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’ve had much discussion on this topic and the bill seems to safeguard children and sort out some pressing issues

Surely it’s a way through the quagmire that the GRA landed on us twenty years ago and building

Seems simple, for once

I don't think it would leave the door open for males with DSDs, because the definition is based on the organisation of the body for a specific sexual role and also mentions chromosomes - we know the chromosome combinations which lead to DSDs in males (well, I say "we"- the experts do!) - so there would be no doubt.

Also sport is covered by a specific section of the EA anyway - there is no need for anyone to plead confusion, all males can be excluded from a female category, no exceptions or special cases.

The difference with section 28 is that this looks at not trying to prevent children from knowing about trans or seeing as an option - note the lack of any banning of discussing it - but to prevent children becoming locked into a pathway before they have had enough time and experience to make decisions that have lifetime consequences. It's not about discouraging a path in this case, it is about protection through keeping all the doors open and all the options to a child available, while preserving physical health and safety.

That would seem to me the most basic of safeguarding responsibilities.

According to Truss's definition of sex, none of these constitute changing sex, because sex is immutable and set in stone at birth. You would need to redefine gender reassignment and a bunch of other stuff in the bill to make this work.

I think what she is intending to do is ban trans women from EA-defined single-sex women's spaces. These amendments don't do that, because gender reassignment no longer makes sense.

Sexism exists. Misogyny exists. Sexism is the reason why women find artificial barriers thrown up in their path to activities like pool, darts and chess and to careers in STEM.

Having women-only competitions, development programmes or social clubs around the activities protects them from mockery, intimidation and even sexual assault, which are all commonly reported by women trying to make their way in a male-dominated field.

Since males who claim to be women are male, it would make no sense to include them in these protected areas. They do not face misogyny because they are not female and nobody perceives them as such. They do not face the sexism women face, either.

Some of these semi-sports (darts, pool, I'm looking at you) have a physical component and male players have an advantage regardless of their subjective feelings about themselves.

Sexism and misogyny shouldn't exist. But they do. And women-only spaces are a proven way of combating the social disadvantages we battle.

Truss's definition of sex is 100% accurate which is important at a time of fake facts and AI.
Adults wishing the participate in gender reassignment would be free to continue - it's only children that are finally being safeguarded from this dangerous for the young idea. It also removes from women and girls the requirement to act as support humans by validating these men with our undressed bodies etc.
Can't see how this does anything other than protect children and women from adults wishing to breach boundaries?

This sounds a great step to me

Males can do as they wish but women and children are released from the obligation and are safeguarded

I thought she had died. Was thinking of Rainbow bridge 😂

Someone with the PC of GR does not have to have obtained a GRC.
As I understand it, anyone with the PC of GR but without a GRC is not entitled to be in opposite-sex spaces/services anyway - that is the status quo. So male people without a GRC can be excluded from all female spaces anyway, and male people who do have a GRC can also be excluded in situations where sex matters, or where not to do so would discriminate unfairly against women, etc.

Even where someone does have a GRC, it does not decree that that person has literally changed sex - it lays a duty on organisations, employers, service providers etc to treat the person as if they had, unless specific legal exclusions can be applied. That will not change, either.

@Hoardasurass Hoardasurass can you update the OP with the link to the bill?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0035/230035.pdf

If preventing male people automatically expecting access to women's single sex spaces renders gender reassignment redundant then really that confirms everything needed to know about the role of biological women and the purpose of using their spaces, doesn't it?

This could have worked. Had the lobby not tried to make it frightening and extremely difficult for women to have any space of any kind to themselves, had these males been able to extend to women some of the compassion and inclusive kindness they so vigorously demand from women, had they been able to cope with the idea that not everything for women had to be about them.

It hasn't. Because of the behaviour of males. Who wish vulnerable women to just be excluded and deleted from reality if they cannot use mixed sex spaces and pretend for the benefit of the male person involved that there are no male people present.

Mixed sex spaces can be provided, but no one changes sex and women cannot be subordinated and denied access and equality so that men can pretend that they have changed sex without anything jarring their fiction. If male people feel there's no point in transitioning unless they can use women and women's spaces in this way? Then that isn't women's problems to solve. Women are not sacrificial resources for men.

