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.

Legal pretence rings a bell. Was it Norman Tebbitt who called the essence of the original bill “a legal fiction” and warned of unintended consequences ? It must have been in the Lords, not when he was an MP.

It just rings a massive bell and my gut feeling is it is meant to reflect something similar said in opposition to the original bill.

Legal pretence aligns with NT’s argument of legal deceit

There were a couple of mentions of fiction but somebody else.
….
Lord Tebbit - The noble Lord is quite right. The deceit to which I referred was the deceit that is at the base of the Bill; the deceit that we can change a person's sex. Law Lords may believe that they are very powerful and that the law can change people's sex, but that quite clearly is arrant nonsense. I stand by what I said about deceit in the Bill
.….

I do think that wording indicates that a move to repeal, or heftily amend, the GRA (now lots of unintended consequences are upon us) is at least being considered.

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/grand-committee-report/2004/jan/13/official-report-of-the-grand-committee#S5LV0657P0_20040113_GCR_18

although strictly speaking, for legal purposes, the company is the owner of the buildings, the buildings are not the company. If you smashed the windows of a house belonging to a human being, you’d also be charged with criminal damage rather than assault.

It’s probably more akin to adoption. The woman who gives birth to the child is the legal mother but adoption severs that legal tie and vests it in someone else and the legal effect is that the child is no longer related to the birth mother. There are also (very minor) circumstances where biological reality overrides the law, eg it would still be incest if close relatives had a relationship, even if one of them had been adopted and legally wasn’t related to the other anymore.

What a poorly written, under-researched article.
World Rugby conducted a very thorough review, and has the journalist never heard of Ross Tucker, the sports scientist?
And what skin in the game does www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathan-liew have? Apart from being male so knowing full well he can score work points whilst this having no impact on him whatsoever a

Why did my post get deleted, is someone offended that I said a company wasn't a legal person in every way?

That’s ridiculous! @mnhq what are you doing? That post was absolutely not offensive.

I hope they give you an explanation of that deletion! I think I saw the post before deletion, and I’m almost impressed that someone managed to be offended by it.

It's clearly only been deleted this morning as Honest replied to it 45 mins ago.

@Nadine 👏🙌👏🙏👏

Meanwhile, in the Daily Fail today, an 'article' using basic psychology to normalise transitioning.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10965797/How-feels-princess-loving-daughter-tells-doesnt-want-girl-more.html

The article that doesn't allow comments, interesting and unusual for the Fail. This wouldn't be a paid for article ad, would it?

Yes, total nonsense. Maybe if the parents hadn’t been so obviously fixated on gender roles, the daughter wouldn’t feel the need to label herself as “not a girl”. And the bullshit about the younger brother now finally looking up to his sister because she claims not to be a girl.

I do not understand why either of the deleted posts were deleted. One asked a reasonable question about UK law and the other made a reasonable statement about UK law.

Neither made generalisations. Neither were personal. Neither were attacks. Neither used language offensive to either side of the debate. Both were in the spirit of the site (if the spirit of the site is courteous, intelligent discussion).

So what guidelines did they break?

Why was @Ereshkigalangcleg ‘s post deleted ? In what manner did it break the TOS ? I’m really not seeing how it could have been interpreted as in any out of line.

Yes. All Nadine needs to do is enforce S195 of the 2010 Equality Act, which clearly states male can be excluded from female sporting categories.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/195

Interesting article in the daily mail -it has definitely got someone hunting these stories out. Nadine’s view of the sports meeting - as we guessed, sports bodies are so frightened of being sued that they have rolled over - perhaps they all believe the spin that gender is a protected characteristic

“She told officials afterwards that she believed that many sports organisations had become 'captured by a minority world view', adding: 'That was shocking, they were all over the place. I want a paper within days letting me know what levers I have and how these organisations are funded.'

A Whitehall source said: 'The organisations think that inclusion should trump fairness. They've been listening to their own echo chamber for too long and are terrified of litigation under the Equality Act, despite that legislation enshrining fairness.

'Nadine found it incomprehensible that the ECB would not allow Ben Stokes to play in a 2nd XI in order to protect the safety of other players due to his bowling, running speed and sheer physicality – however, they would allow someone who had been born male and had been through puberty to play in a women's team.'”

I hadn’t really thought about it much before this whole debate but of course the purpose of categories - age (junior/veteran etc), sex, weight - has always been to promote inclusion and the chances of winning for all. It’s been so well established that we had truly forgotten how much campaigning that took to get there and it’s all being tossed away.

Is it finally dawning on Westminster that they've been funding a political lobby group who have re written the actual law to what they want, and then trained organisations to believe their version and act in the belief that it's real?

Well gosh. That took them long enough.

Come on Nadine, get the information. It's past time Westminster got a hand on this and undid the harm, and took action to prevent this being able to happen. Not least because it makes a total mockery of democracy and MPs and carefully debated, worded laws if a group of extremists can just write their own law and convince/scare lazy, gullible organisations into enacting their agenda believing that trainers always speak the truth. The aim of this lobby was always to be 'ahead of the law' - to make what they wanted so fixed and seen as 'normal practice' that there would be nothing to do but change the law to match the practice.

Regardless of what the ageda/group is that has done this, this is a major, major safeguarding fail and should lead to loopholes being permanently closed so no other political group can ever do this again.

And as you see daily, in the press, on tv and radio, on social media and right here in threads: this political lobby has a strategy of looking you right in the eye and swearing to you that up is down, that no is yes, that things they don't like or want to hear about don't exist, and what they want to be the truth is the absolute, evidenced truth - even when you're holding the evidence right in front of them that proves it a lie.

Again the actual politics involved aside, this approach is copying Trump's legacy and strategy just as he showed it: personality disorder meets democracy, with the hope that democracy just won't know what to do with that flat, outrageous manipulation, and so it will get away with whatever it wants. Cutted up pear in spades.

Come on Westminster, get your act together. This should have been spotted and dealt with years ago, when it would have been a lot less established and a lot less messy to start saying 'no' to.

It’s going to be a lot like dealing with toddlers. The first time you say no and mean it they scream and scream and scream. It’s the same with with trans movement. We need the government to be the adults in the room - I’m not entirely hopeful.
However there are some in government who support womens rights and I presume that the government might also see it as a politically astute move as it is a space neither Labour or thr Lib Dems seem to want to be in