Talking to non GC people

Some sports might use different types of testing..

Sports don't individually get to choose their own definitions of men and women. Those terms have legal meanings within the Equality Act, which permits sex segregation in sport under specific circumstances. And when it permits that, it is only along the legally defined meanings of men and women. There is no room for fudge.

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The point is to obey the laws of this country. It's that simple.

It's more complicated than is set out in the OPs argument.

When the words "more complicated" are used in this context you can always be entirely certain the person using them hasn't the faintest idea of biology or modern laboratory techniques.

@nicepotofteai think you are probably right. Many individual stories are in response to claims things never happen. These claims I would say are idiotic. maybe it is just my very statistical brain….. I have the same instinct when people knock on the door asking for charity donations. They go into this whole thing of asking about my personal experience and telling me about poor Johnny or Jane…. And I just always ask them to jump to the broad facts (which often they don’t know)- both about the issue and about the split of costs and operational approaches in their charity, so I can make a rational decision on what is actually happening and where my money can have the most leverage. I don’t need to be moved about the issue first. I already care about Johnny and Jane. I know what that tactic is about, and it makes me impatient and feel manipulated. But it’s absolutely central to persuasive communication techniques- from politicians’ speeches to charity drives to planet earth documentaries (always zero in first on one individual ‘character’ before extrapolating to concepts or large groups)….. any communication trainer worth their salt will recommend this, so I guess it’s good to do. It Just doesn’t work for my brain and I do think in polarised debates like this one it can become almost like a retaliatory competition, with each side determined to dismiss the concerns and stories of the other. Statistics of course can be used to manipulate too but I feel more agency to dig down and find the information I believe is key.

Keep going. You do us a favour.

Ha ha yes, oops, 'stood out' i meant!

Yes it's just all so old isn't it? Not welcoming enough, not nice enough, too shrill, yadda yadda yadda, all criticisms which are never aimed at men.

As if the real crime here is women darng to think and speak for ourselves (which of course, it is).

Well said. And nice Freudian slip (?) by the way!

Too many requests are being made of GC people in that original post. It reminds me of the thread we recently had in which we were told we were not being welcoming enough. That we women wouldn't win people over to the GC 'side' by being unwelcoming to potential converts.

The poster says she wants a conversation if 'anyone can be bothered'. As Helle pointed out (patiently ignoring the dig), we are here. But we don't need to be told what to do.

“So Helleofabore for example values precise logical thinking and has (in my humble opinion, which may be wrong) some degree of impatience with people who haven't yet thought things through.”

Not quite rapid. But ok.

It could be said that I lack patience for people who don’t come across as posting in good faith. I have always been more than happy to have good faith discussions. And answers questions as fully and bluntly honestly as possible.

It could also be said that I aim for precise and accurate language, and I ask many direct questions because I want to understand with greater depth what someone is thinking. And I will run the logic of their posts through my head to work out what is accurate and what is misinformation and where that misinformation might come from.

What 'cis' women?

@financialcareerstuff Can't find the original post to quote you, but this stupid out for me in a PP's quote:
GC people could make more time to...

Let me just stop you there sunshine.

I've got enough to bloody do between work, kids, illness, aged parents, other politics, trying to remain somewhat healthy, etc.

Im now having to fight for women's rights all over again because the genderists have decided that I can't even have my own words that describe my sex class and my oppression.

Why the ever loving fuck do you think I should 'make more time' to deal with sad men's hurt feelings just because they can't cope with the reality of their sex?

Fuck that. I'm not their mum.

Which "cis" women?

Because that's not possible.

Or are you using 'cis women' to mean men who were incorrectly registered female at birth?

Can you see the problem with mangling language and changing the meaning of words? We now cannot even have this straightforward discussion without having to try to define what you mean when you use the word woman.

They also thought GRCs were only for those who have had 'the op' and 'there aren't many of them, are there? '

The irony being that their assumption - that a GRC must be dependent on castration - was ruled to be a breach of human rights by the ECtHR.

What current testing do you refer to when you say that a transwoman will pass a test??

Do you mean a testosterone test after a sex test has established that the person is male?

Particular when even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’

cough Upton cough

For anyone interested in the science as to why male people are excluded from female sports, including those male people who have a Difference of sex development that led to them being mistakenly categorised as female at birth, here is a thread with the evidence.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1

This thread also has some calculations on just how many female athletes are negatively impacted by one male person's inclusion in a category that they should not be competing in.

It also goes through just what fair competition means, and why male athletes lowering testosterone levels simply don't provide fair competition for female athletes.

It also discusses the many other fallacious arguments that have been put forwards such as the Phelps fallacy etc.

A 17 year old male family friend earnestly told me and my husband that "there are these awful people who think all trans women are child molesters and shouldn't be in women's toilets, it's so transphobic"

While I was busy choking on my beer, my husband calmly said "If they really think that, then that might be transphobic. But do they really think that, or is that your interpretation?" Which i thought was a bloody good answer and hopefully made earnest teen think a little.

Talking about single sex spaces with some of the family at Christmas was depressing - they still believe that you can only 'get a sex change' if 2 psychiatrists sign off on it' and couldn't seem to understand that de facto self ID means anyone who says they are can access women's spaces. They also thought GRCs were only for those who have had 'the op' and 'there aren't many of them, are there? '

If you believe that then I can understand why you might think people who don't think TWAW are being mean. They can't see what the problem is because their beliefs won't allow them to.