I can confidently say that my MP (Kane, Labour) is the original invisible man. I’ve lived and worked in his constituency for over two decades and have never seen him do anything except sit in a very safe seat. Me threatening to withhold my vote from him won’t matter a jot. In fact, I doubt I’d even get an acknowledgement from his office if I did write to him on this issue. His indifference won’t stop me doing just that. Before I do I’d like to see the draft PMB too. I’ve emailed Truss’s office.

No need! Just gone back up thread. Short, pithy and clearly drafted. No issues with supporting it as it stands.

Sex Matters are asking women to email their MP to ask them to support the bill, and they've posted a handy link to make the process easy:
https://sex-matters.org/take-action/urgent-ask-your-mp-to-support-the-bill/

Let's tell our glorious representatives exactly what we think of attempts to erase women!

Done. Wouldn't hold my breath for a response, though, on past form.

So, about the chess thing...

The separate women's classification wasn't created because men are better players, or because women are at a relevant psychological or social disadvantage.

It was created to encourage female participation, because of the huge disparity in numbers. PPs have pointed out that, whatever it is that's keeping female numbers low, it won't apply to transwomen.

@DadJoke has suggested that trans-inclusion shouldn't matter, because men aren't better players. But we don't know whether that's true or not.

I'm more concerned about fairness. There are about forty times more male than female grandmasters. If all other things are equal, when a male who is in the top 100 transitions, he goes to being in the top two or three players in his class. He is gaining an unfair advantage by identifying into the less populous class - and this is purely about relative numbers, nothing else.

Same here. My MP is a Tory chocolate teapot. He loves a photo op though!

I can’t face the anti woman response from my Labour MP, unfortunately I’ll have to pass writing to them

I have thanked for the bill though

I'd imagine if your MP is a Tory, you'd have more chance of a response.

The EA2010 was published after the GRA, and allows providers to include or exclude people whose gender matches the single-sex space, subject to gender reassignment exceptions. People with a GRC also have that protected characteristic, and can also be excluded on that basis.

See the EHRC Statutory Code of Practice as confirmed in AEA vs EHRC.

13.57 If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women
and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should
treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.
However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different
service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is
undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be
lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A transexual person is defined in the EA2010 as a person with the protected charateristic of gender reassignment.

This gender critical site summarises it, and bemoans that providers are not using the exceptions which are available.

At this stage the parties’ arguments essentially converged. Both parties were arguing that a GRC was not relevant to the provision of a single sex service.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

Did you respond to the right person/comment?

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. You seem to have repeated the gist of some of what I said and then cited a case which does not set a legal precedent. I'm tired, so it may be that, but I don't think so.

You've not had dealings with my MP. He's one of the worst for responding. Does enjoy claiming expenses, however!

@HelenaTranscart could you start a new thread with the link to the MP letter?
I think it will get a bit lost on this thread.

Trans males aren't women, and can't participate in women's chess. They have to compete in the men's league.

In fact, transgender men who won in women's events before transitioning will have their titles abolished.

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/08/18/world-chess-just-placed-restrictions-on-both-trans-women-and-trans-men/

DadJoke

The EA2010 created the PC of gender reassignment. People with this PC (which includes, but is not limited to, people with a GRC) are protected from suffering less favourable treatment than others of their sex.

So in general, there is no assumption that males with a GRC are admitted to female spaces, facilities or services, because this exclusion applies to all men and therefore they are not suffering less favourable treatment than others of their sex. Males with a GRC can also be excluded - examples of when this might be appropriate are given in the Act - but that is not the default position. Haldane's judgement complicates this by holding that the PC of Sex means both legal sex as well as bio sex in the context of the EA, except where explicitly stated that it does not. This confusion/ambiguity is what the Bill seeks to clarify in the provisions about the meaning of sex. But this would only apply to people with a GRC, not all people with the PC of GR.

So just to be clear - there are in effect two "classes" of people with the PC of GR - those with a GRC and those without. They are all protected from discrimination and will continue to be so if this Bill becomes law - it won't affect the rights of persons with the PC of GR. It will make it more difficult for service providers and organising bodies to apply Stonewall law.