“UKA has today outlined its position relating to transgender participation in athletics in the UK.”

[Helleofabore]

www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

This is what Jon Pike said was coming.

rugby is clearly mad to have as mixed sex but something like dressage (where the horse is the performer) much less so I imagine.

OhHolyJesus men and women compete on equal terms in all equestrian competitions (except maybe for polo) so I don’t think the issue would arise in horse sports.

That makes sense re horse sports - if the law made it compulsory for sports to be single sex then mixed sex sports could never happen. It depends on the sport.

I think some politicians are using the Lady H judgement to suit a narrative and are now pretending that the U.K. law has been changed by her ruling. See Noakes here rephrase her question:

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1620785398908850176?s=46&t=BX0H2NkJIgEShwX5jZS4WA

And I agree. Clarity is always useful but even the Gender activities text refers to sex (it was written some users ago and given how things are now I would prefer it to be labelled as Sex Separated Activities). If socially and legally we don't understand, or are pretending we don't understand, what 'Sex' means then all the more reason for the petition question to be answered and action taken to provide clarity. No one is referring to it as 'having Sex', I still can't believe there are serious decisions makers pretending they are confused and that biological sex isn't that simple but here we are.

If sex can mean two things either legal or biological then of course it will be confusing, but it is the laws that created this confusion through pretending. The debate needs to happen and result in clarification. And confirmation that biological sex means sex as the meaning throughout the EA. Then the GRA has to go as it introduces the idea of a'legal Sex'.

It also needs to happen under the current government, as goodness know what the Labour Party would do with the EA and the GRA - two laws they originally passed.

@OhHolyJesus I think you've misunderstood. I was only talking for myself, and my belief. No, I don't claim to speak for you or any other woman, but I'm certainly happy to speak up for them. I think we need more male voices in this debate. Too many have sat on the sidelines for too long.

As a parent of children of both sexes, as a husband, brother, uncle etc, I think about women and children often.

My apologies again @oldwhyno I recognised this and apologised upthread but am happy to repeat this as I was particularly spiky and misunderstood your position. Other PPs corrected me which I am grateful for.

OhHolyJesus · Today 09:08
Thank you for that video clip of Michael Foran explaining the law.

He says the EA does define sex as biological because it refers to male and female.

But he also said Lady Haldane said a GRC confers legal sex for all purposes throughout the Equality Act. (Didn’t the way he say this suggest it was a fact of law ?)

And he said a GRC legal sex does give a basis for suing for discrimination for exclusion from sex based spaces.

What a complicated mess.

Unfortunately the petition response so far - saying everything can be left as it is because it is clear - is typified by the man sitting next to Michael’s response when he said Michael’s explanations were too complicated. Really he probably simply does not understand the complexities of how the law would work in practice.

@OhHolyJesus Sorry (my turn!) I totally missed your first apology! Not needed though really, I just wanted to make my point clear, and I certainly don't mind that you were spiky. This issue needs some spike!

I think issues like the UKA announcement, and the Isla Bryson case, have highlighted that the general public woke up to the fact that a line in the sand had been crossed on trans rights. Because that line is not where some people want it, and importantly because it's not even clear where exactly the line is yet, the issue is blowing up.

@ScrollingLeaves

Didn’t the way he say this suggest it was a fact of law
I took that to be his reiteration off how Lady H interpreted the law, not as fact of law necessarily.

What a complicated mess.
Indeed and it needs untangling, but there are some solid statements that can't be misinterpreted as De Michael Foran points out - there is a definition in the law and wilfully misinterpreting then doesn't make an individual version true.

typified by the man sitting next to Michael

That is Lord Charles Falconer, he was Prisons Minister once but he is not an equalities law expert like De Michael Foran.

This helps explain why his understanding is flawed.
twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1621625530037538818?s=46&t=QUWVfF0YjUhLf4bvo_esIQ

I watched the evidence session and at one point Lord Falconer demonstrates that he doesn't understand what Michael is saying when he explains why it affects law suits. I'll try to find the clip - but Michael explains how blanket bans and direct or indirect discrimination works and he has to explain it further to Lord Falconer who is dismissing his points as being unconnected when they clearly are connected. It will make more sense if you can see the bit I'm talking about!

This issue needs some spike!

It does and I'm a bit less furious now but the EA does have some fine-tuned amendments in there already which are useful and can be applied to sport.

I remain frustrated that the sporting bodies are so gutless really, but I do understand to a degree why they are calling for clarity, and at the same I wish they had most backbone and just said no as they can do so.

It is the fear that has brought them to this point I suppose, both of legal action and for appearing to be 'transphobic'. A symptom of a wider problem.

I just have less and less time for this cowardly behaviour. They are meant to be in charge. These are decision makers writing and creating policy that others will follow. Say no, you're not allowed in here, it's ok, it's not against the law to exclude men in women's sport.

