Am I alone in wondering where the WOMEN wanting to trans are?

[loveyouradvice]

They feel so invisible....

Everywhere I look there are men who have or are transitioning to be transwomen - on magazine covers, on all women shortlists, in the media....

But where are the natal born women who are/have transitioned?

The only two I've come across are:

• one who detransitioned and wrote movingly about it, after ten years as a transman
• the american high school wrestler who is fighting to be allowed to fight in men's categories

odd and males in that first three paragraphs.

not just fill in a form. At no point does anyone think anyone is perfect!

But that is exactly what Ireland is doing and what you think we should do (to throw away the system)!

Sorry my phone just died and i posted before I could check this post!

A lot to catch up on, especially from desiderio, whose views are strident but I am not attacking her for that.

Has she an argument about trans women being male in behaviour? I suspect it depends to a large degree upon when they transitioned (and probably how far they transitioned).

I certainly do not recognise her generalities about trans women from those I know who transitioned young. But it is easier to see in those who transitioned after living a good part of adult life as men, which I guess is to be expected. Conditioning will have an impact I should think. And being male in all sorts of situations - from relationships, to child rearing to work and promotion is not going to be an invisible aspect of who they are post transition.

But for those who transition young - and especially I think for those who were aware they were trans from early childhood - my experience is that it is usually very different. You tend not ever to be socialised as a male to any real degree, because you do not want it, and you escape from it as fast as possible, and nowadays with transition at school becoming more common this is going to become less and less obvious.

I do not say there is no influence from DNA over personality and lifestyle. I expect there is. But I think individual personality and the depth of transness, the earliness of recognising it and the limit of time lived as male will inevitably impact more.

After all there are female DNA people who may not be trans men but remain women who have assertive traits that you would ascribe to being male, too. So it is not a sharp delineation by biology.

I understand why this is a prevalent view. But I think I can see why it has come about. Most of the long term early transitioners now mature trans women have not gone out there into the world making their trans status a part of them. They have blended in and kept quiet and never campaigned for rights let alone changes to public perceptions.

This is a more recent thing from two sources primarily - the mature older transitioners who have had decades in the male world, who carry their assertiveness with them and speak out. Caitlyn Jenner for example. And the new wave of self identifiers of all ages who are not really wanting to follow the old transsexual route of moving on a spectrum towards their perception of female (whatever that is) but are arguing there is a spectrum and they can identify as they wish and still be on that scale physically and mentally somewhere off the traditional male end.

This is what I have been saying in many of my posts as I have really only started to appreciate this myself the deeper I look into these matters after popping my head above the barricades and looking at a war I never realised was going on.

Whatever the cause of being trans there are two very different expressions of it. One is fairly innocuous and inclusive and seeking inclusion not division. The other, the newer one. is more in your face and exclusive and seeking to redefine everything so that there is greater division and they can choose what they say they are and be wherever they want to be on the gender spectrum.

The whole problem we are having now is trying to make two very different things fit into an act passed 14 years ago for just one of those things.

It has largely worked because it was conceived quite clearly from reading the parliament sessions passing it on the grounds that it would cover small numbers (as you can judge by the 7000 people out of 65 million who have taken advantage of it - mostly of the inclusive not exclusive approach).

Now the call is to totally change the scope of that act to involve hundreds of thousands of others who by definition must be different - because if they were not different then there is no reason why they would not simply be registering under the act as it currently exists.

They cannot or will not because it asks of them things they are unwilling to do - such as medical assessment, proof of blending into society not endeavouring to reshape it and acceptance of the restrictions that are built into that act on choice over spaces.

We all have to take that point on board because it is important. The act that exists has worked for those it was designed to serve with proper checks and balances in place.

Those making a song and dance now from within the trans community have a pretty simple choice that to me seems inarguable.

Do what is sensibly required by the existing act to qualify within it. And if you choose not to accept that is your problem, because the act itself is not at fault. Or the 7000 people who have taken advantage of it over the past 14 years would have not followed that path accepting of the reasons for its necessary caution.

Or, if you feel that you should qualify for some rights (other than available anyway without the GRA) than make your case for what rights you think you should get (inevitably less) via a new act within whatever (seemingly less) restrictions you are willing to include on how you access it.

