Go on, Nadine, you’ve nearly got it

[JellySaurus]

The government has the utmost compassion for people born into a body they don't recognise. But we can't pretend that sex doesn't have a direct impact on a person's athletic performance entire life. Asking women and teenage girls to compete against someone who was biologically born a male is inherently unfair.
^
"I recognise that this is a complex and emotionally charged issue, so I welcome the support of our domestic governing bodies to protect and show compassion to all athletes people. In the interests of integrity, we must bring clarity to protect the future interests sport of women, children and vulnerable people around the world^.

People who believe that they were born into a body they don't recognise have the right to express these beliefs in the same way as people with other beliefs have. Their rights to self-expression are protected, as are their rights not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs.

It is not possible to change sex, and our sex has a direct impact on our lives and on the lives of those around us. Requiring us to pretend otherwise is inherently unfair.

The legal pretence that they can or have changed sex is not compassionate. It is harmful. It creates more problems than it solves (if it solves any problems at all). It removes integrity and reduces clarity.

Go on, Nadine, take the next step: rescind the GRA.

Wonderful Nadine, ovaries of steel 💪

Brilliant. And I love the 'belief they have been born into the wrong body' bit. Yes, it's an unproved 'belief' that others don't have to subscribe to.

Yes!! Go head on, Nadine!

Sorry. You do not got far enough. We have no idea if any trans people believe the meaningless nonsensical concept of being born in the wrong body. We know that some people claim to believe that they were born in the wrong body.

It's time to repeal the GRA.

I think the way ‘born in a body they don’t recognise ‘ was a more understandable phrase. But this is not the reality of most claiming trans status. Yes agree that the GRC should be removed and the GRA repealed.

apparently, some of the sporting bodies are frightened of legal challenges. FFS, inclusion is not a right. they need to grow a pair. read the legislation.

This is how Stonewall have managed to get as far as they have in wrecking everything for women.

They basically lie to organisations and groups with lines like

"TW need unfettered access to women's spaces or it's discrimination. You don't want lawsuits now do you?" and because Stonewall are held in esteem, people just swallow everything their fed by them, are afraid of accusations of phobias and not getting their equality accreditations, but it's all based on nothing but lies.

It's not discrimination to exclude TW from women's anything let alone sport which is the most obvious, because excluding them is proportionate and legitimate (EA2010 words).

As far as I'm aware none of the trans athletes competing has a GRC or any legal documentation announcing that they've changed sex. So not sure what difference the GRA makes in regards to trans competitors in sport.

It's good to see the government making a statement, but it is up for each sport's ruling body to make the relevant changes.

No doubt we will be able to play catchphrase bingo with "culture war", "wedge issue", "distraction" by those who don't want to debate the issue, but attack the political party.

"The legal pretence that they can or have changed sex is not compassionate. It is harmful. It creates more problems than it solves (if it solves any problems at all). It removes integrity and reduces clarity."

That's a carefully crafted statement! Shoots 'be kind' right out of the sky!

It's the most true expression of it I've ever heard by a politician.

Repealing the GRA wouldn't had a direct effect on TW in women's sport, you're right. But I think it would have an indirect effect.

As long as it exists we have the governing bodies of sports being misled as to what their legal responsibilities are, plus they can then hide behind 'we were only fallowing the Stonewall Law'.

Once the GRA is repealed these bodies cannot be misled, and they cannot hide. They would have to justify, and take responsibility for, allowing males in women's sports. All they'll have to back them up is 'be kind' and 'inclusion', which cannot stand up against 'fairness'. They'd be staring down the barrel of legal challenges aplenty, and I don't think they can afford that.

At the end of the day, it is the governing bodies that matter most. They set the rules. Repealing the GRA will bring about a change in those rules.

Plus, lets remember why the GRA came into being. It was a fudge because same-sex marriage was at that point illegal and the government didn't want same-sex marriage. Well, it's legal now. The GRA is superfluous to its original function, and does create more problems (so, so many) that it solves (none, now).

@WhereYouLeftIt But the governing bodies for each sport are international, not sure how a piece of British legislation has that much power.

The other reason the GRA should be repealed is that it has ridiculous draconian privacy clauses (because it was intended to allow someone to pass through life as a woman/man without anyone knowing the truth). This situation is largely obsolete, most trans people are proud to be trans and the majority of them do not pass. Yet technically for sharing knowledge relating to this obvious fact people in official capacities face criminal prosecution, even the possibility of a jail sentence.