@OhHolyJesus the transcript is now published which may save time trying to find a clip

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

Thank you @ResisterRex I'll try to trawl through and find the exact bit I'm talking about, but in the meantime this short thread from Dennis Kavanagh explains how the Lady H judgment specifically impacts same sex attraction and direct/indirect discrimination laws.

twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1620861442076602370?s=46&t=KxpqsPx708L7SwwOGdsJFg

Excellent! I shall be renewing my UKA this year!

OhHolyJesus · Today 07:46
Thank you @ResisterRex I'll try to trawl through and find the exact bit I'm talking about, but in the meantime this short thread from Dennis Kavanagh explains how the Lady H judgment specifically impacts same sex attraction and direct/indirect discrimination laws.
twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1620861442076602370?s=46&t=KxpqsPx708L7SwwOGdsJFg

Thank you for this clip, and for all the details you’ve been adding.

Did you see the thread a few weeks ago about how the OED App has changed the meaning of homosexuality? It describes homosexuality as being same sex or gender attracted, even though under “ gender” it says this is social, not usually biological.

The long version of the full OED on the other hand does has ‘homosexual’ as meaning same sex attracted. ‘Sex’ is described as male and female, in biological terms as it referenced reproduction. ‘Gender’ is again referred to as social, not biological.

The full OED will have been published a few years, but not very long ago. So what’s happened? Dictionaries supposedly reflect language as it is being used, so apparently it is not just Stonewalled staff deciding the meaning.

It makes you wonder not only about the impact of legal sex trumping biological sex in the discrimination cases Michael Foran was discussing, but also where a legally sexed person might deceive a biologically sexed person into having intercourse they would not have consented to had they realised ( as written about to the CPS by the Gay Men’s Network).

These screen shots are thanks to the original poster, as I don’t have the OED app.

I think the dominance of social media, and the successful campaigning of groups such as Press for Change, mean that this sort of language is very vulnerable to social engineering by a small, highly vocal group.

I'm noticing a determined attempt (I'm sure just in the last 12 months or so, maybe not even quite so long) to change the meaning of sex as well. We're being told by activists that there are "several types of sex", that "hormonal sex" is a thing, that "humans can actually change sex" by taking cross sex hormones, or to change their "phenotypic sex" by surgery on their genitals (yes, phenotypic sex is a thing but that's not what it means.). Again, it's taking the language of DSDs and applying it to physiologically bang average bodies.

How soon before the OED "reflects usage" by changing the definition of female sex to include someone with gynaecomastia from taking oestrogen? Makes about as much sense as the redefinition of homosexual - i.e. not much, and not reflecting a naturally evolving change in usage rather than a deliberate political movement.

I agree Jesus It is cowardly behaviour.

However, if an organisation such as UKA wants to push for the law to be less likely to be open to misinterpretation I am inclined to let them. If it means that a court challenge has a judge stating that 'the law as it stands allows this', then maybe that is what is needed.

The cost, the time etc do need to be considered but the reality is that there is no confidence held by organisations until it is tested in law.

You only have to look at what has been allowed under the 'there is no direct proof because no 'trans athletes' at x level have been studied. Some organisations seem to actually believe it, because there are experts telling them that just as there are experts telling them that no specific studies need to be done, there is plenty of data and now every study shows the same pattern.

How soon before the OED "reflects usage" by changing the definition of female sex to include someone with gynaecomastia from taking oestrogen? Makes about as much sense as the redefinition of homosexual - i.e. not much, and not reflecting a naturally evolving change in usage rather than a deliberate political movement.

I do not actually have the OED App but had those screen shots thanks to the original poster of that thread back
in January. Does anyone here have the OED App to see how it defines sex?

One interesting thing to note about the long form of the OED 1989 (?) , and the shorter Oxford dictionaries published later - which do describe man and woman as male and female; and male and female as each of two sexes, in biological terms related to reproductive types - is that in 2010, at the time of the Equality Act, sex meant biological sex.

It seems OED are building up a modern edition with English from America too from a brief reading here under “Varieties of English”
public.oed.com/history/oed-editions/preface-to-the-third-edition/
Also they say:
Sources only available on CD-ROM or the Internet have been used for the first time in the Dictionary. Online editions of newspapers, for example, are now regularly cited, and large textual databases such as the Chadwyck-Healey Literature Online and the Making of America database of early American texts are monitored for useful material.

I suppose @Helleofabore I wonder how the UKA can push for the law to be made more clear, other than making this statement. Would they need to call for a judicial review of the EA? For this they would need an Appellant I think, as it was for Mrs A and Keira Bell re the Tavi?

Maybe their statement will result in talks with DCMS and the GEO? Lucy Frazer is the new Sec and is ex-prisons so I think that is relevant.

The more pressure there is the better for sex to mean bio sex and not legal sex.

I notice that the Sex Matters petition is nearly at 80k now.

OhHolyJesus · Today 12:03
I suppose @Helleofabore I wonder how the UKA can push for the law to be made more clear, other than making this statement. Would they need to call for a judicial review of the EA? For this they would need an Appellant I think, as it was for Mrs A and Keira Bell re the Tavi?