Between 1972 and 2004 in my case and many others of those 7000 who have got a GRC we lived day to day with limited protection under existing laws and liberties. It was not perfect and the GRA has been an important step forward for those willing to do what society rightly requires to grant those extra rights in return.

But for those unwilling to pay that price for whatever personal reasons they have they are not disenfranchised.

They are in the position the rest of us were for those decades before 2002. It was not perfect, but it was not impossible to live under.

Of course, we were happy living our lives and getting along with everyone. That appears not to be enough in the modern age.

But perhaps it should be, or those asking for more should accept that you get respect and rights from society only when you demonstrate reciprocal respect and protection of their rights to the rest of society.

Excellent post @Jayceedove

Desiderio, the 5 x T levels v natal women for trans women to be allowed to compete fairly seems silly, if that is indeed the rule.

This is not something I know much about but I have indicated in other posts on here that the rules seem to loose and the decisions on competitiveness should be done on a range of factors that cover all the main perceived advantage areas that women fear trans women would have.

This is not easy because there are big variations within gender groups.

You judge on height and weight - well my sister in law is nearly 6 foot and I am 7 inches smaller. She weighs three stone more than me.

There will be similar inbalances between two non trans women.

You can have similar issues with muscle mass depending on genes and training methods and so on.

Not saying there will be no imbalance generally between trans and non trans. I guess there will be. But again that will depend on many factors such as age when hormones were taken, whether puberty blockers were taken, whether surgery has occurred and so on.

If you lump all trans women into one group what you will actually do is ensure that all those who transitioned early and physically will never win because they will be at a massive disadvantage against all the trans people who did little or nothing or very late and so retain male bodies to a degree likely to be overwhelming.

This, I believe, was one reason this has not been done.

The sensible route seems to be to have a tighter control over levels and statistics that a trans women would have to have to be allowed to compete.

For example, if the limit of 5 x the T level of natal women allowed for trans women is actual that you cite then that is obviously too high.

Most trans women know their T levels as we have to have them checked annually along with oestrogen levels and other things.

My own has been nowhere near that and is actually slightly below the normal female level not five times higher.

I imagine this is to do with whether or not you have surgery as that is bound to effect T levels if you are not producing them versus if you need drugs to limit them if your body is still doing.

But then in situations where this is important you simply insist upon T levels that require surgery to achieve, then it is up to a trans woman wanting to compete to qualify if they choose.

This is surely less about unfairness and exclusion and all about finding the appropriate levels of various bodily parameters that are achievable and reasonable IF trans women wish to compete in an event without an unfair edge.

@IG

I have been taking about different thing, including the law as it is at present and the law as it might be in the future.

I'm not trying to get into thought police stuff, I would honestly defend your right to discuss sex and gender in any terms you wanted to, I found you to be nothing but respectful.

To reiterate, I do think that the new laws have worked well in Ireland, it's an accepted fact that the laws have worked well here and I can't see why it would be different in the UK.

I don't think that any new laws are going to be introduced in the UK. I don't think that there is the time or the inclination to do anything about it in this Parliament.

However, I think that someone has finally admitted that their agenda isn't to stop new laws but to roll back the ones we've been living with for the last 13 years, with very little evidence that they've done anyone any harm.

Your absolutely right about the 'you can't prove all trans men are no threat' being a straw man argument. I was just trying to be polite.

The GRA 2004 does make exceptions for sport:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/19

A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.

However, I think that someone has finally admitted that their agenda isn't to stop new laws but to roll back the ones we've been living with for the last 13 years, with very little evidence that they've done anyone any harm.

Like you said earlier, an opinion isn't a fact (or an agenda).

I see, because they're men you mean rather than women - that would be the advantage in certain sports (all sports really, but in some they could probably kill a woman).

So they state clearly men have an advantage when they are taking part in women's sport. As we all know of course.

"Fallon Fox defeated Tamikka Brents just two minutes into the first round of the match. Brents suffered a damaged orbital bone, which required seven staples, and a concussion." These guys seem to get it, I think men really get it.

comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/m-to-f-transgender-mma-fighter-nearly-kills-oppone-1681885/

As I've said, I don't know much about sport but here was someone up thread who seemed to be a fairly serious athlete who had a different opionion. Her's a Washington Post article that seems fairly well researched but trigger warning they use the term 'cis'.

www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-unfair-advantage-at-the-olympics/2016/08/05/08169676-5b50-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?utm_term=.d79415903133

Respectable as I said obviously no sport that allows a massive imbalance that can cause physical harm to another person has to be moderated to try to avoid that.

