Liz Truss crosses the golden bridge

[Hoardasurass]

It would seem that Liz Truss has joined us on the dark side with her private members bill, which will be introduced on Friday.😱
The bill would see sex defined as biological sex only, ban cross sex hormones for minors and potentially ban all males from female single sex spaces and sports.
Quite some turn around for someone who wanted to bring in legal self-id

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1875672/liz-truss-trans-children-bill

I probably agree with you on sport, at least adult sport. Given the attrition of young females from sport in teen years, I argue that school and youth sports is something the government should be acting on.

What's 'cisgender'? The designated minions, basically.

You may not reject this language and all the imposed baggage, choices about language and identity are not for the likes of you.

As far as I know Letby has not announced her gender identity so it's EXTREMELY TRANSPHOBIC to assume she identifies as cisgender or any other gender.

@BezMills If the EA is sorted out (to clarify that sex does indeed mean biological sex) then the sport issues will hopefully be resolved as event organisers allowing males into the women's category will open themselves up to potential legal action as this would be indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex: if an event has a men's race/match/whatever, and a women's race, but males are permitted to enter the women's race then that it is indirect discrimination as women do not have the same opportunity to win that men do. Unfortunately event organisers are currently 'protected' by the fuzzy definition of sex.

However, if the All England Tiddlywinking Association or whoever want to categorise their sport by gender rather than sex, I don't think it's up to government to tell them they can't. And independent events, that aren't sanctioned by any governing body, are a bit of a free-for-all. There's an (unaffiliated to British Cycling) cycle race series that has categories of 'Thunder' and 'Lightning' for example.

I've always maintained that it should be up to the governing bodies to fix this and for the most part they are - although there are some grave outliers like FIFA (football) and FIG (gymnastics) who are still kicking the can down the road.

Not transgender.

The EA has exceptions for transgender people, so they can be excluded from categories if sporting bodies wish. Apparently gender critical people have got the stage where they think trans women are inherently better at chess, so I wouldn't put it pas them to complain about Tiddlywinks.

You have again shown that you have little understanding of how negative sexist discrimination from birth works with female people sports and activities in your usual weak attempt to portray girls and women wanting sex prioritised where it matters as hateful. Well done.

You have entirely misunderstood. There are very strong reasons to have women-only chess tournaments, but no reason to exclude trans women from them.

Other than that they are male, and this is a female competition.

And that a mixed sex competition is removing a resource and facility that female people wanted and needed, so that male people can have freedom to have all the choices.

Male people not being intrinsically more important than female ones, no, the female category isn't theirs to commandeer.

If competitions have a female category then only females should qualify to enter.

End of.

I firmly reject this description. I am not "not transgender".
I am female and the descriptor "woman" is accurate.

Same here

Cisgender, like all the other gender identities, you are free to opt into as much or as little as you like. You can keep everybody updated on that, as frequently as you want to, or never at all. Nobody should assume your gender identity and you cannot be allocated to a gender identity by the Allocating Gender People.

Coureur
There is a specific section of the EA which makes it lawful to exclude even males with a GRC from "gender-affected" women-only sport. "Gender-affected" sports are those in which the average man has a physical advantage over the average woman, which covers pretty much anything you would class as a sport. There is also, separately, a provision in the Act which allows for running exclusive competitions/organisations of any activity in which people who share a protected characteristic are underrepresented. That's where the women/girls-only chess competitions (and probably tiddlywinks competitions!) fall.

The issue in many of these cases is not the law itself, it's the unwillingness of governing bodies/organisers to follow it and the silencing of women who protest against the inclusion of males in their category. It's lawful for the organisers of any activity or sport to offer a protected female category - they are choosing not to do so either for ideological reasons or because they have been advised, erroneously, that they cannot exclude male athletes. The lack of a dedicated category would constitute sex discrimination, but it's a brave woman/girl who would go to court - the vindictiveness and obstructiveness of TRAs is a major deterrent. Most women self-exclude or accept being second-class participants in their own category. Fair Play for Women have recently produced a report on women's sport and the picture is much bleaker than you think. Governing bodies and independent organisers are not doing the right thing by women.

Meant to add, for clarity - the sex/legal sex debate does not really apply in sport because of the specific provision to exclude all males, even those with a GRC.

We both know you're being thoroughly dishonest there. But then fundamental dishonesty and requiring people to swallow it quietly is all this ideology is about.

No. I think that YOU have misunderstood.

I was very clear.

No 'transwomen' will be excluded. They can compete with the male people. You know, because they are male. And will likely have had all the opportunities that male people have that female people either don't have or feel they cannot take.

As we keep on pointing out, you have no fucking concept what the lived experience of a female person of any age is. Yet you keep telling female people what they have to accept according to you and other male people.

So, no. No misunderstanding from me. Just you. As usual.

A discussion on this subject from the chess world. I believe for our purposes the word sex would be more appropriate than gender.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/statistical-analysis-on-gender-difference

There's a generic difference between the bell curves of males and females. It almost doesn't matter what you are measuring. The male bell curve has a wider more streched out tails in both directions than the female bell curve. The females bell curve is ( by comparison ) more clumped towards the centre, taller.
Getting into who's "better" at any trait is just silly but what it does mean is that males can exist more at the extremes of the bell curves than females.
To use intelligence just for an example https://www.mwilliams.info/images/gite01.jpg

What this means is that a male has a higher chance to be both a genius or the equivalent in the opposite direction of lack of intelligence than a female.
Sometimes the bell curves don't line up e.g. height, but once the two curves have their peaks aligned to compare the shape of their bell, the male one is usually flatter with more extended edges than the female which has a higher peak distribution and less extended edges.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0035/240035.pdf

This has now been published.

This is something I find fascinating. I first came across this with regard to height - the tallest AND shortest humans in the world are male.

Wow!

For the purposes of this Act, “sex”, in relation to a person, means the classification of that person as either male or female based on the organisation of the person’s body for a specific reproductive role, as indicated by the person’s sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and internal and external genitalia present at birth.

The definition of gender reassignment in the Act is:
proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex

It immediately falls at the first hurdle by making the Act self-contradictory with this amendment, by making it impossible to have the protected charateristic of gender reassignment.

It also says that doctors can't prescribe puberty blockers, but then gives this exception "it would have been clinically inappropriate to not prescribe, administer or supply the medicinal product to the child." In other words "doctors should prescribe drugs according to the medical needs of their patients" - the current law.

It will never be law.

Well obviously not.

Because your sex is your sex for life: everyone has a fixed sex.

Some people will have an additional characteristic they have chosen, of gender reassignment.

The two things are not the same. Everyone will have the first, some people will have both. The reassignment does not change their sex at birth.

The proposal would be that where sex is mentioned it refers to the first and not the second. Which would permit the protection of women's spaces, words, rights etc.

@DadJoke what are the very good reasons for having separate women's chess tournaments? Why do those reasons also apply to transwomen?

(If you're going to reference underrepresentation, don't forget that women make up 51% of the population. Transwomen rather less. It wouldn't surprise me if transwomen were overrepresented in chess tbh)

The bill has disappeared from that site, Justme56.