Is it really all that bad?

[Notevenmyrealname]

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
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. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

*It was a joke parodying what transactivists say.

Sorry! Should have been clearer.*

Don’t worry, I’m 38 wks pregnant and spent the morning in the shops getting last min Christmas presents. Plus, despite vowing to give myself a break from reading posts about TRAs removing my rights and potentially convincing my children there’s something fundamentally wrong with their bodies, I’ve spent the last hour doing just that. Consequently I seem to have temporarily lost my sense of humour.

I think I’m going to log out of Mumsnet for a few days.

I think I’m going to log out of Mumsnet for a few days.

Have a lovely Christmas and no worries!

He obviously is going to have a different perspective than a woman but he’s not some over-privileged walking male stereotype.

Maybe not, and as you say lots of women don't see a problem.

But you did say he is very clued up about the law and the EA. Which is great, but if he doesn't understand about safeguarding and he has no experience of why women and girls need sex segregated spaces, his doesn't have the full picture.

And that's the problem. Very few people in position of authority seem to have the full picture, and don't want to or don't see the need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of safeguarding when it comes to trans issues.

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

The starting and ending point in spot should be that humans can't change sex. Males should not ever be competing against girls and women unless in sports which are mixed sex.

Males who have diagnosed dysphoria, take hormone blockers, cross sex hormones and or have surgery do not become female.

There are many conditions which result in a person's sporting capacity being reduced following some sort of medical interventions. Happens all the time.

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

Why not put a handicap system in place in the male sports and teams. That way transpeople get to participate in sports and women's sport remains as it is.

This has all become a game sadly. Many have suggested that sexual dominance plays a big part in modern ideology. I believe that is indeed true. Therefore when women get so angry and upset (rightly so) with the situation it send out the wrong message.... the message that women are scared and worried for their safety. When someone says "I want to dominate you" and what they are hearing back is "please dont you're scaring me" is that not a reinforcement ? When women send out the message "we object to the EA and GRC because women weren't consulted and we didn't give permission " then once again what is heard is that men were able to dominate and women were submissive.

Women's ability to name male-pattern abuse, coercive control and DV is key to identifying the cause. The cause being solely with and the responsibility of the invidual doing it.
Women who are aware of abusive power being directed at them must never be prevented from naming the issue either by implicit or explicit suggestions.

See current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

& article
thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

There are many conditions which result in a person's sporting capacity being reduced following some sort of medical interventions. Happens all the time.

Very true.

Why not put a handicap system in place in the male sports and teams. That way transpeople get to participate in sports and women's sport remains as it is.

Indeed. Some people believe that the Olympics and Paralympics should be merged. Whatever happens there should remain a female single-sex category with strictly no sex hormones or other doping which gives unfair advantages, so that women can compete fairly and achieve amazing things with their natural bodies - sort of what athletic competition is supposed to be about.

Zutt, as I suggested the multi faceted handicap system should have been the starting point for discussion with the authorities and not the worthless testosterone limits they actually introduced.

You could pose both possibilities for how it might work, but handicap usually involves disadvantaging the minority number of participants in a way that makes their results not clearly bound to be superior to the majority.

Doing it the way round that you suggest might indeed be feasible but would presumably involve handicapping every participant bar one in the competition.

Or perhaps giving that lone participant a head start rather than a handicap.

You could even do it in a way that allowed women to enter men's events if they felt like challenging themselves that way as part of training for their own event.

So could be seen as having that benefit too, whereas the present method has nothing good about it.

USA 21/12/18
'Jury's award to transgender woman after rejection by football team is a Minnesota first
Player awarded $20,000 in pioneering business discrimination case.'
(extract)
"But when the team’s owner discovered that Ginther was transgender, the team yanked the welcome mat.

This week, a Dakota County jury found that the team and the league discriminated against Ginther because she is transgender, a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Ginther was awarded $10,000 for emotional distress and $10,000 in punitive damages.

The decision, her attorney said Friday evening, is significant because it is believed to be the first time a jury decided in favor of a transgender person in a business discrimination case in Minnesota.

“These are the discriminatory things that happen to transgender people every day,” said Nicholas May, Ginther’s attorney. “Even these small things can create significant mental health and esteem issues for transgender people.”

The jury decided that’s not right, May said.

“It wasn’t some law professor or some politician getting up and talking about transgender rights,” he said. “It’s a jury of regular folks who are saying, ‘This isn’t OK.’ That’s novel.”

