Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

[ool0n]

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

[quote ool0n]@WarriorN - "Women have thousands of extra genes on that extra x arm that change their genetic make up entirely."

This is not at all true, there are a couple of genes that need two copies to be activated and they are also on the Y. Other than that one of the X's is inactive and only the genes on the other are relevant throughout the lifecycle of the cell.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation

Trans men and women will usually have the hormonal makeup of their acquired sex. That is far more important medically than an inactive X chromosome.[/quote]
A male body and a female body are very different things and differentiating accurately between the two can be a matter of life and death.

Many trans people opt not to undergo any medical transition - are you saying that you don’t view them as trans?

The trans people that do take cross sex hormones need to continue taking them as their bodies have no independent means of producing those hormones.

It is unwise to consider the acknowledgment of the biological sex of trans people as optional. Many high profile transsexuals (their words) like Miranda Yardley, Debbie Hayton and Fionne Orlander fully acknowledge their birth sex.

www.bbc.com/future/article/20200814-why-our-medical-systems-are-ignoring-transgender-people

Sport!!

oolOn Im not a scientist, but I do have a MSc in a biology related discipline and Im sorry but you'd be laughed out the lab at that one.

I can understand how you have reached that interpretation, but its very wrong.

However, science aside, if one can not confidently determine their own sex, how can they know their unknown sex doesnt match their known gender?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I have already pointed out that trans people, by laws that have existed in various forms for 80 years and which haven't changed in over a decade, already have the right to use the spaces which align with their gender identity. And I'll again poiint out you cherry picked lines form laws and traduced the overall meaning!

These rights are protected in the Equality Act and the common law which it fundamentally repeats. I have set all of this out already in this thread and you're welcome to follow the links and confirm that this is the law. It's also backed up by the statutory guidance issued by the ECHR. And again, I'd ask anyone to read the whole document not any single section. Or you could equally say that pregnant women cannot be gansayed, ever! Or BAME people; or old peole. Or any of the other protected charactersitics. Again, that traduces the actual law

So "female single sex areas" already includes trans women and have done since before basically everyone in this thread was born. Yes! And?

This is one of the greatest evils of TRA behaviours. For decades transpeople have lived with little fuss or bother. Used facilities they felt most confortable in and assumed they bothered noone. Women like myself often noticed and felt uncomfortable, bad, unpleasant in having noticed. So said nothing and bore with it. That became the norm.

Then along came TRAs and theor loud shouts of TWAW and No Debate. And women wised up and said Piss Off! The status quo was broken and now nobiody is comfortable anywhere! Great move!

Pretending that it doesn't and that it hasn't is trying to remove remove human rights or legal protections from trans people. Nobody this ide of the debate is pretending anything. But it is not a human right or an immutable legal right.

1. Looking up what the law says and repeating it verbatim doesn't "traduced the overall meaning"

1. I'll be honest, I had to look up what "traduced" meant. It's "speak badly of or tell lies about (someone) so as to damage their reputation:" in case anyone else is wondering. If you want to explain how:

a. Quoting the law directly.
b. Linking to the law.
c. Referencing the statutory guidance

can be "speak badly of or tell lies about (someone) so as to damage their reputation" then I will consider what I have said and look at this again.

Until you do that, it just looks like you are trying to call me names with big enough words that MNHQ won't realise. I'd really rather you either just accepted that I'm fairly quoting and writing in good faith (which I am) or provided anything that suggested otherwise from a neutral or reliable source.

1. "So "female single sex areas" already includes trans women and have done since before basically everyone in this thread was born. Yes! And?"

The Yes! And? is that this has been their right and you can't take that away because discrimination against trans people is against the law.

1. This is one of the greatest evils of TRA behaviours. For decades transpeople have lived with little fuss or bother. Used facilities they felt most confortable in and assumed they bothered noone. Women like myself often noticed and felt uncomfortable, bad, unpleasant in having noticed. So said nothing and bore with it. That became the norm.

Then along came TRAs and theor loud shouts of TWAW and No Debate. And women wised up and said Piss Off! The status quo was broken and now nobiody is comfortable anywhere! Great move!

What is a TRA? I'm not one. I just said that the law protected trans people. You've just agreed with me that it does and has for a long time. In the same post you accused me of lying, twice, for saying the same thing.

You're demonising 'TRA' but you're the person who's being insulting and inventing an argument I haven't made. Why do you feel the need to do that?

1. You have called me a liar for pointing out that the Equality Act protects trans people from discrimination which it literally does yet you say this:

Pretending that it doesn't and that it hasn't is trying to remove remove human rights or legal protections from trans people. Nobody this ide of the debate is pretending anything. But it is not a human right or an immutable legal right.

I would say that calling someone a liar and then agreeing with them is pretending.

Others in this thread are pretending that women's rights and trans people's rights are in conflict, which they demonstrably aren't.

I'd say that that's pretending too.

In both cases, I'd say that this behaviour is transphobic.

Appreciate all the hard work by the women on this board. I couldn't read every thread, but I've read enough to say two things:

1. Trans right are humans rights

Women rights are human rights Men rights are human rights Trans women are trans women Trans men are trans men

1. Why do men push and push and push women to conform to what they want? Why can't they just leave us alone?

That journal is behind a paywall, I can’t see any of the detail.

