphasis on the male competition and also is more convenient for male riders. In particular, not having any female riders visible at the prime audience time does not help to promote more participation of women and girls in the sport.
To create more equality within the competition format, the group proposed to have a simple drawing of lots for the timing of prelims (so that it is not always the juniors and female riders that have to arrive at 7 or 8am in the morning).
The other proposed change was to keep the final battles (battle for 3rd and 1st place) of the juniors, female, and male category until the end of the competition. This would assume that no judge could be a rider in a different category for the finals.
Hoping to start a productive discussion on the topic here.
Comment
I am okay with juniors being the first to qualify in the morning. And I am okay with juniors not having their finals at the end of male finals (mostly because that's usually late at night), but I agree with you on how we handle the female competition.
For finals, we have tried out a format at GUC this year that alternates between final rounds for female and male.
Since we had 8 male finalists and 4 female finalists we went like this:
Male Quarterfinals
Female Semifinals
Male Semifinals
Female Battle for 3rd
Male Battle for 3rd
Female Final
Male Final
This worked quite well. The only downside is the need of one judging panel to judge both groups.
I don't think you could force this approach (because of the usual lack of enough judges), but I would like to see it included in the rules as a recommendation.
For Prelims I see a few options.
1. The one you proposed. Randomize the order of Female and Male Prelims. (as I said, I would keep Junior at the Beginning)
2. Having female and male riders qualify as one group, so randomize female riders and male riders together, having them judged by the same panel (and also in relation to each other), but differentiate them into the two different finals. In Flatland I don't really see a big physical advantage of male riders. (they do the bigger spins, but female riders often have a high technical difficulty) The disadvantage with this being again needing one judging panel for both groups, which would be even harder to find for prelims.
Comment
I have nothing against switching up prelims starting times, I think this is a very valid point made on valid rider feedback. As long as we keep one group together - as the judging panel is different from group to group - it works properly to start with adult male category in the morning and follow up with female and junior categories later. Or as you suggested, to propose a drawing is probably the most fair system, I agree with that!
About the other point of having the junior, female and male finals at the end, I also understand how that would make the junior and female riders feel more involved and/or appreciated. The point about the judging panel being an issue for this is true. It is not easy to put together a proper judging panel, but I believe this should be possible - but I would like to look back at notes on how exactly the judging panels were at U19 and U20 so that I have a reference. Another thing about this is from the rider's point of view, especially for the category which is starting with the battles. This would mean that the riders of the battles for 1st and 3rd places have to wait quite a bit until they are up for their final battles. I don't have too much experience competing in Flatland, so I would love to hear opinions on this from Flatland riders.
Comment
I really like the format between female and male groups that you detailed Ian!
Comment
I second both ideas!
For prelim starting times, I like the idea of drawing lots for female and male starting order (I agree with Ian that it's probably ok to keep juniors first). An alternative idea would be to mix it up based on the number of riders and starting groups, i.e. some number of the male groups go, then female, then male again. We could also draw lots for each starting group number.
In terms of finals, Ian I think the order you proposed looks awesome (and honestly I think would bring visibility in a way that would be amazing and make big change to the sport). I do think that it could be tricky in terms of judging if we have 2 judging panels, but nothing that couldn't be solved (even if that was just having both judging panels sitting up there for all of finals). I do think Mark poses a good question about having to wait to ride, but I mainly think this would be issue if we decided to save just the female semi-final and final battles for the end of the male battles.
Comment
I don't see why juniors should not be integrated into the randomization of the prelims. However, I only have feedback from female riders so I don't know how the juniors feel about it. I definitely think randomization would be easier to organize than integration.
I do like the format for finals that you described, Ian, and I hope it would be possible to find judges for finals that can judge both groups. Let us know about your notes, Mark.
Comment
I think from my experience that my system for finals will only really work (practically) with one judging panel that judges both female and male finals.
And that is the greatest hurdle that's why I would set it as a recommendation, but not require it for smaller events where judges are harder to find.
Comment
Just further from the judging panel. I don't think we would need two judging panels for finals. It could be the same judges.
Comment
Could we make it a requirement for larger events?
Comment
Finding judges even at larger events if often a last minute thing and we are always lucky to find enough good judges for one category.
To clear this up. It's pretty easy for Female finals. There are enough male riders available.
Finding enough judges for the Male finals is often really hard because many female riders don't feel like they can fairly judge the fast combos and advanced spins seen in the Male competition so we need to find male judges for the Male finals (basically from non-competing riders or riders that didn't make it to finals
Finding one panel for both categories could be impossible depending on the circumstances.
I would put it in as a recommendation to use the system whenever possible, let it run at a few events (I for sure plan to use it next Unicon for Flat) and see in the next rulebook committee if we should and could make it mandatory.
