Follow on thread III - Feeling sad and weary that feminists and trans-women are constantly pitted against one another.

[SophoclesTheFox]

I don't know if it has the legs to sustain a third thread, but kudos to perfectly for the impeccable timing of finally answering a question on the second to last post before the thread filled up. Genius.

here is the second thread

As I am now the OP, I wonder if this gives me the right of veto over the resolutions that we apparently made in the Great Accords of 2017?

Perfectly-what are your thoughts about the gathering of crime statistics, transwomen competing in sport and the issue of intimate care in hospitals and care homes?

Every time someone gets close to agreeing with you, perfectly, you wheel round and change your position. That's what I mean by "bait and switch". It's impossible to agree with you, because the goal posts constantly move. You're doing it again with this most recent post.

If there is an "us and them" dynamic happening here, how do you think your habit of referring to posters as "you lot" feeds that dynamic?

Bertand - Crime stats - I have no idea and I see the point that a MTF trans woman could be recorded as female in a sexual crime.

Sport - I'm with the olympics committee and a person should have transitioned.

Care homes etc - keep the law as it is now. Any trans woman is subject to the same DRB checks as any other woman if they have access to vulnerable people.

Sport - I'm with the olympics committee and a person should have transitioned

Fantastic. Here's a real debate we can have.

What do you mean by "transitioned"? At the moment, the requirement is only that the competitor has lowered their testosterone level to an amount that would have a female competitor barred for doping.

It takes no account of VO2 max, biomechanical differences, the historic effects of testosterone (ie having a male puberty and the musculature that's laid down during that time), arm span, hand size, differences in body fat.

Do you think it is a level playing field? What about, for example, Laurel Hubbard, a mediocre male weightlifter who transitioned in their thirties and now breaks women's records? Is that fair to the women now coming in second and third place behind this competitor?

Perfectly-so you have "no idea" about crime statistics-does that mean you haven't thought about it?

Sport-what does "transitioned" mean in this context?

Care homes- so long as a DBS check has been done, vulnerable should submit to intimate care from male bodies people?

My feeling is that the law needs to be changed around 'gender recogniton' and for it to be legally understood that 'sex change' is impossible.

For clarity I believe before the law a person should remain their birth sex. It is confusing to have humans legally recognised to be metamorphosising butterflies who can completely 'become an entirely new person' leaving their old personality, entire lived life and the 'dead' name (and possible criminal record) that belonged to them behind like a coocoon -and to be viewed and treated that way.

Regarding sport, I think this is something trans people have to forgo competing in unless TIMs compete as their birth sex and TIFs who have not had hormone treatment compete in theirs.

Regarding working with vulnerable people , transpeople should disclose and be recognised as their birth sex. I think it is cruel and abusive for people in positions of power (such as working with the vulnerable) to gaslight those who they have power over.

Caveat - TIFs who have hormone treatment and 'pass' should not be working with the vulnerable as a female, because this might cause distress.

Bertrand and Sophacles I assume we are talking in the context of the GRA proposal?

If so, as per the last thread, I can see why the concerns are there with self ID. Therefore my position is keep the law as it currently stands.

• MTF trans women who have a GRC are recorded as women in crime stats

• a person needs to have transitioned as per the Olympics committee regulations before competing in sport

• Keep the exceptions in the Equality Act (outlined by Pencils earlier in the thread) which protect women in vulnerable scenarios:

There is an exception in the Equality Act (<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5" target="_blank">schedule 3, Part 7, para 28) that permits female only services and spaces to exclude transwomen, even those with a GRC, where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

There is another exception (<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/1" target="_blank">schedule 9, part 1, para 1) that permits a female only employment role to exclude transwomen, even those with a GRC, where this is a genuine occupational requirement.

Fair enough. It’s natal women under the bus then.

But do you accept that TIMs will change, and have likely already changed, female sex crime statistics? Does this bother you?

Well then, I disagree. I think the Olympic committee's recommendation is poor science and will harm women's sports, which is directly contrary to their constitution, which aims to open sport up to everyone.

I also think you don't understand the points I was making about the differences between male and female bodies and how transitioning makes absolutely no difference to most of hem.

I know very little about sport. But I do know that my very sporty son could beat most girls his age in most sports he took part in by the age of about, maybe, 13? He was stronger than me by then too.

And the crime statistics thing is a positive dream for MRA.

And a nightmare for service providers.

Wouldn't the world be boring if we all agreed.