I know nothing about boxing at all but I assume that is why they have weighs in and stop fights going ahead if they are not within limits.

Something similar could surely happen with trans women. Fulfil the requirements or do not compete - just set the right requirements.

I don't think it is as simple as all trans women are just men and so should compete with women.

But I do agree there will be situations where that is essentially true and so should be protected against.

And that means tighter controls than now.

"To reiterate, I do think that the new laws have worked well in Ireland, it's an accepted fact that the laws have worked well here and I can't see why it would be different in the UK. "

Who have they worked well for?
How have they worked well?

Thank you for saying I've been respectful. It is a hot topic for many of us. You seem very calm which makes me wonder if this is also a hot topic for you or more of an academic one?

I mean that as a genuine question.

"I don't think that any new laws are going to be introduced in the UK. I don't think that there is the time or the inclination to do anything about it in this Parliament."

I do hope you are right. However, very sadly the Labour party has royally fucked themselves by chasing after self id, IMHO.

And organisations like the girl guides have actually done so ahead of the Labour party!

I won't start on that as there is a whole bother thread on that on MN about both!

So this little dalliance with self Id will have potentially dented GG and the Labour party for years to come.

Hope the radicals pushing for it are happy (radical trans and non-trans people -nothing to do with transrxual people who were living their lives without major scrutiny before this happened ).

A few may have chosen to go on the attack as the best line of defence. But most women I've heard from, and trans women too, just don't want self id.

The only reason we are not/ do not appear more united (trans women with GRC and natal women) is anyone who puts their head above the parapet gets shit slung at them.

What's that phrase about beware those you cannot criticise!

This is what I mean about holding people to different standards, MMA fighting is a hidiously violent 'sport'. It's sort of boxing with kicking on speed. A young man died after a fight last year and broken facial bones are seen as being par for the course. Studies show that fighters sustain brain injuries in a third of fights.

www.irishtimes.com/sport/study-shows-mma-fighters-suffer-brain-injury-in-one-third-of-bouts-1.2607951

"Fallon Fox defeated Tamikka Brents just two minutes into the first round of the match. Brents suffered a damaged orbital bone, which required seven staples, and a concussion."

Jaycee: very valuable contributions from you, but I disagree.

Everything in our DNA from when we were first a twinkle in the eye is at work in our cells - bone density, respiratory system, vascular systems, muscular strength - these are not easily comparable at a weigh in etc.

Men are just built/made differently to women at the very basic level of cells making up every part of us. It just doesn't get changed by altering outer sexual characteristics/hormone treatment, it really doesn't.

A man and a woman same height, same weight - one will be able to lift furniture out of the house and be very useful to have around and the other one's stamina would be flagging a lot earlier.

It is biology at cellular level - not sexual characteristics, sexual attraction, preferences, female brain/male brain, personality. It is in every cell of us who we are.

That's why women know what being a woman is and men, I'm afraid can only imagine or create a stereotype idea of what it is to be female. We just are.

Despite what some people will try and frighten others into believing, no one is allowed to decide that they are going to be a woman, get their certificate two week later and decide to enter a woman's space. They have to have been living as a woman for, at least, two years.

Not now. With self-ID though, which is generally peoples problem with this whole thing? And with many businesses trying to get 'ahead of the law' some actually are just allowing anyone to
decide one day that they are actually female that day and get changed with the women/girls (see topshop, swim guidance, etc). But yes, just trying to frighten people

The situation in Ireland is quite different to here too. As Ireland seem to have kept exemptions, where it is proposed that the exemptions be removed if self ID comes in here. Which is clearly a huge disaster waiting to happen. Not scaremongering or whatever. Allowing anyone to 'change sex' by filling out a form, whilst also removing the exemptions..I really just don't understand how anyone could support that.