Comment
If it is only the male judging panel that is hard to find (and does usually not consist of females), I don't see how having the same judging panel would make it harder to find judges.
Comment
Sorry, I wasn't clear there. We do rely on female riders whenever we can to judge Male. Not only because we need everyone we can get, but because I like the representation of female riders there as well. Judging panels tend to be less diverse than they maybe should be.
Could we make it mandatory to have one judging panel and go for the alternating Finals system, but make it possible to go back to the old system in case an adequate judging panel cannot be found and the competition therefore would need to be cancelled or seriously hindered because of a lack of suitable and experienced judges?
As for including junior into a randomization for prelims.
I think Junior and Female should be treated differently here.
Female and Male categories usually only differ in the style that is ridden. Riders are similarly experienced in terms of years riding and can achieve the same level of difficulty in their riding and therefore should be treated equally.
Junior riders are younger, have less experience and a lower difficulty. I would find it weird as a spectator to see experienced male and female riders and after that see some juniors qualify. This would take away from their performance I think. Let the juniors start first and once they are old enough they will have their chance to qualify later in front of more people. Because they will be older and go to the other category. That can't be said about female riders, who should already be there and treated as such.
Comment
Yeah, happy with the suggestion above on the judging panel.
I don't really agree with the second one. I think it would be good to showcase more diversity - even if juniors might have a lower skill level. There's also not that many juniors visible in urban unicycling. But I also don't feel like I am representing the views of juniors on this so happy to go along with it if this is the general consensus.
Comment
Interesting way to think about juniors and their exposure.
I think we have to wager a few things here. The upside as you said would be more exposure for Junior if they potentially qualified after Female and Male (if randomization says so). The downside could be them feeling bad doing their run after waaay better riders and potentially see the audience leave even.
I feel like most of the exposure for Flatland comes from Finals anyways. That's why I think the downside weighs more here.
I will ask around the german junior community to get a feeling for it.
What do the others think about this?
Comment
Happy to go ahead with whatever the juniors think is best! Thanks for asking around.
Comment
Fiding judges
Here's my main takeaway from this discussion so far: Finding judges is difficult
Also finding judges that are willing to do more than 1 category, even more difficult. Most times some of the judging panel for the women's flatland battles will be compromised of people that are willing to help this competition but that will be competing themselves in the finals, or that are not willing to give a hand during men's battles.
Additionally, having to judge two different categories at the same time complexifies the work for the judges. Finding any judges is difficult enough, let alone competent judges that have experience.
While I'm all for having something like Ian mentioned they did at GUC, that schedule is much more fair, I think we have to keep in mind the challenges that this will bring up.
While I think it would be quite a undertaking, I don't think it's impossible, but it does require more prior work from the chief judge or event organizer to get a judging panel longer than a couple of hours before the start of a competition. I think it's an import piece of the puzzle as to why we struggle getting judges.
Prelims
During prelims often riders will be separated by very small margin of points. Having to switch groups during prelims would be a real headache for judges, if they use different judging scales.
For example; in men's prelim, a flip, a 180 flip, or a fakie flip all hold extremely similar values. Let's say 2/10 for difficulty. It's extremely unlikely that a ranking change between two riders comes down to the difference between having done a flip or a fakie flip. If you do a 180 twist at the end of your line that's +0 for difficulty, but you get some flow points...
During junior prelim, a flip or a fakieflip will be some of the harder tricks seen. If I use the same judging scale as I would for expert, the best trick done by a junior would probably be something like a 4 or a 5. Therefore using a different judging scale makes sense as it would help differentiate between riders more easily.
Well I just checked how many riders signed up for flatland at the last world champs, and it seems like it's so minimal it would barely change anything. Although it woudl make the judges job easier, I think another take away here is that on top of having a hard time to find judges, we usually don't have experienced judges.
Judging prelims = quite difficult
Judging battles = super easy
Thread Hijack
Is anyone here part of the main committee? I am not and while on the subject of inclusivity I found this in the rulebook which is erroneous.
"1B.6 Transgender Riders
The IUF is committed to providing an open and safe environment for people of all
genders. A rider may register with the gender (male or female) with which the rider
identifies most."
Male and Female refers to sex, they are not genders.
Comment
hmm, I "strikethrough" my entire "prelim" section as I found it to be useless but it didn't seem to have that saved.
Comment
Juniors
I agree with Ian here and think that juniors should be treated differently than the female competition. While I think exposure is good, the juniors will all get their chance for the "big stage" as they continue with the sport. I also want to be careful about conflating the junior and female categories in this discussion as I think they need different things for exposure and should not be treated the same.