I have reached my own conclusions which is the current law provides all the necessary protections to women and trans people. Therefore I oppose the new GRA amendments put forward regarding self ID.

Many of you are not happy with the law as it currently stands and some have suggested that trans women should never be legally recognised as women. You say this goes against biological fact. This is a position I could never back as a 'trans inclusionary' feminist.

So essentially is it that what we would like is that if there are any changes to the gra that no matter where on the spectrum a person wishes to place their gender identity regardless of appearance or medical interventions or grc that they still be considered to be their biological sex for those exceptions currently in the ea - so when a womens refuge advertises a role this is usually made explicitly clear - and as long as people know the ea it should be fine. How would it work where jobs are open to both men and women like care work / midwifery. If you have a transitioning midwife how do we make it so that the employee is able to work without having to state that they are born male everytime they give treatment or do we need to gain consent at the start - i briefly had a male midwife (cant remember if he had a different job title)during one long labour and was asked if it was ok and i got the impression that this is usual practice - however i have a feeling that to be asked is it ok to have biological male with a female gender identity to be your birth midwife might be more complex to navigate.

Once one has a GRC it's against the law for third parties to disclose the fact, isn't it?

I don't think trans people should be recorded as their acquired gender in crime statistics. I think they should have a separate category. This would help understand the nature of crime against trans people and put in place appropriate crime prevention measures for trans people. And it would mean that trends in crimes committed by women wouldn't be skewed by the addition of people born male.

SophoclesTheFox mentions Laurel Hubbard, a mediocre male weightlifter who transitioned in their thirties.

As far as I can tell, this bloke has never "transitioned" in the transgender meaning, he has never claimed to be a woman trapped inside a man's body, to have a feminine soul, etc. He has made very vague statements, e.g. he is pursuing his own path.

All he is done is (temporarily) suppressed his testosterone to the level required to meet the requirements to compete with women.

I agree. Demographically they are a different population which ought to be measured under equality legislation.

Indeed, crome. I should have put some scare quotes round "transitioned", but doubtless much would have been made of that!

Well at least we know where perfectly stands.

She supports the reporting of male crime as being committed by women, as long as those men have been taking female hormones for a while. She's quite happy that rape and sexual assault figures are being, and will be skewed.

She supports women's sporting events being won by men, as long as those men have testosterone levels in the lower realms of normal for men. She doesn't mind if a 6'4 male-bodied person beats the shit out of women in a boxing ring/on a rugby pitch. If women don't like it, they should (presumably) just give up competing.

She supports vulnerable women being forced to submit to intimate care and treatment by men, as long as those men declare themselves to be women. She supports rape survivors having physical exams from male-bodied people.

That's sorted that out.

Still waiting for that apology SpartonDregs and RogueBiscuit)

For what exactly?

Rogue, I think she wants you to apologise for her not understanding your posts - or something like that

You do go on a lot about various types of fallacies perfectly. Either you are trotting out these without understanding wtf they actually mean, or you know perfectly well and using them to try to 'bait and switch'.

But if you do understand them, then you will know that the problem is that there is no logic on the side of the TRAs. It might be time to go back to your philosophy 101 class and read up on those fallacies.

You will get there in the end.

And realise that none of us are trying to be mean girls to trans people, but looking to protect the rights of women, children and trans people

Many of you are not happy with the law as it currently stands and some have suggested that trans women should never be legally recognised as women. You say this goes against biological fact. This is a position I could never back as a 'trans inclusionary' feminist.

I am indeed one of those people who is not happy with the law as it currently stands.
'Transitioning' is a lie. It is a lie that can help people dysphoric people, but it is still a lie.

I believe that people should be truthful before the law, truthful when competing in sports, truthful in positions of responsibility truthful when making applications and claims.

I think you perfectly and your mates are perfectly entitled to play along with lies to make each other happy, but I don't believe you and your mates are entitled to push others into playing along, or to make the world less fair by competing unfairly in sports, unfairly taking positions of trust, responsibility or representation, making unfair claims to services and support or unfairly using facilities designated for others.

In order to be fair and trans at the same time, individuals who insist on preserving the lie for their own wellbeing (ie never having their actual sex recognised or mentioned or participating accordingly) need to forgo competitive sports, jobs involving performing body searches, intimate examinations, personal care or supporting vulnerable people, forgo using toilets designated for either sex, avoid breaking the law and forgo applying for sex specific services and funding.

I want to protect and strengthen women's rights, services and protections for all females (including those who identify as trans) and that is why I am a feminist.