Ginther, 46, transitioned to being a woman from 2014 through 2015, losing her marriage and many friends in the process. Wanting to rebuild her life in 2016, she searched for a supportive social group to join. She turned to the pages of Lavender, a Minnesota LGBT magazine, and found that the Vixen team seemed to be a welcoming organization. Another publication had a story about a transgender female, Sabreena Lachlainn, who played for the IWFL after helping rewrite the league’s eligibility policy to allow transgender women to play.

Ginther had never played football before. “I went to St. Thomas Academy, an all-boys school, and it was scary to be in a locker room with boys,” she said. “I was uncomfortable with my body.”

Taunted and bullied, she got involved with martial arts. “I felt empowered and became a second-degree black belt,” she said. “It was a big boost to my self-esteem. No one ever called me sissy after that.”

As a marathon runner who embraced the idea of pushing her body to its limits, she thought playing tackle football would do the same. At first the Vixen team seemed to embrace and encourage her, she said. But players acted differently toward her at the third tryout, she said. “Everyone was cold toward me.”

Apparently someone suspected that she was transgender and discovered one of Ginther’s social media accounts that documented her transition. A call Friday to the Vixen owner was not returned.

“I don’t know what could have given me away,” she said.

Sometimes insecurity gets the best of her, she said. “The stereotype is that women like to ask if a dress makes them look fat,” she said. “ ‘I ask, ‘Does this make me look like a boy?’ ”

After her transition, Ginther legally changed her name and the gender marker on her birth certificate. What she didn’t know, she said, was that the IWFL had changed its eligibility policy in 2012, requiring players to certify that they are and always have been legally and medically female.

“No trans person can say they are now and always have been,” said Ginther, who played in the Women’s Football Alliance (WFA) the last two seasons — the Minnesota Machine in 2017 and the Madison Blaze in 2018. The WFA league welcomes transgender athletes, she said."
www.startribune.com/jury-s-award-to-transgender-woman-rejected-by-football-team-is-a-minnesota-first/503365442/

This article demonstrates the issue of obfuscating language.

Ginther is male and the reasons to exclude a 47 yr old male from playing women's contact sport are for the safety, privacy and dignity of the females in the team. Not because 'transphobia'

US style lawsuits will spread. They have happened and are happening in Canada.

Zutt, as I suggested the multi faceted handicap system should have been the starting point for discussion with the authorities and not the worthless testosterone limits they actually introduced.

Yes, I understand. I'm just saying that perhaps the starting point should be leaving women's sports as they are, and making any accommodation needed part of male sports.

Male sport is generally better funded, therefore could probably absorb the cost of designing and implementing a handicap system more than women's sport.

As a society, we understand that girls participation declines as they get older, and this is not good for individual girls, or women's sport as a whole. I would have thought that encouraging males to be included in girls and women's sport, even if it's just one or two per team, would not really help more girls and women. Surely the limited funds available in women's sport should be used to increase female, not male participation?

As a society, we understand that girls participation declines as they get older, and this is not good for individual girls, or women's sport as a whole. I would have thought that encouraging males to be included in girls and women's sport, even if it's just one or two per team, would not really help more girls and women. Surely the limited funds available in women's sport should be used to increase female, not male participation?

Absolutely, there have been a number of significant campaigns specifically to encourage girls and women to continue playing sport after school. ('this girl can' etc)

Having males taking part in girls and women's sports will only dissuade and discourage some girls and women.

They will of course most likely leave quietly rather than filing a lawsuit, causes a twitter storm or gaining exposure in various media platforms.

Yes, I understand. I'm just saying that perhaps the starting point should be leaving women's sports as they are, and making any accommodation needed part of male sports.

Male sport is generally better funded, therefore could probably absorb the cost of designing and implementing a handicap system more than women's sport.

I don’t understand this. Transwomen have an unfair advantage against women so put them in male sports but handicap all the other men to make it fairer?

I think we just have to say, tough. There really isn’t a way of accommodating transwomen in professional sports. They have an unfair advantage over women and other men aren’t going to reduce their testosterone levels or carry lead weights to lower their advantage either.

It’s professional sports. Not everyone can be a professional athlete. Separating according to sex or age, or according to disability, is about as far as we can go.

It’s professional sports. Not everyone can be a professional athlete. Separating according to sex or age, or according to disability, is about as far as we can go.

The issue too is that professional sport sets the precedent that some males can compete in women's sports, subject to tight criteria including blood tests etc.

Sporting organisations take this cue but in amateur sports where blood testing is not done, it would be descriminatory to demand this of some competitors who are transgender, so the principle eg that males who identify as trans women/women/females can compete in girls and women's sports.