I could also imagine that for some juniors, especially those that are just starting to compete, having a bigger audience could be intimidating, and in a way having an earlier prelim/battle time eases them into the performance pressure. And, given that folks currently leave for both female and junior finals, I think Ian makes a good point that it could be disheartening to see folks leave, rather than not be there in the first place (though honestly both are pretty rough). Ian - I think you are most in tune with the junior riders, and agree that it would be great to get their thoughts, or just go with your opinion.
Judging panels
Are the main issues with having a single judging panel that 1) it will be a long time for the judges to be on, and 2) that they would have to go back and forth between judging different groups, which may lead to inconsistencies? In terms #1, is there any reason we couldn’t have 2 judging panels that would switch each round, aside from a lack of eligible judges? I’m also still not sure why finding a single judging panel that could do both is any more difficult than just finding a judging panel for the male battles. For #2, based on the conversation around requiring judges to write down scores, it seems like this wouldn’t be much of an issue for battles. In terms of prelims, I would suggest that we keep the female and male riders separate, which should help the judges to appropriately calibrate their judges and scores.
It also sounds like it’s difficult to find experienced judges. Is this something that we should start as a separate discussion topic? Do we need to provide additional vetting/training in order to be qualified to judge at a Unicon? Given the small nature of the sport this is ambitious, but probably a good idea to think about for the future.
Emile on your thread hijack: Is your question on the rule itself or just the wording? Either way, up until now this thread has not been discussing LGBTQ riders (even though it's in the title), and I think this topic would be best put into a separate thread.
Comment
So every single junior rider I asked was okay with it being as it is now. Junior doing their Prelims and Finals before adults start.
I would therefore (still) suggest we keep it like that.
For Female Prelims: I think Sarah is right in trying to keep female and male categories separate (but randomize it) to make it easier to judge (if we only have one panel, more on that later) and for the audience to get a grasp of the scores if they are displayed (which might not be directly comparable between female and male).
For Finals: I have given it another thought and in the case that a single judging panel cannot be found I think it would also work to have two panels (switching between rounds). So like Emile said, if people agree to judge one category but just want to watch the other battles without using their brain, this could be an option.
Comment
@Sarah: I can also say from my experience that it can be quite difficult to delegate a single judging panel as not everyone want to judge multiple categories since it takes a long time, and they of course all need to have the relevant knowledge and experience. However, in theory the panel we had for the Expert Male Finals at U20 could have judged Expert Females too. The judges were Kornél Auth, Sophia Pellmann, Lorenz De Neve, Josef Sjönneby, Simon Berry, Eddie Ducol, Chief Judge Ian Dylewski.
Plus I agree that it can be difficult for the judges to switch between categories, which as you said can lead to inconsistencies - but to be honest I don't think I have enough experience as a judge at big events to have a valid opinion on this.
"is there any reason we couldn’t have 2 judging panels that would switch each round, aside from a lack of eligible judges?"
I think this would be contraproductive. If we have judges literally standing up from the desks and switching places will further stress event flow and event length, which already is a problem. On the other hand if we have a large enough judges desk where all the judges can sit, I think it is inevitable that the judges who are actually scoring the battle will discuss scores with the judges who only score the other category, and that I think is not right. The judging panel is carefully selected for each category to be as fair as possible and their opinion shouldn't be potentially compromised.
I am not saying all of these because I don't like the concept of the Finals with alternating Female and Male battles (I do, and I also agree that it is more fair with Female riders, and I hope that we can make it work!!!), but I totally agree with Emile that we have to carefully think these challenges through from different point of views and with consulting more people who have personal experience on each problem that it brings up.
Comment
One more note to switching judges in-between rounds:
This was the judging panel at U20 for Female Expert Flatland Finals:
-
Jelle D. - was competing in Expert Male Flatland Finals
-
Colby T.
-
Jan N. - was competing in Expert Male Flatland Finals
-
Tim D. - was competing in Expert Male Flatland Finals
-
Ivar C.
- Chief Judge: Ian Dylewski
As you can see 3 of 5 Judges were competing in Expert Male Finals, and I don't think anybody would be up for simultaneously Judging and Competing.
Then again we can say that if we found a Judging Panel for Expert Male Finals at U20 too, they would anyway have to be judging during the entire duration of the Female & Male Finals (just with short breaks) - which will make it harder to find Judges, as it is usually a problem since not everyone wants to spend the entire evening working and judging. Once again, not saying it is impossible, but it would become (even more) difficult; and I am afraid we might have to make compromises when picking Judges.
Comment
Thanks for checking with the junior riders, Ian.
In that case, I would suggest randomisation of male and female prelims as a proposal.
@Mark: I think there is no harm in having a second judging panel sit between the other judges. If anything it would probably prevent judges from looking at each others score sheets. It's the reason that freestyle judges always sit technical judge, presentation judge, technical judge.
