Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...you will loose women's support." People would not want to loose the support of women who need to pee... Things could get messy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs " Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. " I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. " Very true Prey I call them " militant moaners" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I heard that some trans were demonstrating against the ruling. Never would have even dreamt that they would picket ladies toilets. There is too far and then there is way way way too far. This should be reported to the police every time. It must be a type of assault?" They are just taking the piss... Mrs x  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I heard that some trans were demonstrating against the ruling. Never would have even dreamt that they would picket ladies toilets. There is too far and then there is way way way too far. This should be reported to the police every time. It must be a type of assault?" Depending on location and what they actually do it could be obstruction of a persons right of way, unlawful detention or assault. All but certainly disturbing the peace if they have not notified the police of their intention to protest and being granted permission. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused about what their definition of 'biological woman' is. Genotype or phenotype? " Shhh. We have to accept that it's 'obvious' and ignore the anomalies 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused about what their definition of 'biological woman' is. Genotype or phenotype? " The ruling wasn’t about what a biological woman is. It was about what a woman is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused about what their definition of 'biological woman' is. Genotype or phenotype? The ruling wasn’t about what a biological woman is. It was about what a woman is. " A woman is a biological woman, based on biological sex. So what is a biological woman seems a valid follow on question when there are multiple interpretations 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is. "And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight? Amazing 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜"Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜"A testosterone induced enlarged adams apple is a dead giveaway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜
Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks? "Oh, so you know what a woman is, but couldn't reliably identify one on the street? Fair enough then 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A testosterone induced enlarged adams apple is a dead giveaway. " So how do you tell on fat people or children? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜
Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks?
Oh, so you know what a woman is, but couldn't reliably identify one on the street?
Fair enough then 💜"This is an bit ingenious as an argument isn't it. A good forger could create an almost identical copy of a painting but it doesn't make it an original does it? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜
Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks?
Oh, so you know what a woman is, but couldn't reliably identify one on the street?
Fair enough then 💜This is an bit ingenious as an argument isn't it.
A good forger could create an almost identical copy of a painting but it doesn't make it an original does it?
Mrs x"It's all getting tremendously off topic for not wanting to answer what defines a biological woman to be fair. But if we're playing this route, original or not, whoever is hanging it up is enjoying having it there 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A testosterone induced enlarged adams apple is a dead giveaway. So how do you tell on fat people or children?" A pre pub escent child will not have an enlarged adams apple and for portly people the 5 o'clock shadow is a dead giveaway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜
Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks?
Oh, so you know what a woman is, but couldn't reliably identify one on the street?
Fair enough then 💜This is an bit ingenious as an argument isn't it.
A good forger could create an almost identical copy of a painting but it doesn't make it an original does it?
Mrs x
It's all getting tremendously off topic for not wanting to answer what defines a biological woman to be fair.
But if we're playing this route, original or not, whoever is hanging it up is enjoying having it there 💜"Not if you paid millions for a 10 quid forgery your not! Also the definition makes no mention about looks. What next, woman are only woman if they are attractive or pretty? You know what is meant by biological and that means what you were born as. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A testosterone induced enlarged adams apple is a dead giveaway. So how do you tell on fat people or children? A pre pub escent child will not have an enlarged adams apple and for portly people the 5 o'clock shadow is a dead giveaway." Isn't it something like 10% of (biological) women suffer PCOS with the excess testosterone produced by the condition prone to causing both extra hair and male pattern baldness? Plus, you know, the shadows on a double chin can be quite misleading if there's harsh overhead lighting 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think Barry Gibb should have a big say in this debate. After all , he knew what more than a woman was." Very good haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not if you paid millions for a 10 quid forgery your not! Also the definition makes no mention about looks. What next, woman are only woman if they are attractive or pretty? You know what is meant by biological and that means what you were born as. Mrs x" If you can afford to spend millions on something aesthetic just because then I think it's probably not as big a loss as it would be for a normal person. Yes. Born as. Phenotype or genotype being the decider there? Birth records are generally decided by phenotype if it helps. The majority of people are never tested to find out if they're XX/XY or anything in between unless in the process of diagnosing issues later in life 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not if you paid millions for a 10 quid forgery your not! Also the definition makes no mention about looks. What next, woman are only woman if they are attractive or pretty? You know what is meant by biological and that means what you were born as. Mrs x If you can afford to spend millions on something aesthetic just because then I think it's probably not as big a loss as it would be for a normal person. Yes. Born as. Phenotype or genotype being the decider there? Birth records are generally decided by phenotype if it helps. The majority of people are never tested to find out if they're XX/XY or anything in between unless in the process of diagnosing issues later in life 💜" Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are probably online tutorials, university courses, evening classes and all sorts of higher learning facilities where you can learn what a woman is. Or you could ask any of the 99.99% of the population who have always known what a woman is.
And do you instantly know the original contents of someone's pants and the chromosome combination on sight?
Amazing 💜
Why would I care about either of those things? Why do you, is it one of your kinks?
Oh, so you know what a woman is, but couldn't reliably identify one on the street?
Fair enough then 💜"Why on earth would I care about "identifying a woman on the street"? I just do shopping and walking etc. You know, normal stuff that normal people do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x" God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜" It's very rare, 1 in 4500 births are DSD in the UK. That's 130 births a year but that's out of 585,000 births. And those that do have DSD they are still correctly identified following abdominal scans checking anatomy, and blood tests. So why is saying someone being defined as a biological woman or man such a problem? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜It's very rare, 1 in 4500 births are DSD in the UK. That's 130 births a year but that's out of 585,000 births. And those that do have DSD they are still correctly identified following abdominal scans checking anatomy, and blood tests. So why is saying someone being defined as a biological woman or man such a problem? Mrs x" It isn't a problem for rational people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜It's very rare, 1 in 4500 births are DSD in the UK. That's 130 births a year but that's out of 585,000 births. And those that do have DSD they are still correctly identified following abdominal scans checking anatomy, and blood tests. So why is saying someone being defined as a biological woman or man such a problem? Mrs x" 130 births per year where there is obvious cause to investigate further. Many DSDs are not immediately apparent at birth and may only become evident during puberty or later in life, particularly when individuals do not experience expected pubertal changes or encounter fertility issues. It was simply a question of is it the genotype or phenotype that determines. I only included that part in case what was assigned at birth was what mattered because everyone has a designation at birth, or what is in the chromosomal makeup that will only be investigated in situations of developmental issues during puberty or diagnosing other problems (which may or may not be related), and otherwise simply assumed based on the external presentation. The tangents are, well, tangential. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜It's very rare, 1 in 4500 births are DSD in the UK. That's 130 births a year but that's out of 585,000 births. And those that do have DSD they are still correctly identified following abdominal scans checking anatomy, and blood tests. So why is saying someone being defined as a biological woman or man such a problem? Mrs x 130 births per year where there is obvious cause to investigate further. Many DSDs are not immediately apparent at birth and may only become evident during puberty or later in life, particularly when individuals do not experience expected pubertal changes or encounter fertility issues. It was simply a question of is it the genotype or phenotype that determines. I only included that part in case what was assigned at birth was what mattered because everyone has a designation at birth, or what is in the chromosomal makeup that will only be investigated in situations of developmental issues during puberty or diagnosing other problems (which may or may not be related), and otherwise simply assumed based on the external presentation. The tangents are, well, tangential." Of these 130 most are tested at birth, if there is any abnormality in the genitilia of the baby. Tests are performed at this stage and although results come back within 10 days,some do take longer but I'm not aware of were in, these circumstances abnormalities of genitalia at birth, anything isn't decided until puberty. It seems fairly easy to determine sex and is done in well over 99% of the time just with a look at the baby's bits and bobs. Even for the less than 1% we're this is not an immediate call, these babies are correctly identified after receiving the tests. So a definition of a person as one sex or another based on biological factors is unbelievably accurate and seems like a common sense decision and judging from the comments on social media and the actions of a few is well needed. