SCCA controversy

So did the SCCA really edit the rule book to replace gender-neutral they/them pronouns with male-specific he/him?

If so, that's really a pissant move.  Not even a dick move.  That's the move of a whiny little jerk... face.

I'm an 18-year member.  If this is true, I don't think I'll be a 19-year member.

Apologies if this was discussed elsewhere.

Yah, how juvenile. My occupation has always been a drafter as far as I'm concerned.

 According to the SCCA, it was proposed and then discarded as a mere-schmear proposal. Too bad: I saw several posts on social media from female SCCA competitors who were like, Cool--I guess the rules don't apply to us?

SCCA has always had a habit of stepping in it. Or in this case stepping on them their genitalia.

Wait, seriously? Why would they even do that? What could that possibly accomplish? 

Marjorie Suddard said:

 According to the SCCA, it was proposed and then discarded as a mere-schmear proposal. 

I sincerely hope this is the case.

I will say, I'm not happy that it seems to have given a lot of members the willingness to show their true colors.

brandonsmash said:

Wait, seriously? Why would they even do that? What could that possibly accomplish? 

At some point a long time ago someone(s) decided that instead of making the rules use generic language (the correct way) to just define "he" as a non gendered term (no I'm really not joking). Then of course because that's absolutely insane, over the years people forgot about it and rules got added that used the generic "they". One of those rules got a proposed update, unrelated to the pronouns used. At that time someone noticed the inconsistent language use and somehow decided it was a good opportunity to "fix" the "problem" by changing the 'they's to 'he's.

In reply to dps214 :

Instead of fixing the real problem. That's on brand.

Thanks for the information.

I was at a presentation last Saturday where Mike Cobb addressed this head on.  I even raised my hand and asked what the plan was moving forward.  

My takeaway was that it was an unintentional, done by a volunteer, immediately retracted, and Mike admitted that they are hiring outside console to review the entire rule book moving forward.  

I hope my life continues to improve to the point that this someday moves the needle on my things to concern myself over meter.

ClearWaterMS said:

I was at a presentation last Saturday where Mike Cobb addressed this head on.  I even raised my hand and asked what the plan was moving forward.  

My takeaway was that it was an unintentional, done by a volunteer, immediately retracted, and Mike admitted that they are hiring outside console to review the entire rule book moving forward.  

Thank you.  I hope that's the case.  It is believable.  The only official word I found was a very vague 2-liner from Mike Cobb apologizing for non-inclusive language.

Some member reactions haven't been so good, though.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

I hope my life continues to improve to the point that this someday moves the needle on my things to concern myself over meter.

No matter what the state of your life, this topic is important.

Especially in the current political climate.  That's all I will say on that score.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

I hope my life continues to improve to the point that this someday moves the needle on my things to concern myself over meter.

I wish that I had more than one like to give on this post.

Duke said:

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

I hope my life continues to improve to the point that this someday moves the needle on my things to concern myself over meter.

No matter what the state of your life, this topic is important.

Especially in the current political climate.  That's all I will say on that score.

 

Thank you

Marjorie Suddard said:

 According to the SCCA, it was proposed and then discarded as a mere-schmear proposal. Too bad: I saw several posts on social media from female SCCA competitors who were like, Cool--I guess the rules don't apply to us?"

"Building a bigger tent" used to be considered a good idea in business and other areas.  The folks at Out Motorsports, a group that has been featured in several articles in GRM over the years, could be potential paying SCCA members...some likely already are.  This could be important to some of them, but I don't know and I don't speak for them.  
At the end of the day, the stopwatch is ignorant to who any of us are.  

/ramble

I'm much more concerned about SCCA's slaughter of the open wheel and sports racer classes.

I saw the whole thing unfold. It was a serious proposal brought about to change the GCR. Most of the rulebook correctly used the neutral (and grammatically correct) language of they/them/their, ie - "The driver shall provide their annual medical upon license renewal", etc. There was a section of the GCR added in 2008 that noted that if the rulebook said "he/him/his", it was meant as a neutral term, as the GCR is so freaking big. Somebody wrote a letter for clarification and the SCCA decided that the proper way forward was to literally strike-through every single instance of "they/them/"their" in the GCR and replace it with "he/him/his", even the section on pregnancy. This proposed change was published on the SCCA website and distributed in the April 2025 Fasttrack. A female road racer immediately noticed the intentional change proposal wording and raised a storm on the SCCA Women on Track facebook group. 