That being said - I think it would be the easiest to go for one judging panel rather than two. I might be wrong, but I would think that people who volunteer to judge the Expert Male battles (which used to take more time than the female ones and usually take place at a time in the evening when spectators start drinking - so pretty much people who are sacrificing their free evening anyway) would probably also volunteer to judge the battles in between? Rather than just wanting to sit back and watch the female battles?
But we could ask around at EUC how people feel about it?
Comment
So at EUC I randomized Junior Male and Female prelims and also Adult Male and Female Prelims. It's a small thing but I liked it.
Also we had separate panels to judge Junior, Female and Male prelims.
The panel that judges Junior prelims then also judged their finals and one combined panel from Female and Male prelims judged both Female and Male battles, which we did alternating.
This worked well. Battles can easily be judged by one panel since the earlier battles don't necessarily need to be referenced for later battles, so female riders having a too low of a score because they are compared to male riders is not a thing. (besides the judges scores for battles are not even published anywhere).
So I would go for one panel judging both adult finals.
Comment
Thanks for this feedback , Ian. Great to hear that it worked well.
I'm going to give some rider feedback here: There were some girls who didn't enjoy the new system. Mainly because it involved a lot of waiting (which is true - my first battle took place at 10pm). However, I still think it's great for the sport and the visibility of women and girls. So I would like to take this back to the wider group of girls and see what they think?
Comment
Would you account this to the late start and therefore even later first battles for female riders or in general having to wait for the first round of male riders to finish?
Because that is one thing that is kinda getting out of hand and that I will focus on going forward, that Flatland seems to be happening in the middle of the night by now. I really dislike being done around midnight.
That's why I'm asking. Would this have been an issue if we started an hour or two earlier?
Comment
I think it was the late start time. But I will double check with people. It would be great to finish by 10pm, not start.
Comment
Received this today from Badminton England, thought it might be of interest in terms of what other sports are doing regarding gender:
Particpation In Badminton By Transgender and Non-Binary Players Policy
Dear Marie
Following an extensive consultation process, including a survey of the badminton community, Badminton England’s Board of Directors has approved an updated policy relating to participation in badminton by transgender and non-binary players with immediate effect. The policy reflects the views expressed by the badminton community through the consultation process.
Badminton England has been aware that its previous policy was out of date and has undertaken an extensive consultation to inform the revised policy. We are grateful for the badminton community and external partners who have contributed to this process.
Badminton England encourages transgender and non-binary players to play badminton recreationally in the gender they identify as. This includes all recreational participation, including No Strings Badminton, and club night activity.
Competition has the potential to enable players to secure ranking points and/or representation at county level or higher, fairness of competition will be prioritised. This means that competition will be categorised as:
· Female competition – players assigned female at birth.
· Open competition – all individuals will be eligible to compete in the open category. This will replace the men’s category.
The full policy can be found here. It is accompanied by an explanatory note and FAQs. Any questions or queries relating to this policy should be directed to inclusion@badmintonengland.co.uk
To support the participation of transgender and non-binary players across the sport of badminton, we will look to provide support, advice and guidance for county badminton associations, clubs, coaches, volunteers, and players to ensure transgender and non-binary players can continue their engagement in badminton.
Badminton England recognises and acknowledges each individual’s right to define their own gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth. We also fully support their right to choose if, when and how to share that gender with others.
Badminton England believes that transgender and non-binary players should be able to access badminton without fear of discrimination or prejudice. People who identify as transgender or non-binary have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Badminton England operates a zero tolerance policy on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia.
Comment
Badminton England's new policy appears to be the same as what I suggested which suggests they thought it was likely the fairest option also
Comment
Thank for sharing Marie.
I’m still working on getting this to the main committee, and have started on some outreach, so will share when I have more data.
I think the question we/the IUF will be faced with is what decision best follows the IUF’s guiding principles and goals. What badminton has decided is “fair” for them may not be the most fair for unicycling (or across unicycling disciples), or other sports for that matter. And, for the IUF, is sports “fairness” the top priority, or outreach, inclusivity, etc. Unfortunately there is no right answer here, so we as a sport will have to come up with what best fits our principles and goals. Hence bringing in discussion outside flatland :)
Comment
It looks like IUF is looking at it now.
Similar to Badmington, British cycling have also changed to "Open" and "Female at Birth" categories
Policy for Competitive Activity
The Policy for Competitive Activity covers all British Cycling-sanctioned competitive events. It will see the implementation of an ‘Open’ category alongside a ‘Female’ category. This means that the current men’s category will be consolidated into the ‘Open’ category.
Transgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals and those whose sex was assigned male at birth will be eligible to compete in the ‘Open’ category. The ‘Female’ category will remain in place for those whose sex was assigned female at birth and transgender men who are yet to begin hormone therapy.
The international governing body on cycling has changed its rules to no longer allow those who have transitioned to female after puberty to compete in the female category, but they haven't created the "Open" category like British cycling have.