New CTC group LGBT members

[Simon L6]

New CTC Group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) members

A number of lesbian and gay members have joined together to help start a Member Group. The aim is to offer support and rides to other CTC members and to encourage non-members to discover that the CTC is a welcoming and open Club.
The CTC already has LGBT members active in local club events and the new Group would like to encourage more LGBT members to join these. In addition the new Group is planning specifically LGBT-focused rides. One already being planned is a London to Brighton Ride to coincide with Brighton Pride on 2nd August 2009. The idea is to finish at the carnival in Preston Park at a large CTC display stand.
Barry Jordan, CTC Councillor and Equality Champion, is the founder of the new Group. He looks forward to hearing from more lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans cyclists who want to find out more about the Group, be on its mailing list, or offer their help in some way. He can be reached on hjb536@blueyonder.co.uk

(I'll just add to Barry's announcement a little by letting you know that I'll be organising the ride, that it will be sunny all day, that the views en route will be superb, and that there will be a tea stop in the Horley area)

[barry]

Many thanks for arranging the ride Simon, we look forward to a lovely event.

[grace2]

At last - a good reason to go to Brighton

[glueman]

Did anything come of this group? I hope it grew legs - and wheels - but if so it doesn't appear to use this forum for spreading its activities. Can anyone tell us if it took off or not? Not LGB or T myself but a well-wisher for all focussed Member Groups.

[Si]

Ah yes, as I understand it, it did get up and running, and Simon did suggest that we unsticky this thread some time ago but we forgot to do it

[Cunobelin]

I always have a problem with this...

When the "Non-standard, human powered vehicles" section was suggested on here, my objection was the same.

I am a cyclist - and that is our comon bond - after that if you are on a unicycle with a single pannier then does it really matter?

[glueman]

I always have a problem with this...

When the "Non-standard, human powered vehicles" section was suggested on here, my objection was the same.

I am a cyclist - and that is our comon bond - after that if you are on a unicycle with a single pannier then does it really matter?

Yours is an honourable but impractical, if not slightly naive stance, IMHO. Most cyclists are male, and club cyclists overwhelmingly so. Add in the fact they are much fitter than your average person and it leaves a lot of people out in the cold, though perception if not actuality.
I'm all for targetted groups, from big 'minorities' like women, to small ones like off-road, cycle campers. One size rarely fits all. Small is beautiful. Live and let live, etcetera.

[grace2]

Yes it took off, but only if you lived within reasonable reach of the London Brighton 'corridor'.
Those of us further afield still have little way of connecting with like-minded cyclists.
I did tell the local CTC 'rep' of the LGBT section's existance and I gave him info to put in the monthly newsletter but it never appeared.
It both matters and doesn't matter - becomes one of life's ongoing minor disappointments.
If I had only one wish about what would make my cycling more enjoyable I wouldn't say 'find me some lesbians', I'd say 20mph speed limits in every built-up area. Or automatic assumption of motorist being at fault in collisions with cyclists.

[Si]

I always have a problem with this...

When the "Non-standard, human powered vehicles" section was suggested on here, my objection was the same.

I am a cyclist - and that is our comon bond - after that if you are on a unicycle with a single pannier then does it really matter?

I'm sure that many gay / female / ethnic / etc cyclists are more than happy to ride in 'mixed' groups but there are always going to be some who are a bit wary, especially as newcomers. If every one were like you, Cunobelin, then I believe that there'd be little problem, alas they are not. For instance, in one club I tried every rest stop was accompanied by what appeared to be a competition to tell the most racist or sexist joke (of course, all the riders were male and white). If a woman or someone from an ethnic minority had come on the ride I'm sure that people would have toned it down, but there is always a chance that the underlying sentiment might continue in more subtle ways.

Likewise, in my club I've never encountered an racism, yet we have only attracted a handful of black and Asian riders. When the local Islam charity did a charity ride there were hundreds of Asian riders out on their bikes. Just goes to show that even if there is no real threat of discrimination, it is still more likely that people from minority groups will get out on their bikes when they have a seemingly 'safe' environment to do it.

Also at my club, when we do women only rides, as we do now and then, it does seem to attract new people who have previously been worried about going out on a normal club ride. And you've only got to look at Stourbug to see how successful a nice safe environment for new riders can be as opposed to the traditional club environment.

ATEOTD I don't think that LGBT does any harm so is it not worth a try if it might improve a few people's cycling experience?

[byegad]

I always have a problem with this...

When the "Non-standard, human powered vehicles" section was suggested on here, my objection was the same.

I am a cyclist - and that is our comon bond - after that if you are on a unicycle with a single pannier then does it really matter?

I say! A unicycle is fine but one pannier. A step too far!

[CW]

For instance, in one club I tried every rest stop was accompanied by what appeared to be a competition to tell the most racist or sexist joke (of course, all the riders were male and white).

I take offence at this sweeping statement. "of course, all the riders were male and white"

[Si]

For instance, in one club I tried every rest stop was accompanied by what appeared to be a competition to tell the most racist or sexist joke (of course, all the riders were male and white).

I take offence at this sweeping statement. "of course, all the riders were male and white"

Do you? How odd.

[CW]

For instance, in one club I tried every rest stop was accompanied by what appeared to be a competition to tell the most racist or sexist joke (of course, all the riders were male and white).

I take offence at this sweeping statement. "of course, all the riders were male and white"

Do you? How odd.

Whilst this group you refer to were male and white,and totally out of order, it is the terminology in which you refer to them namely "of course" which gives offence

A simple definition of "of course"

1. In the natural or expected order of things; naturally.
2. Without any doubt; certainly.

Therefore the message you are sending out in your opinion all white males are racist and sexist.

Remember it is how a person perceives the comment that gives rise to offence not necessarily what was intended by the person making the comment.

[Si]

Therefore the message you are sending out in your opinion all white males are racist and sexist.

I think that your logic is a little flawed there; it was a statement of fact that qualified the situation with relevance to the following sentence. The point being that if they hadn't all been white males then I believe that there is a fair chance that they wouldn't have made the remarks. If I had said that I went on a ride where all the men rode green bikes does that mean that I believe that every man on the planet rides a green bike?

Remember it is how a person perceives the comment that gives rise to offence not necessarily what was intended by the person making the comment.

If you believe that I did not intend to offend or to make out that all white males are racist and sexist, but rather that it was my poor phrasing, then why did you not raise that point rather than taking offense? If I did inadvertently offend then I apologize - it was not my intent. Yet, if people are going to take offense even when they suspect that none was intended then, hey, what are we to do? Or are you actually calling be racist and sexist (me being a white male, and you thinking that I believe all white males are racist and sexist)?

[CW]

No, my logic is not flawed.
It is case in law in respect of a racial incident "That if a person thinks it is racial then it is racial" This is what I took from your comments. Similarly it can be said of a sexist remark. The "of course" pre cursor qualified this.
Your comment "The point being that if they hadn't all been white males then I believe that there is a fair chance that they wouldn't have made the remarks." is sterotyping and qualifies my original comments.
I was giving you the benefit of doubt by saying that your comments may not have an intent of giving offence. But pointed out that it did do so and I accept your apology, thank you.
As a white male as you, I do take matters like this seriously and I am willing to challenge anybody whether it is a comment against my ethnicity or sexuality or in fact anybody elses.