This prompted a male member to post the same thing on the "SCCA Members - Official" facebook group and boy howdy did it start a E36 M3storm. First of all, about two dozen members immediately went into highly politicized tirades about "woke agendas" and "gender identity" misunderstanding what was being complained about (most of them thought the he/him/his was being changed to they/them/their) and literally started personally attacking female, queer, non-binary, and transgender SCCA members. I am not using hyperbole, I am speaking of actual hate speech (we had over 85 screenshots before the SCCA even started to think about moderating). Every time a thread got shut down a new one was started, and let me tell you, the volume of sexist and anti-LGBTQ language was both appalling and heartbreaking. Multiple dozens of members attempted to quell while SCCA's silence was deafening.

Finally, the SCCA switched post approvals on, only for the *very first post they approved* to be a misogynistically charged one, followed by a literal diatribe on "men who died on track to bring us this sport who's names will not be sullied by a skirt on track". It was pathetic. After over 48 hours of this, the SCCA *finally* started muting people, however they also muted some very influential people who were trying to stand up to the bigotry, like Hilary Anderson and Sam Strano. At least one committee member quit and many more are considering. Women on Track might be done as a program (at least an SCCA one) and dozens of people dropped their SCCA membership. (Mine is up for renewal next month and I am highly considering not re-upping after 19 years).

There was absolutely zero reason to consider the proposal, zero reason to word it in that way (instead of changing or dropping the part about he/him/his being "neutral", and even less reason for multiple people to have approved inclusion in Fasttrack for member feedback. The SCCA's responses to the outcry, the hate and bigotry, and then the silencing of members for fighting against bigotry would be a master lesson in royal screw-ups. They literally could not have made any worse moves than they did.

The worst thing about the whole thing is how brightly the light was shown on the members at large, and the outright sexism, bigotry, and hatred that lies there is disturbing. The change was absolutely not a mistake, and the fallout from it is a huge issue. Any comment to the contrary is either grossly uninformed, or part of that underbelly just mentioned.

As a different shortfall of the organization, that moderation quality is kind of a "you get what you pay for" situation when all of your PR/social media positions are wildly underpaid. Turns out if you want people good at that stuff you have to offer more than basically minimum wage.

Sorry guys, but it does kinda move my needle when friends and valued competitors are actively made to feel unwelcome and yes, even the small language thing matters in this context. 

When Bernie Ecclestone commented 20 years ago intoning women belonged in the kitchen ( Reference ) did you think that was perfectly a-ok? Yeah, F1, not SCCA, but still... 

I do feel strongly that if I'm going to belong to a club and pay dues it should strive to move past being an old rich white dudes club.  People demeaning other competitors should be called on their bull. 

JThw8 said:

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

I hope my life continues to improve to the point that this someday moves the needle on my things to concern myself over meter.

I wish that I had more than one like to give on this post.

I suppose it's easy not to be concerned when neither version of the wording excludes YOU. 

Personally, I think one of the best things about racing is that it can be for EVERYBODY and I wish more people would embrace that and actively try to grow the participant base. 

Javelin said:

I saw the whole thing unfold. It was a serious proposal brought about to change the GCR. Most of the rulebook correctly used the neutral (and grammatically correct) language of they/them/their, ie - "The driver shall provide their annual medical upon license renewal", etc. There was a section of the GCR added in 2008 that noted that if the rulebook said "he/him/his", it was meant as a neutral term, as the GCR is so freaking big. Somebody wrote a letter for clarification and the SCCA decided that the proper way forward was to literally strike-through every single instance of "they/them/"their" in the GCR and replace it with "he/him/his", even the section on pregnancy. This proposed change was published on the SCCA website and distributed in the April 2025 Fasttrack. A female road racer immediately noticed the intentional change proposal wording and raised a storm on the SCCA Women on Track facebook group. 

Can you help somebody like me, who doesn't speak SCCA, understand a little bit better? What exactly is the GCR? When a change is published on the website and in Fasttrack, does that mean that the change has been made or is it just soliciting feedback on a potential change? Do they only publish changes that they intend to make or do they publish every dumb idea somebody writes in about? 

I saw quite a few posts on the FB.  Tom O had thoughts for sure.  To take it from a generic "they" to cover everyone (regardless of your thoughts on pronouns/trans/whatever), that's probably been working for, I'm guessing, a handful of years?  To specifically switch it to "he", sounded like only one reason.