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know if you have kids or not, but I'd love to see how many Mums on here gave birth and the sex of their child was determined without any test being performed. I think in the overwhelming number of births sex is easy to determine but I'm sure you have other evidence to dispute this. Mrs x God's no, I like my body and my freedom far too much to spawn offspring. I was present at my niece's birth though. The "it's a girl" was pronounced without any blood or genetic tests, simply on the presentation of standard female form. Of the 1600 births a day in the UK the majority will be that simple. If there are obvious issues or concerns from a surface glance then they'll probably run some actual tests. But it's not standard procedure by any means 💜It's very rare, 1 in 4500 births are DSD in the UK. That's 130 births a year but that's out of 585,000 births. And those that do have DSD they are still correctly identified following abdominal scans checking anatomy, and blood tests. So why is saying someone being defined as a biological woman or man such a problem? Mrs x 130 births per year where there is obvious cause to investigate further. Many DSDs are not immediately apparent at birth and may only become evident during puberty or later in life, particularly when individuals do not experience expected pubertal changes or encounter fertility issues. It was simply a question of is it the genotype or phenotype that determines. I only included that part in case what was assigned at birth was what mattered because everyone has a designation at birth, or what is in the chromosomal makeup that will only be investigated in situations of developmental issues during puberty or diagnosing other problems (which may or may not be related), and otherwise simply assumed based on the external presentation. The tangents are, well, tangential.Of these 130 most are tested at birth, if there is any abnormality in the genitilia of the baby. Tests are performed at this stage and although results come back within 10 days,some do take longer but I'm not aware of were in, these circumstances abnormalities of genitalia at birth, anything isn't decided until puberty. It seems fairly easy to determine sex and is done in well over 99% of the time just with a look at the baby's bits and bobs. Even for the less than 1% we're this is not an immediate call, these babies are correctly identified after receiving the tests. So a definition of a person as one sex or another based on biological factors is unbelievably accurate and seems like a common sense decision and judging from the comments on social media and the actions of a few is well needed. Mrs x" Common sense seems to be lacking in some lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of these 130 most are tested at birth, if there is any abnormality in the genitilia of the baby. Tests are performed at this stage and although results come back within 10 days,some do take longer but I'm not aware of were in, these circumstances abnormalities of genitalia at birth, anything isn't decided until puberty. It seems fairly easy to determine sex and is done in well over 99% of the time just with a look at the baby's bits and bobs. Even for the less than 1% we're this is not an immediate call, these babies are correctly identified after receiving the tests. So a definition of a person as one sex or another based on biological factors is unbelievably accurate and seems like a common sense decision and judging from the comments on social media and the actions of a few is well needed. Mrs x" That's if they exhibit external genitalia deviating far enough from the norm to be tested. Some people appear sufficiently one rather than the other to reach adulthood or close before it becomes a question. 99% accuracy is great and all, but when the people in question are less than 1% of the total is it really a useful stat? And again, I'm not particularly arguing about intersex. It's just an example and part of the question of is a biological woman determined by their genitalia as it looks at birth, or by the genetic makeup which most people will never actually know for certain what theirs is. Yes, they come to the same result for most people. Or at least most people go through their lives without ever needing to question the sex that was determined at their birth. You can just say it's determined by both if you prefer. Save all this faff 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are)" But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What if?" Lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently?" What they were born with  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with "There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of these 130 most are tested at birth, if there is any abnormality in the genitilia of the baby. Tests are performed at this stage and although results come back within 10 days,some do take longer but I'm not aware of were in, these circumstances abnormalities of genitalia at birth, anything isn't decided until puberty. It seems fairly easy to determine sex and is done in well over 99% of the time just with a look at the baby's bits and bobs. Even for the less than 1% we're this is not an immediate call, these babies are correctly identified after receiving the tests. So a definition of a person as one sex or another based on biological factors is unbelievably accurate and seems like a common sense decision and judging from the comments on social media and the actions of a few is well needed. Mrs x That's if they exhibit external genitalia deviating far enough from the norm to be tested. Some people appear sufficiently one rather than the other to reach adulthood or close before it becomes a question. 99% accuracy is great and all, but when the people in question are less than 1% of the total is it really a useful stat? And again, I'm not particularly arguing about intersex. It's just an example and part of the question of is a biological woman determined by their genitalia as it looks at birth, or by the genetic makeup which most people will never actually know for certain what theirs is. Yes, they come to the same result for most people. Or at least most people go through their lives without ever needing to question the sex that was determined at their birth. You can just say it's determined by both if you prefer. Save all this faff 💜" But it's not determined by both, it's simply determined by a visual confirmation, it's as simple as that, the stats back that up. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜"It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law "It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x"I agree it’s getting ridiculous, throw their dummies out and shout the loudest just like the minority groups do x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And women that are born without a vagina? What are they? " They are born DSD. They will have further tests to determine sex, scans of the abdominal and blood tests and once these come back sex is determined. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x"The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x
The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜"You are asking this but you know the answer, you've already known the answer. It's Phenotype, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x
The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜You are asking this but you know the answer, you've already known the answer.
It's Phenotype,
Mrs x"Logically, sure. But without specification in the law it's open to interpretation. I honestly don't care what someone's sex is in general 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x
The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜You are asking this but you know the answer, you've already known the answer.
It's Phenotype,
Mrs x
Logically, sure. But without specification in the law it's open to interpretation.
I honestly don't care what someone's sex is in general 💜"You’re doing a good job of not caring for someone who is hell bent on arguing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a pointless question because regardless of what definition you come up with, trans people exist and have done so far back into history. You can't definition them away. The science was settled long ago that being trans is something that occurs normally in society, it is not people being weird or attention seeking or whatever. Being trans can lead to a very challenging life and science also agreed a long time ago that the best thing for trans people is often to transitions and live as the sex they feel they are. But sure, lets just do "man penis! woman vagina!" and pretend that somehow solves anything. A reminder that trans people are less than 1% of society (and of those, there are more trans men than trans women) and most people complaining about this topic have probably never even met a trans person, let alone done any reading into what trans people's lives are like. " *Never knowingly met a trans person. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x
The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜You are asking this but you know the answer, you've already known the answer.
It's Phenotype,
Mrs x
Logically, sure. But without specification in the law it's open to interpretation.
I honestly don't care what someone's sex is in general 💜
You’re doing a good job of not caring for someone who is hell bent on arguing "Hey I just like understanding people's reasoning for things. The best way to do that is to ask questions 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not really sure what’s so hard to understand….. Vagina = woman Penis = man (regardless of what they think they are) But only what they were born with, not what they have currently? What they were born with
There we go see. One vote for phenotype. That wasn't so hard 💜
It’s not just 1 vote though is it? It’s the overall majority and the law It's also the system that's used and is so accurate. It's only argued against by those who don't want to accept it,
Mrs x
The law says biological. The question was simply if that was phenotype or genotype. Both are biological factors. It just seemed a very long road to get to a very simple answer 💜You are asking this but you know the answer, you've already known the answer.
It's Phenotype,
Mrs x
Logically, sure. But without specification in the law it's open to interpretation.
