Is it really all that bad?

Aaaarggggh - sorry. Jess Bradley and HER shenis.

Is old Jess Bradley and his shenis a police matter? It seems that flashing your cock if you are a TW is just fine and dandy.

Would your clued up friend in HR mind if his 11 year old daughter was exposed to the penis of a 'self certified female' in a 'women's' communal changing room? The same penis which if exposed to her at the bus stop would presumably still be a police matter? (Not necessarily the penis of a TW btw, any old self certified ladycock will do)

Diagnosed by whom?

And how? Medical professionals are being pressured to adopt the affirmative approach. Kathleen Stock wrote about this recently.

Since July, the Government have been publicising a Stonewall-approved major initiative against ‘conversion therapy’. What seems to have been missed is that, according to the definition of conversion therapy endorsed by Stonewall and others, every single therapist working in the area of gender identity is likely to count as engaging in the very practice which the Government is supposedly keen to outlaw.

The sports qualifications for trans women are a joke. They are not remotely fair. And potentially dangerous in some sports.

If they were attempting to find a fair way to allow trans women to compete as women the bare minimum would be far beyond what happens now. Arguably there may be no fair minimum and safety should always be the driving factor. If there is any risk of harm - exclude.

But the starting point otherwise still should very obviously have been a handicap system in the same way as happens with pros and amateurs competing. The disparity is at least as great

So your start point is to minimise the trans woman advantage by taking extensive measures across a series of factors which all individually are going to give an edge. Testosterone levels is only one of several. You would also have to measure lung capacity v Female norm, muscle mass, etc. Whatever sports medics say would give an advantage you score against. Combine them all into a built in handicap they must start under.

As a long term post GRS transsexual myself I would not have expected anything less than this as the starting point of any discussion. Yet we are not anywhere near that.

Indeed the testosterone levels are so ludicrous they are many times higher than what most TS who have had GRS routinely achieve. It is about 20 times my own level of T, let alone any actual women's levels. Pretty obviously that alone shows this as nonsense and pretty obviously there is no fairness at all for women here.

This seems to have been done to allow in self ID women like so much else that is going on today - everything is being treated as it must be demedicalised and just validate what someone thinks.

You cannot think yourself into fair competition in sport. Physiology matters considerably in most instances.

This whole thing needs pushing as far as possible as it would be a travesty to see the hard work of girls and women trivialised by someone with clear biological advantages easily destroying years of hard work. Must not be allowed to happen.

I am pretty sure most transsexuals would be right behind you on this as we are not asking for common sense to be replaced by dangerous stupidity in order to placate those who think fair competition can be achieved by thinking you are a woman.

There is insufficient clarification within the EA which as a result creates a discrepancy between the protected characteristic of sex and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Can anyone tell me what the act actually protects? I understood that it would protect people’s rights in the sense nobody could deny you work or services simply for being transgender. In other words if someone came out trans they couldn’t be sacked or refused service in a restaurant or be subjected to harassment on the grounds of being transgender. This would be a reasonable interpretation.

However, I don’t see how this is being extended to treating transwomen as women.

We aren’t saying Karen White shouldn’t be in a woman’s proson because they are transgender; we are saying they shouldn’t be in a woman’s prison because they are actually biologically male.

We aren’t asking for a particularly cruel punishment because they identify as a woman; we are asking for them to be treated like any other male rapist.

That’s an interesting idea Givenup and has given me something to think about.

sorry - previous post should have read

What is of course neglected from these arguments is that if a biological FEMALE in professional sport was found to have elevated testosterone she would be required medically to have that reduce before being allowed to compete.

The point is penis = male and all that entails surely? Nit picking over a pair of bollocks seems a bit silly to me.

The point is that most of not all of these idiots are using the argument that a penis makes no difference whilst missing the key point thats its the influence of the male hormones since puberty that are the problem and the impact these hormones have had ie build, strength, aggression etc..

The argument is not about genitals themselves and thats what they dont seem to get. Even removing the testosterone whilst it will reduce strength and aggression it wont change the overall build.

What is of course neglected from these arguments is that if a biological male in professional sport was found to have elevated testosterone she would be required medically to have that reduce before being allowed to compete.

