A space for respectful dialogue about sex, gender and diversity

[Tandora]

This is a thread for posters who want to talk and share a diverse range of opinions about sex, gender, being gender non-conforming and/or trans, and public policy. It is to learn from each other; to engage in a productive exchange, and to hear different sides of the story.

It is not a space for bullying and insults. Please do not join if your intention is to control the conversation and undermine those who disagree with you.

I indeed it is this thread and the constant admonishments throughout for lack of "respect" that have finally fully convinced me that "Tandora" is a man.
He's clearly very much enjoyed telling the women off and trying to "boss" us about. I've had my suspicions on other threads but this has put the tin
lid on it for me. Abusive men often cite "disrespect" from women as a trigger. This insistence is a clear case of "women - know your place"
Very obvious when you see it.

(I actually think medical transition should be banned apart from in cases where it is deemed to be the only treatment for someone's mental health and all other options have been explored with therapy OR it is as a result of a DSD where the wrong decision was made by doctors/parents at birth)

Doctors don't decide a person's sex at birth - they observe it. Entirely different. Where an incorrect observation is made there are well-established thoroughly understood legal mechanisms to correct the error that have nothing whatsoever to do with "transition" - medical, legal, or otherwise.

DSDs have nothing to do with being 'trans'.

Most definitely IANAL, but I'm trying to understand this better ...

Let's say there's an association with 25+ members for a hobby traditionally seen as "feminine", e.g. hair styling or flower arranging. If it calls itself a women's association, then my understanding is that it would have to be strictly single-sex. But if it doesn't call itself a women's association (or limit membership to any other PC), then would it be right to say the Equality Act doesn't apply at all? The membership would be self-selecting but it would likely end up dominated by women anyway, with a sprinkling of TW and other men with that shared interest. Obviously it's a risk, and nobody in their right mind would do this for, say, a bikini waxing club. But would it be a way to create a formal association with 25+ members that's mixed-sex but single-gender?

Genuine question. It's been bugging me all afternoon. 🤔

Yes. I think you've absolutely identified the issue. As far as I can see TiMs ( trans identifying males) and TiFs( trans identifying females) feel the need for whatever reason to present as stereotypes of the sex they wish they were. Their ideas always seem to need an extreme expression. I obvs can't tell what is going on in their heads and I suspect the motivation varies but it always seems to be a bit cartoonish.

Also not a lawyer! And obviously take with a grain of salt as it's my scenario that people are debating, but...

I've been involved in some groups that do something similar, e.g. women who code groups. They'll call themselves something like "Code Gals" or "Py-Ladies" etc and have a big picture of a woman with pink hair in front of a laptop.

On the FAQ section of the website there'll be a question "who are we for?" with a carefully worded answer along the lines of "Our mission is to help all ladies to code. If you identify as a lady, that's you! We'd love to see you. We welcome anyone to our classes. We particularly welcome applications from women, women with a trans history, non-binary folx, [...] We love being an inclusive environment and hope to see you soon!"

The non-women who I met through some of these classes are the reasons I peaked so don't take this as support for this concept

Yes - I am aware that sex is observed and dsds have nothing to do with being trans (which is why I will not refer to Casta Semenya or Imane Khalif as male like some people)

I certainly wasn't (intentionally) suggesting that people with DSDs were trans in the same way that those with gender dysmorphia or fetishes are.

I do recognise that some people with sex ambiguous dsds can be observed as having a sex at birth which does not align with their identity and who may choose to transition to the opposite sex to which they were raised later in life.

IMO that is one of the very few legitimate reasons for people to be able to access medical intervention in relation to gender transition.

Hopefully that is clearer about what I meant.

IIRC (someone can correct me), if its articles of association state that it is a women’s group [regardless of whether the activity is traditionally feminine or is a carpentry/plumbing/boxing club] then, just as the WI will find out, it would be considered a single sex association under the SC ruling. If they allow a trans woman to join, then it becomes a mixed sex organisation into which they must now be willing to allow any man or face accusations of discrimination and poss law suit - though they would also need to amend their articles to reflect the mixed sex nature of the club and possibly get the agreement of existing membership to do so, depending upon the rules set out in the articles.

How are Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif not male exactly?

Yes, if it’s mixed sex then anyone can join but often it’s going to be self selecting in practice.

Beats me.

The thing about "two decades of academic study", is that it could easily mean the total time spent through primary and secondary school, with a couple of years at college.

Very little. It appears to be just how we see ourselves. It's certainly not how other people see us.

Who - male - would hoist a Muslim woman up on their shoulders as the coach did, if they truly believed they were a woman?

indeed. I think I asked for clarification and didn’t really get any. I think in light of the claims made by that poster, it is significant to get clarification. Because the claim could mean many things and it is being used as an appeal to authority.