I honestly don't care what someone's sex is in general 💜"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x" Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜" Sorry but not sure what it is you are trying to say, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜" There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions " But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers?" What if someone competes in a female sport but was born a man, so phenotype would change after transition that's the goal of transition. In these cases a blood test would be needed, you know this, you are just being a little obtuse, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers? What if someone competes in a female sport but was born a man, so phenotype would change after transition that's the goal of transition. In these cases a blood test would be needed, you know this, you are just being a little obtuse, Mrs x" She was born a woman. All of her records are female, all of her childhood pictures are of a little girl 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers?What if someone competes in a female sport but was born a man, so phenotype would change after transition that's the goal of transition. In these cases a blood test would be needed, you know this, you are just being a little obtuse, Mrs x" Totally agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers? What if someone competes in a female sport but was born a man, so phenotype would change after transition that's the goal of transition. In these cases a blood test would be needed, you know this, you are just being a little obtuse, Mrs x She was born a woman. All of her records are female, all of her childhood pictures are of a little girl 💜" But she has more testosterone in her body than a lot of men which as I said more testing needs to be done for major sports competitions for men and women | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it open to interpretation? Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. It's a hugely successful way of determining biological sex and the courts are not interested in the process to determine this, they will leave that to the medical profession and the accepted method of determining this, which is phenotype. Mrs x Awesome. Then people can stop getting so angry at Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough and she can go win some more boxing. As with everything, it's impossible to get everyone to agree on something. Given the law in question was only really relevant to equality law, it really shouldn't have any bearing on the rest. But, of course, it does in the court of public opinion 💜 There should be testing for everyone in major sports competitions But if the determination is phenotype, the original external genitalia, what is there to test for? How tired the midwife was when she was born? When did the attending doctor last go to Specsavers? What if someone competes in a female sport but was born a man, so phenotype would change after transition that's the goal of transition. In these cases a blood test would be needed, you know this, you are just being a little obtuse, Mrs x She was born a woman. All of her records are female, all of her childhood pictures are of a little girl 💜" You are talking about the Algerian boxer. Her problem was she failed a blood test apparently, I was just making a general point about Trans people in sport, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this." There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But she has more testosterone in her body than a lot of men which as I said more testing needs to be done for major sports competitions for men and women " Failing unspecified gender eligibility tests doesn't really tell you what the disqualification was for. But if you think testosterone is a plausible enough one it must be that. And I'm sure the more than most men comes from a reputable source too. If the definition is by phenotype, then what do the hormones which can be elevated for various reasons have to do with the designation of female? Something like 10% of women have elevated testosterone from PCOS. Intense training for strength and fighting increase testosterone. Most female competitive fighters will at times of peak training intensity have higher testosterone than the average bloke sat on the sofa after a long day in a boring office. Also, you said before that sex was absolutely determined by the phenotype at birth, and then indicated that people can change their phenotype by surgical transition making them the other to compete in sport. Isn't that fairly contradictory? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year?" They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year?" Sex is binary in law remember, male or female. There's no opt out on it 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But she has more testosterone in her body than a lot of men which as I said more testing needs to be done for major sports competitions for men and women Failing unspecified gender eligibility tests doesn't really tell you what the disqualification was for. But if you think testosterone is a plausible enough one it must be that. And I'm sure the more than most men comes from a reputable source too. If the definition is by phenotype, then what do the hormones which can be elevated for various reasons have to do with the designation of female? Something like 10% of women have elevated testosterone from PCOS. Intense training for strength and fighting increase testosterone. Most female competitive fighters will at times of peak training intensity have higher testosterone than the average bloke sat on the sofa after a long day in a boring office. Also, you said before that sex was absolutely determined by the phenotype at birth, and then indicated that people can change their phenotype by surgical transition making them the other to compete in sport. Isn't that fairly contradictory?" She had elevated testosterone to such a level that a male athlete who had similar levels would face a ban, despite men having significantly higher levels of naturally occurring testosterone. You are right that traing, intensely does increase testosterone but it's not to any huge amount, that's why body builders and male athletes take PEDs, particularly Testosterone because its not possible to increase testosterone naturally to such high levels. As for change in phenotypes, once transitioned it's not contradictory. Given that phenotypes are the physical characteristics, that can be seen and measured. So for those that transition this is their goal, they change their phenotype from that of birth. What they don't do is change their biological status, that's immutable, not contradictory. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She had elevated testosterone to such a level that a male athlete who had similar levels would face a ban, despite men having significantly higher levels of naturally occurring testosterone. You are right that traing, intensely does increase testosterone but it's not to any huge amount, that's why body builders and male athletes take PEDs, particularly Testosterone because its not possible to increase testosterone naturally to such high levels. As for change in phenotypes, once transitioned it's not contradictory. Given that phenotypes are the physical characteristics, that can be seen and measured. So for those that transition this is their goal, they change their phenotype from that of birth. What they don't do is change their biological status, that's immutable, not contradictory. Mrs x" I'd love to know where the confirmation of the data on her testosterone levels came from. If the levels were so high that a man with them would be banned, isn't that then a doping issue rather than a gender one? If a man would be banned for such unnaturally high testosterone then the logic for that can't be because he's too much man to compete with all the regular men. I was specifically asking the person I was replying to, as their wording earlier on here was that phenotype at birth was all that mattered, and I know they referenced Khelif as man beating up women at the olympic boxing in an earlier thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She had elevated testosterone to such a level that a male athlete who had similar levels would face a ban, despite men having significantly higher levels of naturally occurring testosterone. You are right that traing, intensely does increase testosterone but it's not to any huge amount, that's why body builders and male athletes take PEDs, particularly Testosterone because its not possible to increase testosterone naturally to such high levels. As for change in phenotypes, once transitioned it's not contradictory. Given that phenotypes are the physical characteristics, that can be seen and measured. So for those that transition this is their goal, they change their phenotype from that of birth. What they don't do is change their biological status, that's immutable, not contradictory. Mrs x I'd love to know where the confirmation of the data on her testosterone levels came from. If the levels were so high that a man with them would be banned, isn't that then a doping issue rather than a gender one? If a man would be banned for such unnaturally high testosterone then the logic for that can't be because he's too much man to compete with all the regular men. I was specifically asking the person I was replying to, as their wording earlier on here was that phenotype at birth was all that mattered, and I know they referenced Khelif as man beating up women at the olympic boxing in an earlier thread." I think I may be wrong. That was what was said about her originally, about her raised testosterone but thinking about it there's something in the back of my mind about her failing a chromosome test. But due to my nagging doubt I'm not going to pursue this because I'm not sure now. She failed something and more tests should have been done by the powers that be at the Olympics, if they did that there wouldn't have been any further issue. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this." "There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year?" "They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results." So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I may be wrong. That was what was said about her originally, about her raised testosterone but thinking about it there's something in the back of my mind about her failing a chromosome test. But due to my nagging doubt I'm not going to pursue this because I'm not sure now. She failed something and more tests should have been done by the powers that be at the Olympics, if they did that there wouldn't have been any further issue. Mrs x" Unspecified gender eligibility tests. That were performed before she completed in Russia without comment, and only became a failure meaning disqualification after she beat the otherwise unbeaten russian female champion. A single incident of unspecified failure of an unspecified test, which they would have had the results from before she fought the russian champion 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases." The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time. Biological sex is defined by a quick physical exam, think about the numbers involved. 