The EA doesn’t need to be changed because the provisions to protect sex as a class are being ignored and people like your friend either haven’t noticed or don’t care.

I respectfully disagree.

There is insufficient clarification within the EA which as a result creates a discrepancy between the protected characteristic of sex and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. As I said earlier the best thing in my opinion would be to add one word in to section 7 to clarify that the transsexual people being referred to were medically diagnosed and not self identified. Lets make it "DIAGNOSED transsexual".

I know many will still disagree but at least 99% of the TG umbrella is out (the non medicalised self identifiers).

The point is penis = male and all that entails surely? Nit picking over a pair of bollocks seems a bit silly to me.

There's still no "fairness" about it - being born male means your body develops in ways that give you a massive advantage over women even if you have your bits removed.

I wasnt arguing otherwise, merely commonting on the laughable inaccuracy of the original statement that was biologically incorrect!

n fairness the presence of a penis makes no difference its your testosterone producing testicles that area the problem :-) So by all means keep the penis but kiss your balls goodbye !

There's still no "fairness" about it - being born male means your body develops in ways that give you a massive advantage over women even if you have your bits removed.

Do you seriously reckon that if Novak Djokovic had his bits off he wouldn't still smash Sererna Williams?

The EA doesn’t need to be changed because the provisions to protect sex as a class are being ignored and people like your friend either haven’t noticed or don’t care.

What effect does the presence or absence of a penis have on one's tennis serve?"

In fairness the presence of a penis makes no difference its your testosterone producing testicles that area the problem :-) So by all means keep the penis but kiss your balls goodbye !

Meanwhile, during the past 48 hours one of the greatest female athletes ever - Martina Navratilova - has been bullied on Twitter by a TRA who competes against women and argues that transwomen shouldn't even need to reduce their T levels to do so. This for the crime of expressing the opinion that such cmpetition was unfair to women.

Amongst the comments on a thread discussin this were: one accusing Martina of a "hate" tweet and one asking "What effect does the presence or absence of a penis have on one's tennis serve?"

Just let that sink in: "What effect does the presence or absence of a penis have on one's tennis serve?"

These people are serious about this. Brushing this off as 'not a problem' is somewhat naive...

To some extent, this is a fight over who is most oppressed. The fundamental issue is that if you acknowledge that transwomen are women, then they are oppressed for being women, as well as oppressed for being trans.

If you don't, then it's a bunch of men pretending to be women shoe-horning themselves into women's spaces. If you follow this line of reasoning, then it's these women who are being oppressed.

I can't think of any historical analogy at all.

The idea that a redistribution of rights is OK because it only affects a small number of people is very dangerous, and the GRA was vague on gender and sex - a wedge. So I agree with you when you say:

I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine.

I'm not sure "fine" is quite the right word, but there needs to be a clear delineation in law between the two, with sex-based rights ring fenced. Most of people here want to fight the losing battle that "trans women are men," whereas fighting for sex-based rights does not require this.

The most dangerous (and wrong) TRA arguments, used as a wedge, are that sex is a spectrum, sex is as much a social construct as gender, and from that it follows that a transwoman should have the exactly the same access to protected areas and resources devoted to biologically female persons. This does a side-run around the Equality Act.

If you are a radfem, this is identical to saying "men are demanding access to women's areas."

It seems that most organisations are taking the view that transwomen are women to the extent that they are overruling or dismissing the right to sex segregation, and while the EA2010 allows necessary and proportion sex segretation, that's open to interpretation, and I think I know which way it will go in a court case.

My views are deeply unpopular here, so I'm not sure how much help this it.

NABMALT

Yuck - he looks like JOB.

The trouble is that, for whatever reason, your friend is effectively doing what the guy in this photo is doing, and a lot of people still are. It's useful to ask yourself if someone ignoring a problem and minimizing your concerns is actually a reason to change your mind about the facts in front of you.

In other news I was also very amused by the lecture about our pogonophobia.

I think I can see where you're coming from Notevenmyrealname. You're talking about this bloke who is normally a fair-minded individual, and wondering why he isn't able to see what should become apparent after a bit of reading about this issue. I expect you're thinking that it would be good to get people like this bloke onside to gender critical thinking and wondering why it's not so easy.