I do think though, that the GRC process could be changed a bit. Maybe the cost lowered and the removal of this 'live as the opposite sex for 2 years' stuff...because what really is 'living as' a woman/man? Following stereotypes? I don't actually understand what they mean by this. A friend of of mine is transsexual and has a GRC and apparently she had to wear dresses/skirts and such for all meetings to prove she was serious about wanting to 'live as' a woman, which seems stupid to me as obviously thats just stereotypical nonsense that not all women follow anyway. It has been said on here, that 'living as' the opposite sex is just a paperwork exercise too, like, bank statements in new name, letters in new name, dating back 2 years. If its this, then I think its a bit pointless too? IDK some of the requirements seem to be a bit daft

I do not think the requirement for a diagnosis of sex dysphoria should be removed though. Not at all. The reason I think this is I do not understand how anyone can claim to be trans without suffering dysphoria. I think the majority of the arsehole shouty 'female penis' type transactivists are these mysterious 'trans without dysphoria' types. I would actually absolutely love anyone to explain to me how anyone can be trans without suffering from sex dysphoria?

I'm really not bothered about what gender identity someone has, (I'm fairly sure mine doesn't align with female and that's ok). It is the conflation with sex that causes issues.

Indeed.

Not really related to your post but when these topic go the 'its scaremongering nonsense' route..especially when on the topic of prisons, it makes me think of this document

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.pdf

The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this.

Whole PDF is quite eye opening actually. But no, nothing to worry about. Move along here.

She's bemused by the idea that women are too cowered to challenge anyone's right to visit the ladies if they don't fit into a narrow stereotype

'Cowered'? What a lovely choice of word to describe women who may be alarmed and feel unsafe if there is a male person in what is generally known to be a female only area. And its not about not fitting a stereotype at all, its about being the wrong sex. But you know this already

------

Again, I will use this post to lament how things were ticking along just fine before. Women turned a blind eye to male people in female areas in order to be 'nice' and inclusive, or whatever. Its transactivists who have ruined this, not feminists, but its easier to blame feminists for it all I guess. Like usual. Honour system we had in place worked fine. Transactivists (not ALL, but seemingly most) then started yelling about how male and female are not actually real groups of people, male people ARE female, and vice versa. How penises can be female organs, how its trans-exclusionary to say periods are a womens issue, how lesbians are bigots for being attracted to female people rather than 'gender identities'..and all the other batshit crazy stuff.

And as usual, its women and girls getting the shitty end of the stick. but also, transsexual people get caught in the crossfire, when really, they just want to live their lives like everyone else. Its these new 'transtrenders' that are the issue here. Its transactivists and its MRAs. Its never been about transsexual people. Just like the changes being fought for (selfID and removal of exemptions) are not about transsexual people either, nor will they actually benefit transsexual people. Transsexual people can already get a GRC if they want to, as they have sex dysphoria, and will be transitioning in some way to alleviate the dysphoria somewhat. So, would easily be able to get a GRC. The cost is even wavered, if the person applying is on a low income. Removing the 'dysphoria' part of the process will ONLY benefit MRA types and perverts looking to take advantage, tbh. It will not benefit transsexual people in any way at all. But, TRAs have done a magnificent job of attaching themselves to transsexual people (along with conflating gay rights with the rubbish that they are fighting for..when in actual fact much of the trans narrative is homophobic, especially the push for transitioning children) and making out they are fighting for them. They have also done a magnificent job of abusing people into silence on this issue. Transsexual people included, with their very own 'truscum' label, like feminists have their own 'TERF' one. #NoDebate worked amazingly well for a long time, but its falling apart now. Too many people are thinking a little deeper into the whole thing, talking with each other about it, and as soon as dialogue happens, the whole house or cards falls down.

So its clearly very unfortunate for them that, mumsnet HQ..after much agonizing over rules and such not that long ago, actually allowed debate on the issue, and as such, word got out about the proposed changes, before they happened..and once people started to understand quite what TRAs are asking for, the tide started to turn. Hence Tories kicking the proposed changes into the long grass, or so it seems. Mumsnet really did seem to be one of the first mainstream places that did allow proper debates on this. And I have no doubt that HQ have taken a LOT of shit for allowing discussion, I expect they come in for a lot of abuse every day, even every hour from rabid transactivists. But they conitnue to allow free speech. And more and more women seem to be coming around. Most transsexual people seem to be against self-ID to start with, as they can see that it would in no way benefit them and can also see how it has the potential to be abused on a huge scale.

Being against self-ID (and the removal of the exemptions) does not make anyone transphobic as the few on every trans thread claim. Nor does being able to see how predatory men would abuse it. Or pointing out how predatory men have already abused it.