99.98% that's an absolutely high figure. Of the 585,000 births a year only 130 or 0.02% cannot be determined like this but most of these are seed correctly after abdominal scans and blood tests. So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this." "There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year?" "They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results." "So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases." "The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time." Oh, right. So when you were asked earlier how sex was determined, and you confidently stated "it's phenotype", you were wrong then. Because you knew that there was this two-step method, and you knew it wasn't just phenotype. "So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you?" If it means that 130 people every year get the wrong allocation, then no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases. The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time. Oh, right. So when you were asked earlier how sex was determined, and you confidently stated "it's phenotype", you were wrong then. Because you knew that there was this two-step method, and you knew it wasn't just phenotype. So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you? If it means that 130 people every year get the wrong allocation, then no." And what's the correct allocation based on in your opinion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases. The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time. Oh, right. So when you were asked earlier how sex was determined, and you confidently stated "it's phenotype", you were wrong then. Because you knew that there was this two-step method, and you knew it wasn't just phenotype. So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you? If it means that 130 people every year get the wrong allocation, then no." They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases. The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time. Oh, right. So when you were asked earlier how sex was determined, and you confidently stated "it's phenotype", you were wrong then. Because you knew that there was this two-step method, and you knew it wasn't just phenotype. So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you? If it means that 130 people every year get the wrong allocation, then no." But they don't, not sure if your having problem reading or you are just choosing to ignore whats written. Hope this clarifies it for you. Of the 130 births which are DSD every year, they have their biological sex determined by examining their abdomen by scans and by having a blood test. Once the results come back then they know the child's biological sex, most results come back within 10 days. So is that OK for you. 99.98% have their sex identified immediately. The remaining 0 02% have tests to work this out, so that's the system used. Hope this puts your mind at ease, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly " What is the correct sexing based on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Biological sex is determined by a system that is 99.98% accurate, it's not required to have another method to prove this. There isn't? So in that 0.02% of cases we just mark the birth certificate as "don't know"? There's no need to have a back up system to cover the 140 cases that occur in the UK every year? They do test these 0.02 %, if you cared to read the previous posts you'd have seen that this has been discussed. DSD babies have abdominal scans and blood tests to determine sex and they then record the sex of the baby following these results. So your statement that "it's not required to have another method" was completely wrong. We do need another method, and we have another method that gets used in some cases. The other tests are part of the 'method' but they are not required in 99.98% of the time. Oh, right. So when you were asked earlier how sex was determined, and you confidently stated "it's phenotype", you were wrong then. Because you knew that there was this two-step method, and you knew it wasn't just phenotype. So 99.98% isn't accurate enough for you? If it means that 130 people every year get the wrong allocation, then no. And what's the correct allocation based on in your opinion?" Its not based upon someones opinion but by medical tests and evidence. Do you dispute this, in your opinion? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly What is the correct sexing based on?" Common sense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly What is the correct sexing based on?" Scans of internal anatomy and blood tests, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But they don't, not sure if your having problem reading or you are just choosing to ignore whats written. Hope this clarifies it for you. Of the 130 births which are DSD every year, they have their biological sex determined by examining their abdomen by scans and by having a blood test. Once the results come back then they know the child's biological sex, most results come back within 10 days. So is that OK for you. 99.98% have their sex identified immediately. The remaining 0 02% have tests to work this out, so that's the system used. Hope this puts your mind at ease, Mrs x" 46XX is the standard female genotype. Approximately 1 in 20,000 male presenting births are actually 46XX with the SRY gene causing the development of male architecture. They usually present in childhood as standard male. The median age for diagnosis of that particular DSD is 17 years old, meaning at least half of them are reaching the tail end of puberty before the question of whether or not they are male even exists to them. Some are found when their partners are unable to conceive with them, as producing viable sperm without a Y chromosome doesn't exactly work out. Not all DSDs have immediate visual symptoms and not all are caught at birth. Not all notable genitalia at birth is about DSDs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly What is the correct sexing based on?Scans of internal anatomy and blood tests, Mrs x" Blood tests for what exactly? "I would love to know the statistics on how many trans were born as DSD I bet there isn’t many if any" The conversation is about the definition of a woman no? You may be obsessing over trans, but were actually discussing the biological anomalies just now 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But they don't, not sure if your having problem reading or you are just choosing to ignore whats written. Hope this clarifies it for you. Of the 130 births which are DSD every year, they have their biological sex determined by examining their abdomen by scans and by having a blood test. Once the results come back then they know the child's biological sex, most results come back within 10 days. So is that OK for you. 99.98% have their sex identified immediately. The remaining 0 02% have tests to work this out, so that's the system used. Hope this puts your mind at ease, Mrs x 46XX is the standard female genotype. Approximately 1 in 20,000 male presenting births are actually 46XX with the SRY gene causing the development of male architecture. They usually present in childhood as standard male. The median age for diagnosis of that particular DSD is 17 years old, meaning at least half of them are reaching the tail end of puberty before the question of whether or not they are male even exists to them. Some are found when their partners are unable to conceive with them, as producing viable sperm without a Y chromosome doesn't exactly work out. Not all DSDs have immediate visual symptoms and not all are caught at birth. Not all notable genitalia at birth is about DSDs. " The numbers for that must be low considering the stats. I know it's got to have a huge impact upon the individual but it's an anomaly and no where near the norm, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don’t get a wrong allocation because more tests are done, scans, blood tests etc not just a physical assessment so all 130 get sexed correctly What is the correct sexing based on?Scans of internal anatomy and blood tests, Mrs x Blood tests for what exactly? I would love to know the statistics on how many trans were born as DSD I bet there isn’t many if any The conversation is about the definition of a woman no? You may be obsessing over trans, but were actually discussing the biological anomalies just now 💜" I don't know what the blood tests look for but I trust the medical profession to ry and do the best for every individual. I'm sure if you researched it you could find out. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The numbers for that must be low considering the stats. I know it's got to have a huge impact upon the individual but it's an anomaly and no where near the norm, Mrs x" Oh I know it's an anomaly and not the norm. But they do exist, and are relevant to what defines the sex of a man or a woman, legally. There is no non binary option in law. Previously with DSDs where there was ambiguity because the architecture for both were present at birth with ovitesticular disorder, a decision was made based on which they were 'more' of based on the balance of ovaries or testes. Ie an ovary and an ovatestis would be likely assigned female, a testes and an ovary or ovatestis more likely assigned male. If, when they reached puberty they were obviously more inclined to the other, then they had to go through the same gender recognition paperwork and hoop jumping as binary trans people do, or did. Though the majority of those who varied from the sex they were reared as were those who were the most ambiguous in terms of the early anatomy and could have gone either way on the decision at that early point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know what the blood tests look for but I trust the medical profession to ry and do the best for every individual. I'm sure if you researched it you could find out. Mrs x" I mean, most post birth blood tests are just checking for the big issues that can be picked up at that point before they can take hold. If there's obvious physical anomalies that tends to be picked up and further testing done. But in general, if XX/XY is actually relevant to the legal sex, that's not a standard test. If that is considered a defining point between male and female then it needs to be standard at birth for everyone. Standard testosterone range for a shiny just popped out newborn is about 0.1-0.6 for girls, 0.3+ for boys, meaning half the female range is within the male range, and by 6 months there is no definable difference in testosterone between male and female infants. So I don't think testosterone checks are particularly useful either. As it is, I fully believe we do as best we can with the information on hand at the time of the birth. That doesn't mean it's always accurate. But without an absolute definition of what is a biological man and what is a biological woman, and at least a vague idea of what we do with those who don't meet the legal criteria of either, it's all pretty moot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know what the blood tests look for but I trust