To me, it makes no difference. We have seen university professors make declarations about being transgender that are nothing but different theories to the ones now proposed by the OP.

I think it is vitally important to keep repeating that these are theories with no proven conclusions.

IANAL also, but I've been thinking about this, and I think we've mostly got a consensus that it isn't legally possible to have an association that styles itself as being for women, but stretches that to include males with trans identities.

Thinking of how this might work - take an overwhelmingly female hobby like tarot reading. Most groups are tiny and informal, and often they'll be female only by default rather than design. The law would consider a tiny informal hobby group to be basically a friendship group, so the EqA doesn't apply.

A slightly bigger group of about a dozen is likely to have a minority (say one to three) men. They're very likely to be gay men, if that matters, but they'll be enthusiasts for the subject. Again we're basically talking about a friendship group - the analogy would be a female friendship group that includes a gay male friend on evenings out.

If it's a group of 25+ and forms a formal association, you need rules about who can join, and then the question is whether you make it formally women only. The cost/benefit analysis would be whether you want to keep the male hobbyists and their contribution, and whether there's any likelihood of a TIM blagging their way in and making the group be all about them as the Main Character. Once they've joined, you might be able to kick them out for being annoying and disruptive, but the only way to prevent them joining in the first place would be to make it a female single-sex association.

I don't see any way to having a formal association with a membership stipulation of "female plus (male with woman gender identity) excluding (male without woman gender identity)". I don't know if it would be possible to have a "queer" association that's based on a shared belief - that might be something to think about - but it wouldn't be possible to style it as a "women's" group and be mixed sex.

(IME, in a heavily female group, men who say they're men are more likely to behave than men who say they're women, and it's less of a faff to get rid of the ones who don't behave, but I equally don't see a way to have a mostly female group that includes men except the men who say they're women)

Which female person would allow photos to be published where someone’s hand rests on the place their matured breast would be? Yet both Semenya and Khelif have done this. Semenya in a published wedding photo in a traditional male female pose where his wife placed her hand on his chest. Khelif at the Olympics with his coach patting his chest in the ring.

Semenya would not have published the photo if he believed he was female. And Khelif’s coach would have been publicly shamed and likely fired if Khelif was a female boxer.

I, too, have been really enjoying this thread since OP vanished and many thanks for all the interesting contributions.

There was a thread once where it was wondered whether you could have a formal association for people with a 'feminine gender identity', or some such title. It would exclude me, as I don't have a gender identity, and it would exclude trans-identified females and all non-trans males.
Obviously it would be impossible to police, but then would any of the excluded people want to join anyway? It probably wouldn't fall foul of the EA because 'feminine gender identity' is not the same as PC of gender reassignment.

Edit spag

I would just like to thank @Tandora for one of the best threads on FWR that I have ever read. I do, however, find it more than a little ironic that the thread only really opened up once Tandora abandoned the thread and allowed it to develop organically.

Same!

PS. You are going to need an absolutely gob-smacking post in the future to avoid a ODFOD.

I completely agree with you.

Not sure if you meant to quote me, or, if you did, which part of my post you thought was in contradiction of that?

Per the Equality Act 2010, Section 7:

An “association” is an association of persons—
(a)which has at least 25 members, and
(b)admission to membership of which is regulated by the association's rules and involves a process of selection.

It doesn't matter what an organization calls itself. If it has 25 or more members, membership rules, and membership involves any kind of selection process, then it falls under the Act's stipulations for "associations".

Once again: the EA2010 has nothing to say about who you can include and everything to say about who you can exclude. The correct way to frame your feminine association to see whether what it does is legal is to consider which people are not allowed to join.

The purpose of the EA is to make certain kinds discrimination against groups (by barring them entry or treating them worse) unlawful.

It's tempting to use the "Agree" reaction. But actually, I do not agree. It's a post which overreacts, and in doing so, it attacks @Taztoy again. There's no sign of self reflection; the OP doesn't appear to see the belittling of Taztoy's story.

It's just Tandora using abusers tactics again.

When told your behaviour towards someone has been awful (I saw it as a deliberate attack on Taztoy personally), seize on any whiff of an excuse to assume the victim position and flounce off.

Another thing that completely enraged me at the time was how Khelif groped Angela Carini's breast after she conceeded and was in tears, utter bastard!

And the reason he felt completely safe to do it in front of hundreds of thousands of people was because his assumed status of "woman" was his shield, enabling him to punch a woman repeatedly in the face, and then grope her under cover of a "sportsman-like tap" to her right breast.