I have no doubt that when this hits mainstream properly, the huge majority of people are actually against it. See, at the moment, when someone hears 'transwoman/transman', they conjure up an image of someone who is post-op, or at least some way through transition with wishes to go as far as possible for themselves (ie. some cannot have surgery obviously for health reasons, money issues..etc). Not Gary next door who gets a hardon when wearing fishnets on a Friday night who could just fill out a form and go strutting into the nearest womens changing rooms. Or Nigel, the guy up the road who HATES women so much and would absolutely delight in anything that would make them uncomfortable who discovers that he could legally declare himself a woman with no changes at all. Or 'Ada Wells', who describes women as cuntscum, gets lesbians ejected from Uni for being, well, lesbians (female people attracted to female people, not attracted to people with penises). And actively tries to recruit children to puberty blockers, strutting his way around pride marches with signs saying 'puberty is optional kids'. Or Bob the multiple rapist, who can get a GRC and next time he is caught he will probably be housed in the female estate, more victims, and they literally cannot even attempt to get away from him, brilliant. Afterall, there is no difference between male and female people, right? Its all about 'gender identity', not biological reality. Its just totally random that people with penises commit almost all sexual crime, and the victims are overwhelmingly people with vaginas. No reason for it, just randomness. 'Male violence', whats that? Transphobe! Its just 'people violence'.

Everyone I speak to IRL is gobsmacked that this is not about transsexual people. They are under the impression that it is, as thats how its been framed. Once they understand what 'self-ID' actually is, they are against it, with a passion. Fucking Jeremy Corbyn doesn't even understand it it seems, whilst saying Labour will change things to allow it. When asked about it, he went into stuff like 'these people have been through a long and painful process' and such, when asked abiout self-ID. What exactly is long and painful about simply declaring one day 'I am a woman/man'? Or filling in a form? Unless its an ATOS form for disability benefits. Which from my experience, is actually a long and painful form to fill out. Both mentally and physically (seriously, I sat for so long my back hurt like mad and my hand kept cramping up, took literally hours to do it). My god the 'gatekeeping' involved in that is ridiculous, and even with mountains of medical proof of your illness, it seems to be totally random and usually against you (a bunch of lies added in for good measure, of course). I wish I could self identify for disability benefits, even though I do have the proof needed to be awarded them properly, just the system is so biased that I have another 6 months or so to wait until I get my tribunal date, at which stage I will get my award, a huge backpayment, and a couple of weeks later another invitation to go for a 'medical' and go through it all over again.

Went off a bit ranty there but don't have the heart to just not post it as it took so long.

TL;DR - Self-ID will harm female people, and transsexual people alike. And transactivists are wankbadgering lesbophobic MRAs in disguise much of the time (not all transactivists are like that, disclaimer. But most seem to be). And its not scaremongering, no matter how many times the odd few people try to make out that it is. Many women can see the problems with it, and most transsexual people can too. Pretending that issues are not there, does not make the issues go away, I wish it did.

Jaycee I am so glad you have stuck around in this discussion. I have spoke to you on DS for a fair while too and you always seem really calm, even in the face of very annoying posters (I am possibly considered one, especially with my long rants like this ) . I hope you do not take anything in my post as a slight on you or anything, fairly sure you won't but just incase. My posts often are read the total wrong way (might be the way I write them) and I do seem to cause offense when I really do not mean to. I have absolutely no issue at all with people like yourself. Its this ideology in itself, and transactivists, along with 'transgender' people, who are not actually transsexual at all but using the whole thing to bully lesbians, or to just take the piss tbh. I think there is a huge difference between transsexual and 'transgender'. And it seems many transsexual people agree too..and why wouldn't they really, given 'transgender' includes fetishists and drag queens, along with many other people who have nothing at all to do with 'transsexual'. I thought until quite recently that transgender was just another way to say transsexual. I now know that it really is not, and the conflating of the two is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

That article was enlightening. Of course, I knew some of the science and, as I say, definitely knew the T x 5 levels of trans women was not true in my case.

Personally I still think the surgery rule should have remained in place as it speeds up the equalisation of advantages even if hormones only over many years eventually catches up.

Sports careers are not lifetimes long. They are short. So time is a key factor in fairness.

I believe the rules should err on the side of caution in terms of protecting natal women but not entirely rule out trans women who can fulfil the rules from competing.

Then they must choose how far they push their transition into the level required for fairness.