the medical profession to ry and do the best for every individual. I'm sure if you researched it you could find out. Mrs x I mean, most post birth blood tests are just checking for the big issues that can be picked up at that point before they can take hold. If there's obvious physical anomalies that tends to be picked up and further testing done. But in general, if XX/XY is actually relevant to the legal sex, that's not a standard test. If that is considered a defining point between male and female then it needs to be standard at birth for everyone. Standard testosterone range for a shiny just popped out newborn is about 0.1-0.6 for girls, 0.3+ for boys, meaning half the female range is within the male range, and by 6 months there is no definable difference in testosterone between male and female infants. So I don't think testosterone checks are particularly useful either. As it is, I fully believe we do as best we can with the information on hand at the time of the birth. That doesn't mean it's always accurate. But without an absolute definition of what is a biological man and what is a biological woman, and at least a vague idea of what we do with those who don't meet the legal criteria of either, it's all pretty moot." It's not moot though is it. If 99.98% of births can be seed correctly using a visual examination, why do additional tests need to be done? The answer is they don't. Aside from the waste of valuable NHS funds conducting tests that don't need to be done, what else are you getting from doing them in these circumstances? Yes if there are DSD babies, they may require additional tests and these are conducted as well at present. What other area of medicine do you test people where there is no need for the test, it's just a waste of time and resources unless it's absolutely needed, that seems like common sense, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The numbers for that must be low considering the stats. I know it's got to have a huge impact upon the individual but it's an anomaly and no where near the norm, Mrs x Oh I know it's an anomaly and not the norm. But they do exist, and are relevant to what defines the sex of a man or a woman, legally. There is no non binary option in law. Previously with DSDs where there was ambiguity because the architecture for both were present at birth with ovitesticular disorder, a decision was made based on which they were 'more' of based on the balance of ovaries or testes. Ie an ovary and an ovatestis would be likely assigned female, a testes and an ovary or ovatestis more likely assigned male. If, when they reached puberty they were obviously more inclined to the other, then they had to go through the same gender recognition paperwork and hoop jumping as binary trans people do, or did. Though the majority of those who varied from the sex they were reared as were those who were the most ambiguous in terms of the early anatomy and could have gone either way on the decision at that early point. " You appear to think I'm in opposition with you on DSD births and their sex identification. I'm not, I agree that babies born with this issue should recieve all the tests that are required to enable them to recieve the correct sex identification. When you say there is no binary option in law, there absolutely is. In fact the definition of a woman from the Supreme Court is binary in nature, you are either a biological woman or you are not a woman. That's binary, there is no third option, if you believe there is you are in denial of the current reality. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you say there is no binary option in law, there absolutely is. In fact the definition of a woman from the Supreme Court is binary in nature, you are either a biological woman or you are not a woman. That's binary, there is no third option, if you believe there is you are in denial of the current reality. Mrs x" And the definition of a biological woman is what? There seemed an agreement to phenotype earlier in here, which quickly disappeared at mention of the woman who has been accused of being male with zero actual evidence. Because an organisation that doesn't do chromosome testing as standard claimed chromosomes, and they also claimed testosterone levels that would get a man banned according to the samples they sent to WADA, WADA being the anti doping agency who made a statement after that press conference that they had never done gender testing at their facilities. And the claim was never that she failed a doping test, even though that's what the samples were for. I'm off on a tangent. Excuse me. I'll get back to the point. The binary isn't simply woman or not woman. The binary in law is specifically male or female. Legally there are no alternative options. If it's dependent entirely on genitalia present at birth, then that needs to be specified. If it's down to whatever combination of chromosomes or hormones or whatever else, that needs to be specified, because it's all speculation and varying interpretations in between. The anomalies exist, and they need to be assigned one or the other regardless of not meeting all the criteria of either to people without a clear line of what defines which. If you want to make it specifically woman or not woman, what exactly are the requirements to be a biological woman? And are all people who don't meet every mark then a man? Biology is a lot of things, but it's not binary 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you say there is no binary option in law, there absolutely is. In fact the definition of a woman from the Supreme Court is binary in nature, you are either a biological woman or you are not a woman. That's binary, there is no third option, if you believe there is you are in denial of the current reality. Mrs x And the definition of a biological woman is what? There seemed an agreement to phenotype earlier in here, which quickly disappeared at mention of the woman who has been accused of being male with zero actual evidence. Because an organisation that doesn't do chromosome testing as standard claimed chromosomes, and they also claimed testosterone levels that would get a man banned according to the samples they sent to WADA, WADA being the anti doping agency who made a statement after that press conference that they had never done gender testing at their facilities. And the claim was never that she failed a doping test, even though that's what the samples were for. I'm off on a tangent. Excuse me. I'll get back to the point. The binary isn't simply woman or not woman. The binary in law is specifically male or female. Legally there are no alternative options. If it's dependent entirely on genitalia present at birth, then that needs to be specified. If it's down to whatever combination of chromosomes or hormones or whatever else, that needs to be specified, because it's all speculation and varying interpretations in between. The anomalies exist, and they need to be assigned one or the other regardless of not meeting all the criteria of either to people without a clear line of what defines which. If you want to make it specifically woman or not woman, what exactly are the requirements to be a biological woman? And are all people who don't meet every mark then a man? Biology is a lot of things, but it's not binary 💜" But the courts definition is and that's what matters right now, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you say there is no binary option in law, there absolutely is. In fact the definition of a woman from the Supreme Court is binary in nature, you are either a biological woman or you are not a woman. That's binary, there is no third option, if you believe there is you are in denial of the current reality. Mrs x And the definition of a biological woman is what? There seemed an agreement to phenotype earlier in here, which quickly disappeared at mention of the woman who has been accused of being male with zero actual evidence. Because an organisation that doesn't do chromosome testing as standard claimed chromosomes, and they also claimed testosterone levels that would get a man banned according to the samples they sent to WADA, WADA being the anti doping agency who made a statement after that press conference that they had never done gender testing at their facilities. And the claim was never that she failed a doping test, even though that's what the samples were for. I'm off on a tangent. Excuse me. I'll get back to the point. The binary isn't simply woman or not woman. The binary in law is specifically male or female. Legally there are no alternative options. If it's dependent entirely on genitalia present at birth, then that needs to be specified. If it's down to whatever combination of chromosomes or hormones or whatever else, that needs to be specified, because it's all speculation and varying interpretations in between. The anomalies exist, and they need to be assigned one or the other regardless of not meeting all the criteria of either to people without a clear line of what defines which. If you want to make it specifically woman or not woman, what exactly are the requirements to be a biological woman? And are all people who don't meet every mark then a man? Biology is a lot of things, but it's not binary 💜" The law needs a clear line in the sand when it comes to things like single sex services, rights and policy. The Supreme Court ruling isn’t about denying identity, it’s about making the law workable, enforceable, and cutting through the noise of semantic arguments that only create confusion. Legally, the categories are now binary, woman or man. Outliers exist, but in legal terms, they fall outside of either category. That’s the ruling, a woman is a biological female, a man is a biological male. If you believe outliers need clearer recognition or rights, that’s a separate conversation, however it doesn’t change the binary nature of the law as it now stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you say there is no binary option in law, there absolutely is. In fact the definition of a woman from the Supreme Court is binary in nature, you are either a biological woman or you are not a woman. That's binary, there is no third option, if you believe there is you are in denial of the current reality. Mrs x And the definition of a biological woman is what? There seemed an agreement to phenotype earlier in here, which quickly disappeared at mention of the woman who has been accused of being male with zero actual evidence. Because an organisation that doesn't do chromosome testing as standard claimed chromosomes, and they also claimed testosterone levels that would get a man banned according to the samples they sent to WADA, WADA being the anti doping agency who made a statement after that press conference that they had never done gender testing at their facilities. And the claim was never that she failed a doping test, even though that's what the samples were for. I'm off on a tangent. Excuse me. I'll get back to the point. The binary isn't simply woman or not woman. The binary in law is specifically male or female. Legally there are no alternative options. If it's dependent entirely on genitalia present at birth, then that needs to be specified. If it's down to whatever combination of