@financialcareerstuff

I think GC could do more to distinguish between extremists and normal people whose identity has been co-opted in many ways. And that extremists are actually damaging normal trans’ people’s cause.

You're drawing a distinction where there's none. Extremists are normal trans people. The only differences are opinions and vehemence.

There is a huge dissonance in most people’s minds between the trans people they have actually met and the ‘activist/extremist’ campaigners that GC are often talking about when they are fighting their fight for women.

Any average trans person can turn activist at the drop of a hat, as too many women have discovered the hard way.

If GC people don’t draw that distinction themselves, then they can sound prejudiced/demonizing/stigmatizing or mocking of very pleasant, struggling people in the lives of the people they are talking to.

GC people can't draw a distinction that doesn't exist. Some trans people are very nice, some are arseholes, with all the spectrum in-between, but they are all equally trans.

Similarly, I think better distinction needs to be drawn between trans and cross dressing. When GC people talk about a man ‘sticking a dress on’ not making him a woman, it erases the difference and trivialises a very deeply held feeling of gender disphoria, as something entirely different.

That distinction very officially doesn't exist anymore. Both cross-dressers and gender dysphoric people are equally covered under the trans umbrella. More generally, there's no such thing as a "true trans" person. In particular, it's considered transphobic to require a feeling of gender dysphoria to consider someone trans.

Another distinction I think needs to be drawn more often is the difference between acceptance (which we hopefully all support) and co-opting (which is a big problem)Z I think GC people could make more time to legitimize the existence and concerns of ‘mainstream’ folk who identify as trans and even suggesting solutions for these people, rather than just saying ‘tough luck’.

GC people have been arguing for third spaces for literally years. But TRAs don't want to hear about them, or about any other solution that might be offered.

The use of 'cis' is a good reminder that the term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

When cis is used, there is no word left for female people. Using it includes a group of male people in the word 'female' or 'woman'.

Particular when even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

This graphic might be helpful.

It doesn't necessarily equate with being cis or trans.

The test is for male advantage. It has nothing to do with identity, but a trans women is by definition male, so would definitely be excluded.

Some sports might use different types of testing..

Why when the standard initial screening test is more straightforward than a drugs test and only has to be done once?

It's more complicated than is set out in the OPs argument.

I think you are making it more complicated than it is.

As someone who is not gender critical I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The rules exclude men. There is no reason to include some men, but not others. You might as well just have a mixed sex competition.

To me that's not protecting women from men, its pure transphobia

Do you perhaps not know much about this subject and the reasons why sport is segregated by sex?

Which 'cis' women?

No i dont think they are but some cis women fail it
And trans women that pass whatever testing the sporting body has decided on should be allowed to compete.

Male people with DSDs that are excluded from the female sports category are not 'female' by definition for many sports. And I expect that with Coventry at the helm, this will be resolved at IOC level considering WA, Swimming and other major sporting federations have already adopted the definition for female being a version:

of 'a person with a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether that gamete production ever happens'. With exceptions then for a group of people with male karyotype but who have never processed or some don't produce testosterone so can be classified as female at the moment for sport.

You may get cis women who do not pass the testing to compete as women

It is not complicated. Testing is reliable and has been recommended to be done as early as possible in an athlete's career and done for ALL female people in that category.

"if those trans women passed the testing of the sporting regulatory body in order to compete. To me that's not protecting women from men, its pure transphobia"

Can you please point out a male person with a transgender identity that has passed a sex test to compete in a female sporting event under the new regulations where those male people are excluded?

Can you elaborate what you mean by this:
You may get cis women who do not pass the testing to compete as women

What possible testing would lead to this conclusion? Apart from someone guessing based on looks- which doesn't happen in sports sex testing.

Can you give an example of this having actually happened?

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women just for the sake of it

But Its not just 'for the sake of it', is it? Why do you think we have women's sports at all?

https://www.shewon.org/

Transwomen are men and retain male physical advantage which is why they should not compete in the female category.

The cheek swab tests that are being introduced can accurately detect sex. Women are not going to fail these tests and be prevented from competing

And are you aware that the test to qualify to box in the women's events at the last Olympics was does it say female in your passport

This is absolute nonsense though.

Sex testing is highly accurate. No men are 'passing' sex testing.

And then we get into the discussion about who arbitrates who is and isn't really transgender.

Yet, when you then drill down into specific incidents, quite often it shows that the male person was already transgender when they committed the crime.

I did this analysis a few months back and found that some of them were in prison for a second time or finally in prison after being given a non-custodial sentence previously because a judge was convinced that it would be detrimental to that male person's health to go to prison when they were transgender.

Women are put into a no win situation when we have to justify that a group of male people have not magically lost their male pattern of criminality and with their physical advantages they are still as much risk to female people as all the other male people who are excluded. And there is no way to even collect and present the data accurately.

We are called right wing, bigots, akin to racists, and a slew of other things on thread after thread. Because some people cannot understand why female people need single sex spaces and that just having locking cubicles in a female single sex toilet isn't enough. The discussion has barely moved on since the Bryson case.