[News] A woman is a woman.

[DJ NOBO]

Indeed. The definition aspect is almost incidental (which is why the thickies think they have a 'victory').
The key element is the antidiscriminatory element, and this will trigger useful discussion about how it can be put in place.

Where I work there is a proliferation of gender neutral toilets* along side mal and female toilets. That deals with that.
One assumes that gender neutral changing rooms will also soon spring up.

It really isn't rocket science, and one hope that in the end the gender minorities will be safer and more free, despite why they may imagine right now.

*Currently used by males and females.....not everyone gets their knickers twisted over 'safe' spaces.

I always thought you worked from home. That’s impressive commitment to waste and sanitation, if so.

 

[jackanada]

As ever no matter how clearly the judiciary try to make their judgements agitators just pick a part without context to suit them.
The judges have only defined a woman within the very specific confines of the equality act as it was originally written.
This does give organisations providing women's services leeway in excluding trans women, though this can still be challenged under other anti discrimination laws.
What it doesn't do, which is sadly what many have joyfully taken it to, is say it's fine to lack compassion and understanding and be a **** about it.

 

[superseagull1994]

I understand your argument that there shouldn't need to be a women's chess tournament. (I don't accept your argument that, if it exists, people who are not biological women should be allowed to play in it.)

But you're hardly covering all bases with chess, are you. If a young man wants to play women's rugny, the argument that they do it in chess isn't relevant.

I have often heard the argument that an average sized former-male who takes all these blockers and stuff has no advantage over an average size female who hasn't. How does that work? Do these blockers and stuff genuinely take 4 inches off the man's height, and make his legs and arms shorter, and such? Or is it the opposite argument - that height isn't an adavantage in sport?

I used chess to show it can be a political decision rather than a fairness decision I was decidedly not covering all bases with that example.

So here's the thing HRT can actually make us shrink not in every case but some, it does cause massive changes in our bodies, our muscles mass will shrink and quite often to the point we end up weaker than a cis woman of the same height and build.

Can I ask if you had a chance to read my sources? I chose the first because it was a convenient article with links to the research on this front throughout.

 

[Curious Orange]

It's not an odd question at all. You said 'changing gender does not lead to changing legal sex for purpose of interpreting the Equalities act, which was vague on the matter.'. If the Equalities act means equal treatment, then what difference does it make whether a trans woman is a woman in law or not?

In reference to the Equality Act (2010) a trans woman cannot claim discrimination on the basis of sex as a woman (female), but can still claim discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment (which they don't need a GRC to do).

This means that a trans woman cannot claim rights that belong to the female category in addition to those they get under the gender reassignment one. It works the other way too.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not an odd question at all. You said 'changing gender does not lead to changing legal sex for purpose of interpreting the Equalities act, which was vague on the matter.'. If the Equalities act means equal treatment, then what difference does it make whether a trans woman is a woman in law or not?

i'm sure you can read the news too, but it concerns access to single sex services and spaces. some transgender people were seeking access to such services and spaces, on the basis they were a "woman" or "man". people complained they shouldn't be because their sex was not appropriate. ECA was vague and now it is not, transpeople cannot use that legistlation to claim discrimination, gain access to those deliberatly single sex services and spaces.

 

[Freddo]

I understand your argument that there shouldn't need to be a women's chess tournament. (I don't accept your argument that, if it exists, people who are not biological women should be allowed to play in it.)

But you're hardly covering all bases with chess, are you. If a young man wants to play women's rugny, the argument that they do it in chess isn't relevant.

I have often heard the argument that an average sized former-male who takes all these blockers and stuff has no advantage over an average size female who hasn't. How does that work? Do these blockers and stuff genuinely take 4 inches off the man's height, and make his legs and arms shorter, and such? Or is it the opposite argument - that height isn't an adavantage in sport?

So to be clear, you genuinely think that a transwoman who has lived a large part of their life as a woman, and enjoys playing competitive chess, shouldn't be allowed to participate in a women's chess tournament? And if so, why? What advantage would they have?

 

[dsr-burnley]

I used chess to show it can be a political decision rather than a fairness decision I was decidedly not covering all bases with that example.

So here's the thing HRT can actually make us shrink not in every case but some, it does cause massive changes in our bodies, our muscles mass will shrink and quite often to the point we end up weaker than a cis woman of the same height and build.

Can I ask if you had a chance to read my sources? I chose the first because it was a convenient article with links to the research on this front throughout.