@BaronessWrongCrowd

I thought that too, uhtred. Usually this thread would be deleted or be like Swiss cheese. However, sunlight is very illuminating...

This is very true!

Additionally, If testosterone levels aren’t at all correlated with physical sex, why do trans women have to reduce their testoerone levels to compete in female sports?

Others in this thread are pretending that women's rights and trans people's rights are in conflict, which they demonstrably aren't.

Not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'demonstrably' considering just how many court cases are happening this year alone because of this conflict you don't think exists.

However, science aside, if one can not confidently determine their own sex, how can they know their unknown sex doesnt match their known gender?

Good question.

Others in this thread are pretending that women's rights and trans people's rights are in conflict, which they demonstrably aren't.

'Demonstrably'? Can you demonstrate how they aren't in conflict @bigotryisbad? Why do you think so many women (and men) are so concerned over the effect of trans activism on Women's Rights if this is so clearly mistaken?

The study into elite women athletes showed some women with far more T than elite male athletes. Some elite male athletes in the female typical range of T!

Which study is this?

bigotryisbad this is all getting very tangled up.

The law protects trans people from being discriminated against.
It doesn't give them the absolute, untouchable right to be treated as the opposite sex.

You seem to be understanding 'being treated as your natal sex' as 'being discriminated against'

@NewarkShark

There is a prohibitition under s13 of the Equality Act which makes all discrimination on grounds of Gender reassignment unlawful. The section 7 definition of "Gender reassignment" in the act is drawn widely: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Read the wording of the definition. It creates a subjective test of intention to transition any physiological or other attributes of sex. That doesn't just include binary trans people, it protects non binary people too

Direct discrimination under section 13 requires a comparator.

Where is your authority for the suggestion the appropriate comparator for a trans woman without a GRC is a natal woman?

I’ll give you R (Green) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] as my authority that the correct comparator for a trans woman without a GRC is a man.

So section 13 when read in conjunction with section 7 says only you must not treat a trans woman less favourably than a man. It protects against less favourable treatment for the fact of being trans, or doesn’t give a right to be treated as a woman.

@bigotryisbad

I have given you legal authority that your interpretation of section 13 of the Equality Act is wrong and I would be interested in your response given that you keep saying you’ve quoted the relevant legislation. You aren’t seemingly willing to engage as to what that legislation actually means?

@TheHeathenOfSuburbia

bigotryisbad this is all getting very tangled up.

The law protects trans people from being discriminated against.
It doesn't give them the absolute, untouchable right to be treated as the opposite sex.

You seem to be understanding 'being treated as your natal sex' as 'being discriminated against'

Exactly this. It also specifically excludes transwomen from women's single sex spaces where there is a clear need for women's privacy or dignity to have a single sex space.

For example: women's refuges, where women might be traumatised by presence of male bodies, or at risk, etc.

oolOn the article you linked too is interesting but had been critisised, a lot.

Not my area, but problems were caused by testosterone levels in women being tested using inaccuarate means. Theres lots of papers building on that data if you are interested!

bigotryisbad
Did you not follow the transgender prison policy Judicial Review today?

A key plank is that the EA2010 allows for the exclusion of someone from a single sex space even if they hold a GRC in certain circumstances. There is no absolute right for a transgender person to be in every single sex space.

Also note that the protections under the act only relate to Gender Reassignment so the 5000 or so people who hold a GRC. Gender identity is not protected nor is gender. Sex is the other relevant protected characteristic which is why the MOJ are also facing a claim of indirect sex discrimination.

God! Now it quotes a paywalled article and even gives a page number!!

But here a free version

www.researchgate.net/figure/Demographic-details-and-hormone-levels-in-elite-men-and-women_tbl1_260522903

And as is easy to see the 'complete overlap' doesn't mean what OP thinks it does! There were 2 outliers in that female sample and a few on the male sample. It's not unusual to have such outliers and there are many factors that contribute to the non conformity, especially in elite sport!

Like the tendency of some national sports bodies to seek out girls with DSD ?

Something like that, yes!

That and the research itself was a bit of a blunt instrument and needed to spawn more detailed research into the outliers, factors behind them, methodology etc. Theyu even start off with a note about hormones as performance-enhancing agents

So they measure the hormone levels of people who might have tweaked them ....

The study into elite women athletes showed some women with far more T than elite male athletes. Some elite male athletes in the female typical range of T!

Did I misread that article posted. The operation removed internal testes that were producing testosterone at levels higher than the female range. Again, this is a person’s medical condition that you are using as some kind of ‘gotcha’. You might well find that that person has a difference in sex development that is specific to males.

I am not really sure you think the article says what you think it does.

Yes Midge There were no checks and measures mentioned in the methodology!

I am not really sure you think the article says what you think it does.

Yeah, it really doesn’t, and is anyway irrelevant, because we’re talking gender identity and sex in your everyday human being, not testosterone levels in elite athletes.

Still interested in the question about how it is easy for trans people to know what sex they are, in order to identify as trans, but impossible for your everyday woman on the Clapham omnibus to fathom the magnificent complexity of what sex women are.

And the article did imply ( in the open bit) that the person steering the study was not neutral

I can see this being useful as an exercise in research methods for students

Not quite so useful to say that there is not a real significant biological difference between men and women