Maybe their statement will result in talks with DCMS and the GEO? Lucy Frazer is the new Sec and is ex-prisons so I think that is relevant.

The more pressure there is the better for sex to mean bio sex and not legal sex.

I notice that the Sex Matters petition is nearly at 80k now.

It is slowing down and I do think there is a real danger of it not reaching 100,000 by the cut-off on 20th April.

Most of the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish public are unaware of the problems as can be seen from the petition map.

Meanwhile, the Government response following the first 10,000 signatures has been to not answer the points addressed, and to bat concerns away.

To sign and share the petition:
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Thanks @ResisterRex sorry it took me a while to get a minute to reply properly. Here is the bit I was referring to in the transcript, with my bold:

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Michael has made it incredibly complicated.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not change the basis
on which you make a determination on whether or not—

Dr Foran: No, it changes whether or not you can sue. The policy
arguments will not be changed. You could introduce a policy that bans all
males from female prisons if you want, but you could be sued for that.
You could be sued for gender recognition discrimination. The question
about whether or not you have a gender recognition certificate changes
the nature of that suit that you make from an indirect discrimination
claim to a direct discrimination claim, subject to the same justification
test. Is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? If you
think a court will possibly come to a conclusion that the exclusion of this
legal woman who is biologically male and that there is a less onerous way
to achieve the legitimate aim of providing security then the policy will be
struck down as unlawful. If you want to ensure with absolute certainty
that no rapist makes it into a women’s jail, you need a blanket ban, and
blanket bans can be struck down by courts. You need to legislate to have
that ban in place. Policy documents, guidance, will not do it because the
legislative framework is as it is and it is hooked on to a proportionality
test.]

So following this, legislation is needed to ensure blanket bans can be applied and followed, and the legislation is there but it isn't compulsory across all sports and competitions, but it can be applied lawfully as a blanket ban in a particular sport to support fairness and safety for single sex sports if evidenced.

Something relevant to this re English Cricket Board and EHRC in the Telegraph.

archive.ph/2023.02.21-095442/www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/02/21/ecb-has-power-ban-transgender-players-female-competition/

"In a statement to Telegraph Sport, it said: “It is likely to be lawful for a sporting body or organisation to restrict participation by sex, gender reassignment or age where they can evidence that it is necessary to do so in order to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors.”"

There we are again with "likely to be". How do you achieve this if someone has a new birth certificate which contains a lie?

I think it's clear the GRA needs to be amended and then repealed.

ResisterRex · Today 12:48
I think it's clear the GRA needs to be amended and then repealed.

Yes, having just read this, as far as I can understand it,

Briefing Note:
Impact of Gender Recognition Reform on Sex Based Rights
Rebecca Bull

This briefing note concerns the way the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”) and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA 2004”) interact. It is intended to accompany the slides presented in the Scottish Parliament on 29 January 2020
Executive Summary

(Opening paragraph)
The Scottish Government’s Equality Impact Analysis has failed to understand the current law with regards to when a person has obtained female legal sex status using a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”). It has not identified nor has it analysed the impact of Gender Recognition Reform on sex-based rights.

There are many sex-based rights, which are negatively affected and, in the case of equal pay completely extinguished by suspending recognition of a person’s biological sex. I will only review a selection of them in this briefing note.

Currently there are sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act which allow single sex service providers to exclude both men and transwomen who do not have a GRC. Once a transwoman obtains a GRC a service provider may only rely upon a gender reassignment discrimination exception. This disallows a public body from undertaking the supporting public functions required to provide the service such as allocating budget to it. I will provide an in depth review of how single sex provision works and the likely impact of gender recognition reform.

There is cause for significant concern that single sex service provision on the lines of natal sex will be rendered unworkable and severely compromise the rights which women currently have to single sex services. Scotland is already experiencing a chilling effect on the use of the sex exceptions, which is, in my view putting local authorities at risk of breaching women’s human rights

Full briefing note here:
mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/impact-of-gender-recognition-on-sex-based-rights.-r-bull-11-feb-2020.pdf

…the GRA has a massive effect on sex based exceptions under the Equality Act: Sex because GRC says gender is sex and trumps it; this makes it necessary to look for exceptions under Equality Act:Gender Reassignment and even here it seems most unclear that any organisation, association or service provider could be sure they would not face discrimination litigation were they to make exceptions excluding GRA holders.

There we are again with "likely to be". How do you achieve this if someone has a new birth certificate which contains a lie?
I don't disagree but I think the likelihood bit stands on the type of sport not the 'type' of participant.

I think it's clear the GRA needs to be amended and then repealed.
I completely agree with the repeal part, I don't think it's worth amending but it would need some review before scrapping it but I wouldn't waste any time on amending it if it were up to me. (I to agree with a 'grandfather clause' for existing GRC holders but no longer support that idea.)

I too think the 'likely to be' is just not going to be clear enough for sports bodies.

Someone might have to test the "likely to be", since there's nothing forthcoming from the government. Even losing would be a win in the court of public opinion, and - in the absence of government/EHRC leadership - might start properly flushing it all out.