I've read it now and found it unconvincing. The woman concerned states that "The emphasis should be on skill, less on strength. Muscularity does not make a difference. Skill crosses genders." which, in terms of football, is rubbish. A brief footnote mentions that height acquired as a boy is not lost on transitioning to a woman, but the whole tone of the article is that being tall gives her no advantage at all as a goalkeeper. again, that's rubbish.

But also, this is a relatively trivial case. The FA is willing, it seems, to allow trans women to play in women's football if it's clear and obvious that they aren't getting an advantage from it. This does not mean that they would allow Harry Kane to extend his England career with a trans certificate. Top level professional sport needs to be fair to cis women as well as to trans women, and that can't be done by making assessments of the relative benefits of suppressive drugs and male puberty.

If a particular trans woman has taken so many drugs for so long that she can fit into a woman's game without any competitive advantage (which I don't think is true in this case, but that's by the by) then a case can be made for allowing it. This must not be used to give blanket permission for trans men to play women's sport because it is unfair on cis women.

 

[dsr-burnley]

So to be clear, you genuinely think that a transwoman who has lived a large part of their life as a woman, and enjoys playing competitive chess, shouldn't be allowed to participate in a women's chess tournament? And if so, why? What advantage would they have?

I don't know enough detail about the rules of chess to say why it is considered necessary to have a separate women's tournament. But if there is such a difference between men and women that women need a separate tournament, then it should be for women only.

I'm not aware that women are restricted from playing open chess. Is there such a thing as a men-only tournament? I thought most chess competitions were open to all, any sex, any age?

 

[BadFish]

Sounds to me like there needs to be nuanced discussion on individual cases and sports by those that understand the individuals and the sports those individuals wish to participate in.

I have long suspected that this was going to be the answer to the sport challenge.

 

[Brovion]

Hmmmm.

I like to think that I'm quite neutral on this issue as I can see both sides, however I can't help but notice that all the pictures I've seen after the judgment are of women celebrating, and this thread is full of men 'mansplaining' about how it's wrong.

 

[Eeyore]

I will add, and it won’t be popular but the proliferation of specific foreign cultures in U.K. society has had a negative impact on attitudes to women and the LGBTQ community .

It’s by no means the only cause but it’s more significant than many people care to admit. Or face.

It may not be popular. But it is most definitely true. It's a legacy of a society that claims to be multi cultural but is, in fact, a plural monoculture. It sits comfortably for quite some time, but eventually begins to fray, this being one such subject.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I started to write a post explaining how I'd got my head in a muddle about whether, if society started again today and things like toilets and changing rooms were being designed, whether male and female ones would even be a thing as I imagine it came from a time where only male/female relationships etc were considered. Then I thought that it perhaps would still be based more on keeping that "safe space" element of a female only area whilst in a state of undress etc, However I got myself in such a mess over wording, expressing my thoughts that I deleted it all and ended up with the shambles above.

What I'm trying to say (terribly) is, to me, the headfuck it gave me just having a little think about that topic alone summarised how it feels near impossible to be black or white on this topic and it makes those "celebrating" a "victory" feel even more gross. This isn't a simple topic.

I'm 38. Have two young kids and consider myself someone who would be called "woke" by my in laws on several topics. Basically.....I just want everyone to be happy, however pathetic that sounds. This is the first topic where I imagine my viewpoints on some aspects of it will no doubt be called out by my children in the future as being old-fashioned, which was quite an odd and sobering thought. When I saw the headline news that biological sex was the determining factor legally I thought "well yeah". 24 hours on all the little sub topics have caused a right headache for me to decide on what I believe. The answer is, I don't have a clue.

 

[superseagull1994]

I've read it now and found it unconvincing. The woman concerned states that "The emphasis should be on skill, less on strength. Muscularity does not make a difference. Skill crosses genders." which, in terms of football, is rubbish. A brief footnote mentions that height acquired as a boy is not lost on transitioning to a woman, but the whole tone of the article is that being tall gives her no advantage at all as a goalkeeper. again, that's rubbish.

But also, this is a relatively trivial case. The FA is willing, it seems, to allow trans women to play in women's football if it's clear and obvious that they aren't getting an advantage from it. This does not mean that they would allow Harry Kane to extend his England career with a trans certificate. Top level professional sport needs to be fair to cis women as well as to trans women, and that can't be done by making assessments of the relative benefits of suppressive drugs and male puberty.