I'm so pleased to see this and totally support repealing the GRA. I think one of it's side effects is to prop up the very old-fashioned views of men and women which sit behind trans people's identity as trans. If we accepted the category of 'man' to be an entirely biological statement (like most of us here do I think) then we can separate out a person's identity and let them feel free to identify as they please. I think many TRA can't see it but it is their stereotyped thinking IMHO which leads them to take the position they do. You can't 'identify' in or out of a purely biological concept and indeed it sounds silly to try and do so. Their real objection is to identity restrictions and I think they have wrongly attached that to biology. The GC position, again in MHO, is a much more liberal one, or at least can be.

I agree. God knows how anyone fell for it in the first place.

I don't believe there should be a legal footing for males to force other people to deny their sex.

The GRA should be repealed. It gives legitimacy to an idea that, firstly has no basis in reality, and secondly is used to disadvantage and exploit women across the board.

When a bit of legislation is allowing rapists access to incarcerated women, surely to God, you know it's wrong.

Fuck Nadine Dorries whatever she says - if she said the sun was shining and it was - she's still scum. Looks like a Tory distraction 'look over there thread' and anybody quoting here as the start of an OP has an agenda.

🧐Not apropos of nothing, it genuinely concerns me that so many people are so empty-headed that they’ll swap around and substitute words from arguments they’ve seen in other contexts and not even consider whether it makes any damn sense.

I don’t think they are bots, but a competently coded bot could do better. I’m not kidding when I say it concerns me. What happens inside their minds when they type this shit? Once you start denying that simple words like “woman” have a meaning does some kind of degenerative process kick in till you’re eventually communicating on Internet forums in language that is grammatical enough but entirely fucking meaningless?

Also I have to say that now I think about it, I’ve known coworkers who did that word swap thing. One of them was super good at it and had me fooled for years till I realised she never understood what she was talking about.

Anyway, the coworkers I’m thinking of both displayed a lot of NPD symptoms. I assumed there was a connection but I’ve never heard anyone talk about it!

This brilliant from Nadine

One of the only issues on which the majority of MN will disagree with the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/jun/28/nadine-dorries-offers-the-illusion-of-easy-choices-while-trans-athletes-pay-the-price

Also not apropos of nothing. I feel moved to comment that whatever anyone may think of any particular politician in this government, they are still in power. It is appropriate for us to monitor and discuss what they are saying on current political issues.

"The legal pretence that they can or have changed sex is not compassionate. It is harmful. It creates more problems than it solves (if it solves any problems at all). It removes integrity and reduces clarity."

That.

Nail. On. Head.

The Women's Hour interview today was irritating:

• Any possible legal challenges to worry about are the ones about women being injured or worse, not about the sad feelings of a male person hearing the phrase 'other people have rights too and you cannot have all the choices all the time;.
• It is not a 'right' to be recognised in all situations as something that in reality you are not; this 'right' does not exist anywhere and should not exist. The EqAct has clear exceptions.
• This basically comes down to 'should male people have the right to take stuff off female people to meet their own wants and needs'? Let's be honest about this and let's talk about what the real issues here are instead of focus constantly on how very sad it is for male people to encounter boundaries.

Repeal the GRA. It's been tried. It's no longer necessary for actual equality, it's been repurposed, and it's been proven there are those who will exploit it endlessly and this was a really bad idea. TQ+ people's needs for access and legal equality such as marriage, employment etc can and should be met: however wishing female and homosexual rights to be removed is not something anyone 'needs'.

'scum' - another term to add to the necklace of pride for women being insulted with irrelevant, dehumanising ad homs.

It's astonishing how anyone thinks an expulsion of insults & swears has any meaningful impact or contribution to a discussion.

I'm all for expressing oneself with swears when necessary to relieve tension and emphasise a point.

But 'she's scum, fuck her' is just not advancing anything. You can't posit that as your opening position followed up by a vague accusation that women here have 'an agenda'. It's meaningless. Remember women here have often spent years teaching children to use their words. This is why - otherwise you risk ending up on a nice sunny day dropping into an internet forum and firing off random accusations at strangers.

We need our words to connect to reality. We can't just communicate in abstract noise.

Born in a body they do not recognise.

Must be confusing for them when they look in a mirror and don’t know who the fuck it is.