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

"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."

You've missed the first part of that clause as the exception only applies if the child is already taking blockers obtained from elsewhere

No, their reassignment does not change their sex at birth, but gender reassignment talks about changing pschological and physical aspects of sex. If sex is defined, in law, as something immutable (which is what this amendment proposes) then gender reassignment is no longer possible.

Ah, sorry, you are right. It bans pubery blockers, whatever the evidence for them.

Can you please post the evidence that supports a definite improvement for children's lives with the use of puberty blockers?

If sex is defined, in law, as something immutable (which is what this amendment proposes) then gender reassignment is no longer possible.

The current situation seems to be that sex in law is defined as "sex at birth. potentially modified by a GRC".

So if you think "gender reassignment" is governed by the legal definition of "sex", then you believe only people with a GRC are currently covered by "gender reassignment"?

That's a remarkably narrow position, and not one I think many hold. The usual view is that any attempt to pretend to be the opposite sex works, it doesn't have to be a legal fiction.

Do bear in mind that we are planning to abolish GRCs, and I think we were broadly okay with the "gender reassignment" EHRC protection remaining, but if you want to tie that to GRCs so it vanishes too, fine?

If sex is defined, in law, as something immutable (which is what this amendment proposes) then gender reassignment is no longer possible.

This was clarified by the Lady Haldane ruling. Gender reassignment creates a category of "legal sex" ie it isn't real but for the purposes deemed appropraite eg marriage, it can be presented as someone having a sex opposite to their biological sex registered at birth.

In a way this is a different route to what was meant to be the outcome of the debate following the two petitions on gender where it was left that the Government would look into creating a reality from that discussion.

Seems that Liz Truss has thought we cant hang around waiting for the Government to do anything (out smarting KB?) and has shown another route to achieving the end aim.

Should this past not only will it protect children but will be an example where biological sex is real and should not be ignored.

changing …physical aspects of sex

For a male human this change of physical aspects of sex could be any or just some of the following:

Makeup
Typical women’s clothing
Women’s hairstyle wig
Breast enhancement from surgery, hormones or prosthetics
Facial and body hair removed
Genital tucking
Genital surgery

..or not one of these, as I think it can all be just an intention.

At no point though does any of these props, which mimic aspects associated with the female sex, in order to enhance a male person’s female identity or role ( their Gender Reassignment) change their actual sex.

That is my new name for her anyway! 😀

So much this.

You are joking at this point right?

I really want @DadJoke to tell us what the reasons are.

Well I take it all back, Liz has come through and actually published the bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0035/230035.pdf

Are you seriously asking me why women-only events in male-dominated fields where there are no biological reasons for differences should exist? It increases women's representation in games and sports which have traditionally been dominated by men for sexist reasons. The inclusion of trans women (who are not inherently better than other women) does not threaten this in any way. Unless you are arguing that men are inherently better at chess? Every time I hit an EvPsych argument against women, there's a better cultural explanation. If there were as many women chess players as men, there's every chance that the amazing outliers could become champions.

Men believe that women (and girls) are not innately brilliant and therefore bad at chess, the resulting toxic attitudes drive women out, the participation gap increases, the top-level gap increases, and statistically challenged men believe even more that women are bad at chess.As in other arenas with brilliance culture and a stark participation gap, such as physics and computer science, this cycle is incredibly difficult to break. Yet, we must try. The Women in Chess initiative by the U.S. Chess Federation throws money and support behind tournaments that cater to girls and women. As Sarah-Jane Leslie explains, emphasizing the importance of hard work over brilliance might help prevent girls and women from dropping out. Projects like Not Particularly Beautiful forcefully call out biased statements and shine a light on the role that culture plays in keeping women out.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html

Bravo Liz and supporters. I'd stand behind all of that. Protection of children's physical health and safety, and of women's sex based needs, access and services, cannot be viewed as a threat to adults with TQ+ identities, unless these basic needs and rights of others are in fact in some way limiting to those adults' wishes.

It's short and very readable and not actually insane. Clarify the definition of sex in the EA to mean biological sex (although leaving the door open for people with DSDs), ban puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria, ban public authorities (which I guess is aimed at schools) from gender-affirming behaviour.

Nothing about sport.

Dadjoke no trans males will have encountered the blocks to their success that girls and women will have though will they? That's the whole point!
Men may well think that women are bad at chess but they will not include trans males in that because they are not women!

I can hear the screams of bigoted TERF already.

So you acknowledge sexism and negative discrimination exists. You just cannot acknowledge that males who have had privilege over female people from birth retain this. And that including them then results in exclusion of those female people who have experienced it from birth.

Because…. Some magic erases all that once a male person declares they are somehow a woman. Well done. Another display of how misogynistic your thinking continues to be while posting on a feminism board.

Another display of how misogynistic your thinking continues to be while posting on a feminism board

It's completely ridiculous!

This sounds good?

Interested to hear what other pro women posters think

I think it looks good, nice and clear. I don't think it needs to directly mention sport or anything else as I think (hope!) that would all follow from the proposed amendment to the Equality Act? So it's quite a neat solution.

@EasternStandard yeah, it looks pretty good - the EA amendment in particular would be really welcome, and the puberty blockers bit will mop up the unscrupulous private doctors still prescribing them since the NHS ban.

I'm undecided about the ban on gender-affirming behaviour (public authorities using preferred pronouns etc). Memories of clause 28 run deep I'm afraid.

I'm not clever enough to figure out if it conflicts with the GRA.

That hasn't been drafted by Liz Truss. That looks like the product of Parliamentary Counsel.

Interesting

@guinnessguzzler I don't think the amendment to the EA would have any impact on sport - those bodies that are categorising on sex will continue to do so (with the added protection of a more robust defintion of sex) , those using 'gender' for categorisation will also continue to do so.

So this clarifyies the definitions of men and women as relating to biological sex as registered at birth? And removes the ability of medics to give children & young people body and mind altering drugs in pursuit of the fantasy that sex change is possible? The latter ensuring that children will be of an age where they are more likely to be able to give informed consent about their future infertility, ill health and becoming a medical patient for life?

I expect there'll be a motley crew of anti safeguarding flat earthers complaining but it seems to me to be very helpful in terms of finally protecting children from this dangerous belief?