If a particular trans woman has taken so many drugs for so long that she can fit into a woman's game without any competitive advantage (which I don't think is true in this case, but that's by the by) then a case can be made for allowing it. This must not be used to give blanket permission for trans men to play women's sport because it is unfair on cis women.

Yes height is a huge advantage but there are massively tall cis women who tower over men, same as there are men who tower over other men.

Getting a grc takes many years to gather enough evidence of living as your identified gender including changing your name, indeed I've heard tales of someone having their GRC application rejected because their chosen name was too androgynous but I'll admit that one is annecdotal and details are lost to the faliability of memory. For the FA you need to meet hormonal requirements which will take years of medical transition to achieve. So for your example of Harry Kane he would have to commit to hormone replacement therapy for many years to get his hormone levels to natal levels or to an orchiectomy to remove his testes. No one is going to do that to be able to compete in womens sports unless they actually do identify as a woman and want to live the rest of their life that way. The current ban on puberty blockers solely for trans youths will prevent them from getting the required natal level of hormones at the right age to even be competitive in proffessional womens sports through hrt until they are likely too old to compete.

Badfish's post in #149 is probably what i consider the most reasonable solution to the trans sports issue but the culture wars have no time for reasonable solutions it is victory or defeat there can be no compromise.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

And now to undo it:

 

[fly high]

I guess that they are what used to be referred to as "tomboys" I remember, at primary school, there was a girl who preferred to play with boys rather than girls and we never gave it a thought.

I guess the thing is today those want that a child who is a tom boy should be given drugs to prevent puberty & give them dugs to change them into males.

What happened to those tomboys we grew up with? Some are now married with children & very happy to be women. Some will have realised they are gay but still happy to be women. A very small number still want to be men & should rightly receive medical help, mental support & allowed, without prejudice, to lives their lives.

 

[superseagull1994]

I guess the thing is today those want that a child who is a tom boy should be given drugs to prevent puberty & give them dugs to change them into males.

What happened to those tomboys we grew up with? Some are now married with children & very happy to be women. Some will have realised they are gay but still happy to be women. A very small number still want to be men & should rightly receive medical help, mental support & allowed, without prejudice, to lives their lives.

I mean a tomboy is different from someone feeling that something is wrong when they go through puberty like their body isn't there's and it doesn't fit. We don't see a tomboy and go they must be trans here's some drugs. The tomboy would have to go hang on I think I'm a boy to get any intervention which in this country is typically a waitlist to even see a gender specialist for your first appointent which doesn't guarantee medication.

 

[carlzeiss]

The ruling yesterday should hopefully help this Nurse in her legal action against the NHS for the action taken against her .

Christian nurse punished by NHS for calling transgender paedophile ‘Mr’

Jennifer Melle, from Croydon, was disciplined by Epsom and St Helier University Hospital Trust when she declined to use female pronouns for a convicted paedophile

www.standard.co.uk

NHS lawyers have argued that Melle's Christian belief that humans are born male or female is "not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

 

[A1X]

I saw some women celebrating the result, seemingly convinced they can keep trans women outside of certain areas like toilets, which is not what the ruling says.

I am staggered, absolutely staggered, that this issue is seeing people being convinced of things despite a lack of evidence or grasp on reality

 

[Curious Orange]

Is science also pompous for not seeing sex as binary?

By birth, then, a baby has five layers of sex. But as with chromosomal sex, each subsequent layer does not always become strictly binary. Furthermore, the layers can conflict with one another, with one being binary and another not: An XX baby can be born with a penis, an XY person may have a vagina, and so on. These kinds of inconsistencies throw a monkey wrench into any plan to assign sex as male or female, categorically and in perpetuity, just by looking at a newborn’s private parts.

https://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3334/fausto-Why_sex_Is_Not_Binary.pdf

It is probably easier to consider the whole development of human males from the basis that the default configuration of every human is female. Having a Y chromosome enables the potential for the human body to develop into a configuration where it could produce small gametes (but not large ones). Other genetic defects and environmental factors during gestation can enable the potential to develop other male characteristics* irrespective of whether they have a Y chromosome.

There is still a binary there (potential to produce large or small gametes), but having a mixture of male and female characteristics when you consider the starting point is not unexpected.



* not just the obvious physical ones.

 

[Questions]

If someone says they’re a parrot then they’re a parrot I says.
But heaven help them if I catch them eating chicken wraps.