If at an amateur level males are competing in girls and women's sport freely at some point the professional guidelines will be challenged on the basis that an individual has competed freely at the lower levels and then reached at point when this is prohibited.

Either girls and women's sport is based on sex or not.

Yes, you are right about professional sports setting a precedent.

Where intersex conditions are concerned then there are difficult decisions to make. Where there’s genuine gender dysphoria, maybe. When it comes to self-ID a simple ‘fuck off’ ought to suffice. There should be zero accommodation to a lifestyle choice.

It’s professional sports. Not everyone can be a professional athlete. Separating according to sex or age, or according to disability, is about as far as we can go.

I can't be a professional athlete either. It's just one of those things. If a male is not able to be competitive against other males then he can't participate in elite sports. If a woman isn't good enough to compete against other women we don't let her go compete with the under 14 girls. Most people aren't good enough to do sports at a competitive level, that's kind of how things work.

If trans people want a transwoman category and a transmen category and there are enough of them in a given sport for that to be workable then sure, otherwise they may just be out of luck.

It’s professional sports. Not everyone can be a professional athlete. Separating according to sex or age, or according to disability, is about as far as we can go.

Yes. Plenty of people have chronic conditions, the medications for which render them ineligible for competitive sport. It is what it is.

in sport ought to be something that is made easier for everyone. I'm certain that RMcK is right that trans participation in sport is too low. If you are not happy with your body, sport is a great way to start feeling better about yourself.

in women's sport, where the sexes are provided with fair competition categories, is for women. With organic cunts.

I do wonder what the process was in the IOC and other sporting organisations for these extraordinary rules about the magic testosterone.

this would cause a potentially significant clash of rights under the EA2010 as nobody can answer whether these people are affected by the single-sex exemption clauses or not.

If you have a GRC your 'legal sex' is the one on the GRC and on your amended birth certificate.
So transwoman with GRC = woman, in law.

If you have a GRC your 'legal sex' is the one on the GRC and on your amended birth certificate.
So transwoman with GRC = woman, in law.

Taken from the citizens advice website:

The Equality Actsays discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If necessary, it's the courts which will decide if discrimination can be justified.

What’s a legitimate aim?
A legitimate aim is the reason behind the discrimination. This reason must not be discriminatory in itself and it must be a genuine or real reason.

Here are examples of legitimate aims:

the health, safety and welfare of individuals
running an efficient service
requirements of a business
desire to make profit.

The health and safety of women and girls, and safeguarding would fall under legitimate aims.

Zutt, as I suggested the multi faceted handicap system should have been the starting point for discussion with the authorities and not the worthless testosterone limits they actually introduced.

It's breathtaking that a law designed to help men with a crippling illness, is now deemed to be something that allows them to exploit competitive sporting rules.

No. You will never be able to level the playing field. People born male are advantaged from the word go. You only have to look at the funding between male and female sport, to see that.

The one thing that this ideology does, which even the most logical, empathetic, thorough male ally doesn't realise, is it ignores the power differential between men and women, to an extraordinary degree.

Men are advantaged by being born male. Quite apart from their physicality. Study after study will show this. Male advantage is not something that can't be evidenced. From being given extra food as a child, to being listened to more.

The very fact that someone born male thinks they can devise a system to allow men to compete as women, illuminates this fact for every woman reading it.

No.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro

the health, safety and welfare of individuals running an efficient service
requirements of a business
desire to make profit.

That's a very useful list. And interesting. I've not seen it before.

You could easily invoke all of those reasons in the running of a gym, for instance.

if necessary, it's the courts which will decide if discrimination can be justified.

I think more open and honest guidelines are need, because taking anything through the courts can be expensive and stressful for everyone concerned. It needs to a established if males are allowed to undress with females, for example,and if so, those women and girls need to be aware of the exact criteria. Changing rooms usually make it clear that boys under 8 can enter those spaces, it wouldn't be difficult to state that transpeople without surgery can enter also.

In addition, I think it needs to be acknowledged that it isn't just the 5000 or so people who have a GRC, it's anyone who is trans, with or without GRC, and that we have no idea the numbers involved. This makes assessing who uses a service on a 'case by case' basis extremely difficult.

I completely agree. Emails need to be sent out, and new members need to be made fully aware that a male bodied person has every right be naked in their changing room.

So have we moved from "women & girls can be protected because this is what the Equality Act & Citizens Advice say." to '"there should be notices to inform everyone that male-bodied people may use the female changing rooms."?

Ideally it would be phrased as "Please be aware that male bodies people are permitted to use the female changing rooms at their discretion. Would you like to cancel your membership and receive a full refund?"