It should be the trans competitors responsibility to do that not just change the limits because it would allow more in.

The perception of unfairness is not unreasonable and the onus should be on the trans competitor to go that little extra to reassure.

Respectable, I respect your opinion and, of course, there is some merit in it.

But I can also assure you that there is a marked change in things like bone density and muscle mass over a lifetime for a trans women.

This is why we are as prone to similar bone conditions as natal women with age and why I have to get my brother or nephew to shift furniture as I certainly cannot.

Not got time to post in depth but wanted to drop off the following dispassionate article from Law In Sport about trans participation in sports. It handily has links at the bottom so you can see the entry restrictions for a wide variety of different sports, although some may have been updated since its writing.

www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/uk/the-participation-of-trans-athletes-in-sport-a-transformation-in-approach

God, missed loads of posts as well, I'll have to catch up later!

I have not created or aspired to any stereotype of being a woman, either. Though I accept that some trans women might do that and I can see why you might think that.

There is also some recent research suggesting that the genetic sex division of every cell is not as uniform as you might think. I forget where the link was but it surprised me when I read it as I had assumed it would be too.

Seems I- assuming that research is verified - that body organs can have different gender marker make up within the same body. Nobody seems to know why.

@Stillscreaming the research that article is based on using 8 long distance runners who were transgender male to female, and looked at about 8 races each. It specifically states in the research that it only applies to long distance running and shouldn't be used to apply to all sports. In fact, it states that shorter distances, power events and throwing/jumping are likely to be more affected as muscle mass is still on average higher in transitioned (hormone treatment and surgery) transwomen than women. Their own data showed that the shorter the race the more advantage the transwomen had over women.

As others have said, the current rules around testosterone mean that the levels allowed are actually at the bottom end of the male range, and way above anything a woman would have. So it is likely that the research would not show the same reduction in advantage if done again now.

I think that allowing transwomen to participate in contact sport with women is extremely dangerous and will result in injury to the women involved. In fact this has already happened.

But it seems that fairness and safety towards women in sport will be thrown aside as totally irrelevant and utterly unimportant in the face of the need to be inclusive of transwomen in all spheres.

@IG

The new laws have worked well for everyone. There hasn't been a single case of fraudulent application and people who aren't trans haven't notice any difference in their day to day lives.

Here's an open letter from a well known Irish feminist group to 'We Need to Talk':

feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

Both the Labour Party and the GG set their own membership rules. Their actions have nothing whatsoever to do with proposed (or no longer proposed:-)) changes in the law.

I'd agree that there is a lot of shit slung around, both sides have members who've behaved appallingly. I'd like to see all that make threats or hurl abuse punished to the full extent of the law:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/14/head-of-transgender-childrens-charity-mermaids-targeted-with-vile-abuse-and-threats/

How is a fraudulent application determined? I can't see how it could possibly be, as gender identity is an internal feeling and so couldn't possibly be verified externally by anyone else as either fraudulent or not.

We have women's sport for the same reason we have leagues, age categories, disability categories and sex categories. The primary purpose of all of these things is to ensure as many people as possible are able to participate in that sport in a way which is both safe and competitive for them and the other competitors - i.e. no forgone conclusion.

And THIS is why we have womens sport. As women competing against men would never (maybe an anomaly somewhere or other, but definitely almost never) win against men. As men have a biological advantage.

So we accept that men and women are different biologically and one has a huge advantage. But then, throw this all away because a man says he is actually a woman. Makes no sense to me at all. Maybe someone who is all for ending sex segregation in sport could explain to me why on the one hand we accept that its unfair, but on the other hand say 'oh who cares' and allow it, but only in some cases, where 'gender identity' does not match with sex.

Laurel Hubbard should open a few peoples eyes relatively soon anyway, given they are apparently competing in the Commonwealth Games for NZ In the womens league of course.

'Cowered'? What a lovely choice of word to describe women who may be alarmed and feel unsafe if there is a male person in what is generally known to be a female only area. And its not about not fitting a stereotype at all, its about being the wrong sex. But you know this already hmm.

Oh no, my wife isn't the wrong sex for the ladies loo, she just doesn't fit into a narrow gender stereotype, she's a lovely, big butch lesbian. She's not trans herself but I've seen her look in envy at her former big butch lesbian friends who've now transitioned and can piss in peace.