chromosomes or hormones or whatever else, that needs to be specified, because it's all speculation and varying interpretations in between. The anomalies exist, and they need to be assigned one or the other regardless of not meeting all the criteria of either to people without a clear line of what defines which. If you want to make it specifically woman or not woman, what exactly are the requirements to be a biological woman? And are all people who don't meet every mark then a man? Biology is a lot of things, but it's not binary 💜 The law needs a clear line in the sand when it comes to things like single sex services, rights and policy. The Supreme Court ruling isn’t about denying identity, it’s about making the law workable, enforceable, and cutting through the noise of semantic arguments that only create confusion. Legally, the categories are now binary, woman or man. Outliers exist, but in legal terms, they fall outside of either category. That’s the ruling, a woman is a biological female, a man is a biological male. If you believe outliers need clearer recognition or rights, that’s a separate conversation, however it doesn’t change the binary nature of the law as it now stands." Spot on, well said, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many see this aa a victory, but it is a Pyrrhic one as the practical consequences will be a shift to a nastier, less tolerant society for both trans and non-trans people. " Again an evidence free claim and scaremongering. This debate has been dogged by false alarmism, such as the claim that transitioning teenagers reduced suicide attempts, a claim the Cass Report found no evidence for. To me it seems more likely that the Supreme Court verdict will lead to a clearer and more rational public debate where trans rights and protections will stand alone, and not be tied to the hard won rights of biological women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many see this aa a victory, but it is a Pyrrhic one as the practical consequences will be a shift to a nastier, less tolerant society for both trans and non-trans people. Again an evidence free claim and scaremongering. This debate has been dogged by false alarmism, such as the claim that transitioning teenagers reduced suicide attempts, a claim the Cass Report found no evidence for. To me it seems more likely that the Supreme Court verdict will lead to a clearer and more rational public debate where trans rights and protections will stand alone, and not be tied to the hard won rights of biological women." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many see this aa a victory, but it is a Pyrrhic one as the practical consequences will be a shift to a nastier, less tolerant society for both trans and non-trans people. " I'm not sure how you have you arrived at this conclusion? The Supreme Court ruling was not a new piece of law, it was a clarification of the equality act. It didn’t introduce a new definition or create a new law, it clarified the existing legal framework as correct. What is missing in these conversations is why they needed to do this.. Which was to prevent governments, councils, or other organisations from redefining the legal terminology and terms of a man and woman in ways that did not align with the equality act. Doing this corrected mistakes being made in the legal classification of men and women which was in some cases disadvantaging men and women to the advantage of others. It wasn't a victory as nothing was won, it was reestablished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many see this aa a victory, but it is a Pyrrhic one as the practical consequences will be a shift to a nastier, less tolerant society for both trans and non-trans people. " Absolute balderdash and no mistake. The 'consequences', (if one thinks fit to term the judgement), are a simple reiteration of natural existence, previously becoming more and more twisted by the actions of the 'less tolerant' Where would that stupidity have ended?? I know exactly who and what I am.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Many see this aa a victory, but it is a Pyrrhic one as the practical consequences will be a shift to a nastier, less tolerant society for both trans and non-trans people." I think you're too late for that. We've long been in a position where both sides are firmly dug in, and won't give an inch. This latest decision makes some people happier and some sadder, but it doesn't change anyone's basic position, and the intolerant on both sides will continue to be so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare-mongering and making up nonsense hypothetical scenarios will help nobody. Men will be treated as men, and women will be treated as women and this is how it should be, and should always have been." I ment actual counter arguments rather than vague wishy washy stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ruling effectively means that GRCs are now meaningless in terms of EA2010. This is a form of judge made law and although it is technically narrow it has significant impacts on society. If this wasn't the case then the traditional media and the internet wouldn't be on fire discussing the consequences. I've tried to point out why I think the consequences will be broadly negative and so far I've not seen any convincing counter arguments. 1) Non-feminine women in female only spaces are likely to suffer dirty looks more than previously because there used to be some legal ambiguity that made people less confident about expressing their suspicions that these women were not women. 2) It's possible that hate crimes per capita will increase and this might not only affect trans people but LGBTQ+ people in general and straight people too collatorally. I totally accept that there's no evidence for this yet but does anyone realistically think that hate crimes are less likely in the future than they were before this ruling? 3) Health authorities are currently trying to work out how to respond and nobody knows what the end result will be but I think using private rooms to isolate trans people rather than them being allocated on medical groups presents a health risk so I don't think this will happen. Third space wards for trans people are not practical for such a small number of people and would result in an inefficient use of limited resources so would indirectly also present a health risk. I suspect the end result will be increased use of mixed sex wards. Something that many women would object to. 4) British Transport Police have said that they will now ignore GRCs and conduct opposite gender strip searches. If they follow through on this I think they will be immediately hauled in front of a court for operating outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so I don't think this will actually happen but lots of people seem to think that it should so it might. I could go on but I'd be interested to hear some counter arguments first. " You’re continuing to overlook a fundamental point, nothing has changed in law.The ruling didn’t rewrite the equality act it clarified what was already true, a GRC does not change someone’s biological sex, and biological sex is what the act refers to when it uses man and woman. On your call outs: You have no evidence other than gut feeling that hate crimes will increase. I can confidently say this because the law and definition hasn't changed, it was being manipulated heavily which disadvantaged biological men and women. If anything we could argue now clarification has been provided it will remove further discrimination and with it potential hate crimes. Your comment on 3rd spaces not being practical for such a small number of people is surely your opinion? There are 3rd spaces for disabled people, those toilets are catering for a minority and serve a real purpose. If we look at this calmly, we can now see the clarity of the ruling removes the illegal pressures caused by institutions and activists pushing beyond the law, the judgment has now corrected that direction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ruling effectively means that GRCs are now meaningless in terms of EA2010. This is a form of judge made law and although it is technically narrow it has significant impacts on society. If this wasn't the case then the traditional media and the internet wouldn't be on fire discussing the consequences. I've tried to point out why I think the consequences will be broadly negative and so far I've not seen any convincing counter arguments. 1) Non-feminine women in female only spaces are likely to suffer dirty looks more than previously because there used to be some legal ambiguity that made people less confident about expressing their suspicions that these women were not women. 2) It's possible that hate crimes per capita will increase and this might not only affect trans people but LGBTQ+ people in general and straight people too collatorally. I totally accept that there's no evidence for this yet but does anyone realistically think that hate crimes are less likely in the future than they were before this ruling? 3) Health authorities are currently trying to work out how to respond and nobody knows what the end result will be but I think using private rooms to isolate trans people rather than them being allocated on medical groups presents a health risk so I don't think this will happen. Third space wards for trans people are not practical for such a small number of people and would result in an inefficient use of limited resources so would indirectly also present a health risk. I suspect the end result will be increased use of mixed sex wards. Something that many women would object to. 4) British Transport Police have said that they will now ignore GRCs and conduct opposite gender strip searches. If they follow through on this I think they will be immediately hauled in front of a court for operating outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so I don't think this will actually happen but lots of people seem to think that it should so it might. I could go on but I'd be interested to hear some counter arguments first. " Why do you think they BT Police will get hauled in court because they are operating outside PACE 1984, when they would be operating within it according to this new definition? Very strange. All the other stuff you mention is whataboutery and personal opinion. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare-mongering and making up nonsense hypothetical scenarios will help nobody. Men will be treated as men, and women will be treated as women and this is how it should be, and should always have been. I ment actual counter arguments rather than vague wishy washy stuff." Counter arguments to nonsensical conjecture, guesswork and waffle? Nah, not worth anyone's time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) Non-feminine women in female only spaces are likely to suffer dirty looks more than previously because there used to be some legal ambiguity that made people less confident about expressing their suspicions that these women were not women." This is likely, but I'd suggest that it'll be balanced by women having fewer arguments with trans people who previously insisted that they had the right to enter. I'm guessing that different people will be inconvenienced, but the overall level of hassle will be about the same "2) It's possible that hate crimes per capita will increase and this might not only affect trans people but LGBTQ+ people in general and straight people too collatorally. I totally accept that there's no evidence for this yet but does anyone realistically think that hate crimes are less likely in the future than they were before this ruling?" Those hate crimes are already happening because the 2 groups are polarised. The recent ruling will make no difference to the amount of hate crimes committed, because the 2 sides haven't changed their opinions. "4) British Transport Police have said that they will now ignore GRCs and conduct opposite gender strip searches. If they follow through on this I think they will be immediately hauled in front of a court for operating outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so I don't think this will actually happen but lots of people seem to think that it should so it might." Is be interested to hear how BTP think they're going to determine who is a woman and who is a man. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they make the wrong decision one day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) Non-feminine women in female only spaces are likely to suffer dirty looks more than previously because there used to be some legal ambiguity that made people less confident about expressing their suspicions that these women were not women. This is likely, but I'd suggest that it'll be balanced by women having fewer arguments with trans people who previously insisted that they had the right to enter. I'm guessing that different people will be inconvenienced, but the overall level of hassle will be about the same. Whataboutery again... 2) It's possible that hate crimes per capita will increase and this might not only affect trans people but LGBTQ+ people in general and straight people too collatorally. I totally accept that there's no evidence for this yet but does anyone realistically think that hate crimes are less likely in the future than they were before this ruling? Those hate crimes are already happening because the 2 groups are polarised. The recent ruling will make no difference to the amount of hate crimes committed, because the 2 sides haven't changed their opinions. Name one hate crime that has occurred. 4) British Transport Police have said that they will now ignore GRCs and conduct opposite gender strip searches. If they follow through on this I think they will be immediately hauled in front of a court for operating outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so I don't think this will actually happen but lots of people seem to think that it should so it might. Is be interested to hear how BTP think they're going to determine who is a woman and who is a man. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they make the wrong decision one day" Biologicaly possibly, and no more of a lawsuit if they got it wrong the day before the definition. You do say such silly things sometimes, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) Non-feminine women in female only spaces are likely to suffer dirty looks more than previously because there used to be some legal ambiguity that made people less confident about expressing their suspicions that these women were not women. This is likely, but I'd suggest that it'll be balanced by women having fewer arguments with trans people who previously insisted that they had the right to enter. I'm guessing that different people will be inconvenienced, but the overall level of hassle will be about the same 2) It's possible that hate crimes per capita will increase and this might not only affect trans people but LGBTQ+ people in general and straight people too collatorally. I totally accept that there's no evidence for this yet but does anyone realistically think that hate crimes are less likely in the future than they were before this ruling? Those hate crimes are already happening because the 2 groups are polarised. The recent ruling will make no difference to the amount of hate crimes committed, because the 2 sides haven't changed their opinions. 4) British Transport Police have said that they will now ignore GRCs and conduct opposite gender strip searches. If they follow through on this I think they will be immediately hauled in front of a court for operating outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so I don't think this will actually happen but lots of people seem to think that it should so it might. Is be interested to hear how BTP think they're going to determine who is a woman and who is a man. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they make the wrong decision one day" This really isn’t as complicated as it’s being made out to be. If there is uncertainty, police have access to official records via internal checks, including your NI number, date of birth, and legal sex as recorded on driving licence - passport. In cases where someone has a GRC, that would also be flagged. The voices of discontent are using this as a message to worry people, saying they can only tell by putting their hands on you genitals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) Is be interested to hear how BTP think they're going to determine who is a woman and who is a man. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they make the wrong decision one day" This one is simple to answer. They will ask the detainee to state what gender they identify as, and make them sign a declaration before going ahead with a search. It's what they already do, as do police services across the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd be interested to hear how BTP think they're going to determine who is a woman and who is a man. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they make the wrong decision one day." "This really isn’t as complicated as it’s being made out to be. If there is uncertainty, police have access to official records via internal checks, including your NI number, date of birth, and legal sex as recorded on driving licence - passport. In cases where someone has a GRC, that would also be flagged. The voices of discontent are using this as a message to worry people, saying they can only tell by putting their hands on you genitals." I'm the majority of cases the person will have ID, so no problem. But what about those that don't? Previously the police would just ask the person, and provide a searcher based on the answer. Now they are going to have to ignore that answer if the woman they've arrested looks a bit mannish, and guess whether the person is a real woman, or just a trans claiming to be a woman. I agree it's a very minor issue, but it'll be interesting to see how it gets reported when the first case happens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’re continuing to overlook a fundamental point, nothing has changed in law.The ruling didn’t rewrite the equality act it clarified what was already true, a GRC does not change someone’s biological sex, and biological sex is what the act refers to when it uses man and woman." Something has changed in law. the Supreme Court ruling overrides a key element of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. "You have no evidence other than gut feeling that hate crimes will increase. I can confidently say this because the law and definition hasn't changed, it was being manipulated heavily which disadvantaged biological men and women. If anything we could argue now clarification has been provided it will remove further discrimination and with it potential hate crimes." As I said there is no evidence for my supposition because it's too early. However given the amount of anti-trans feeling this ruling has unleashed it seems reasonable to assume that some of that emotion may lead to an increase in hate crimes. I hope I am wrong. "Your comment on 3rd spaces not being practical for such a small number of people is surely your opinion? There are 3rd spaces for disabled people, those toilets are catering for a minority and serve a real purpose." I was specifically talking about third space wards in hospitals. Which I believe would be impractical and/or expensive to implement. As for disabled toilets there aren't enough of them already and I believe there are many exemptions for instance if an establishement has seating for less than 80 people or is below 250 square metres in size or is an historical site. I'd have to double check these things to be sure but it's clear that disabled toilets aren't easily available to access everywhere. "If we look at this calmly, we can now see the clarity of the ruling removes the illegal pressures caused by institutions and activists pushing beyond the law, the judgment has now corrected that direction." Again you are ignoring the fact that the law has been changed by this ruling. What you are describing as illegal was previously legal as I understand it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. " You won’t see trans man wearing a dress , in the ladies toilets ! They will be wearing male clothing. Remember … this is what will happen now. Biological women, dressed as males using the female facilities. You can’t have it all ways. Nothing stopping a cis male walking in, pretending to be a trans man ! Nothing. god forbid an ugly woman, or a woman with masculine features( there are many ) entering the female toilets. Oh.. by the way. I still use the toilets that my protected status allows me to. Trans women are not a threat to women and girls. Cisgender men are , and always been. Predators do not need to dress in women’s clothing to attack women. The trans community is upset and angry at a government that is trying to erase us. The equality act 2010 already gave organisations, establishments the ability to refuse trans women entry into certain spaces, where a legitimate reason was given. That’s same equality act has been working just fine for the past 15 years. But no … oppression of a minority group is winning elections Hitler tried to erase the Jewish population too ! I’m not trying trample over women’s rights ! I only want equality, not hate. Also, I tend to wear a shirt / blouse , with trousers , Not a dress | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think they BT Police will get hauled in court because they are operating outside PACE 1984, when they would be operating within it according to this new definition? Very strange." Because according to the government website the following is the PACE1984 regulation governing searches... "3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person’s gender is their acquired gender. This means that if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman and they must be treated as their acquired gender." And the Supreme Court ruling only applies to the interpretation of EA2010, it doesn't cover PACE1984 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. You won’t see trans man wearing a dress , in the ladies toilets ! They will be wearing male clothing. Remember … this is what will happen now. Biological women, dressed as males using the female facilities. You can’t have it all ways. Nothing stopping a cis male walking in, pretending to be a trans man ! Nothing. god forbid an ugly woman, or a woman with masculine features( there are many ) entering the female toilets. Oh.. by the way. I still use the toilets that my protected status allows me to. Trans women are not a threat to women and girls. Cisgender men are , and always been. Predators do not need to dress in women’s clothing to attack women. The trans community is upset and angry at a government that is trying to erase us. The equality act 2010 already gave organisations, establishments the ability to refuse trans women entry into certain spaces, where a legitimate reason was given. That’s same equality act has been working just fine for the past 15 years. But no … oppression of a minority group is winning elections Hitler tried to erase the Jewish population too ! I’m not trying trample over women’s rights ! I only want equality, not hate. Also, I tend to wear a shirt / blouse , with trousers , Not a dress " Are you a transgender person who was born a biological male? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think they BT Police will get hauled in court because they are operating outside PACE 1984, when they would be operating within it according to this new definition? Very strange. Because according to the government website the following is the PACE1984 regulation governing searches... "3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person’s gender is their acquired gender. This means that if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman and they must be treated as their acquired gender." And the Supreme Court ruling only applies to the interpretation of EA2010, it doesn't cover PACE1984" Why do you think they BT Police have changed policy, if the definition applies only to Equality Act. I'm not going to elaborate but let you think about why they may have done it?.. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. You won’t see trans man wearing a dress , in the ladies toilets ! They will be wearing male clothing. Remember … this is what will happen now. Biological women, dressed as males using the female facilities. You can’t have it all ways. Nothing stopping a cis male walking in, pretending to be a trans man ! Nothing. god forbid an ugly woman, or a woman with masculine features( there are many ) entering the female toilets. Oh.. by the way. I still use the toilets that my protected status allows me to. Trans women are not a threat to women and girls. Cisgender men are , and always been. Predators do not need to dress in women’s clothing to attack women. The trans community is upset and angry at a government that is trying to erase us. The equality act 2010 already gave organisations, establishments the ability to refuse trans women entry into certain spaces, where a legitimate reason was given. That’s same equality act has been working just fine for the past 15 years. But no … oppression of a minority group is winning elections Hitler tried to erase the Jewish population too ! I’m not trying trample over women’s rights ! I only want equality, not hate. Also, I tend to wear a shirt / blouse , with trousers , Not a dress " It's not hate though is it. You are a transwoman you are not a woman and equality is not an issue your rights have not been removed. As for woman and transwoman not posing a threat to other woman you have obviously cherry picked here, have you forgotten about Maxine Carr, Rose West, Myra Hindley, all woman who all harmed other woman and let's not forget Isla Bryson as an example from the trans community. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think they BT Police have changed policy, if the definition applies only to Equality Act. I'm not going to elaborate but let you think about why they may have done it?.." Because BTP said they would change their policy and the Supreme Court said the recent ruling only applies to EA2010. If BTP attempt to ignore the regulations that govern their behaviour then they will be challenged in court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think they BT Police have changed policy, if the definition applies only to Equality Act. I'm not going to elaborate but let you think about why they may have done it?.. Because BTP said they would change their policy and the Supreme Court said the recent ruling only applies to EA2010. If BTP attempt to ignore the regulations that govern their behaviour then they will be challenged in court. " But why have they changed policy if, according to you, it's obvious illegal under PACE? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. You won’t see trans man wearing a dress , in the ladies toilets ! They will be wearing male clothing. Remember … this is what will happen now. Biological women, dressed as males using the female facilities. You can’t have it all ways. Nothing stopping a cis male walking in, pretending to be a trans man ! Nothing. god forbid an ugly woman, or a woman with masculine features( there are many ) entering the female toilets. Oh.. by the way. I still use the toilets that my protected status allows me to. Trans women are not a threat to women and girls. Cisgender men are , and always been. Predators do not need to dress in women’s clothing to attack women. The trans community is upset and angry at a government that is trying to erase us. The equality act 2010 already gave organisations, establishments the ability to refuse trans women entry into certain spaces, where a legitimate reason was given. That’s same equality act has been working just fine for the past 15 years. But no … oppression of a minority group is winning elections Hitler tried to erase the Jewish population too ! I’m not trying trample over women’s rights ! I only want equality, not hate. Also, I tend to wear a shirt / blouse , with trousers , Not a dress It's not hate though is it. You are a transwoman you are not a woman and equality is not an issue your rights have not been removed. As for woman and transwoman not posing a threat to other woman you have obviously cherry picked here, have you forgotten about Maxine Carr, Rose West, Myra Hindley, all woman who all harmed other woman and let's not forget Isla Bryson as an example from the trans community. Mrs x" According to the BBC, of the 125 transgender prisoners counted by the prison service, 60 had been convicted of sexual offenses, including 27 convicted of r*pe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But why have they changed policy if, according to you, it's obvious illegal under PACE?" You'd have to ask them but I suspect it was either someone overreaching their position without taking legal advice or someone responding off the cuff to a question from the press. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to the BBC, of the 125 transgender prisoners counted by the prison service, 60 had been convicted of sexual offenses, including 27 convicted of r*pe." And as I posted the other day I think three of them have GRCs. So people with GRCs present a tiny risk to the general population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to the BBC, of the 125 transgender prisoners counted by the prison service, 60 had been convicted of sexual offenses, including 27 convicted of r*pe. And as I posted the other day I think three of them have GRCs. So people with GRCs present a tiny risk to the general population. " That's because the numbers of people with GRCs is tiny in comparison prison to the overall population Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But why have they changed policy if, according to you, it's obvious illegal under PACE? You'd have to ask them but I suspect it was either someone overreaching their position without taking legal advice or someone responding off the cuff to a question from the press." Because that happens everyday doesn't it. And I don't have to ask, ots your ascertain, you ask, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’re continuing to overlook a fundamental point, nothing has changed in law.The ruling didn’t rewrite the equality act it clarified what was already true, a GRC does not change someone’s biological sex, and biological sex is what the act refers to when it uses man and woman. Something has changed in law. the Supreme Court ruling overrides a key element of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. You have no evidence other than gut feeling that hate crimes will increase. I can confidently say this because the law and definition hasn't changed, it was being manipulated heavily which disadvantaged biological men and women. If anything we could argue now clarification has been provided it will remove further discrimination and with it potential hate crimes. As I said there is no evidence for my supposition because it's too early. However given the amount of anti-trans feeling this ruling has unleashed it seems reasonable to assume that some of that emotion may lead to an increase in hate crimes. I hope I am wrong. Your comment on 3rd spaces not being practical for such a small number of people is surely your opinion? There are 3rd spaces for disabled people, those toilets are catering for a minority and serve a real purpose. I was specifically talking about third space wards in hospitals. Which I believe would be impractical and/or expensive to implement. As for disabled toilets there aren't enough of them already and I believe there are many exemptions for instance if an establishement has seating for less than 80 people or is below 250 square metres in size or is an historical site. I'd have to double check these things to be sure but it's clear that disabled toilets aren't easily available to access everywhere. If we look at this calmly, we can now see the clarity of the ruling removes the illegal pressures caused by institutions and activists pushing beyond the law, the judgment has now corrected that direction. Again you are ignoring the fact that the law has been changed by this ruling. What you are describing as illegal was previously legal as I understand it. " I'm afraid you have misunderstood the ruling and GRA. The Supreme Court ruling did not override the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it clarified how the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted. Both laws still stand. The ruling also confirmed that where the equality act grants protections or permits single sex services, it means "biological sex", not the legal sex conferred by a GRC. That doesn’t nullify the GRA, it simply clarifies the limits of its application in context of where biological sex is legally relevant. Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because that happens everyday doesn't it. And I don't have to ask, ots your ascertain, you ask," It's not unheard of. I'm just stating my opinions, everyone is free to ignore me or disagree. As with some other suppositions I've made, events will show whether I'm right or just talking boll*cks. Although how many non-feminine women will get more dirty looks than before when they go to the toilet is probably something that's impossible to collect statistical evidence on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained." But in practice it has. GRCs issued under GRA2004 are now no longer worth the paper they are printed on in terms of EA2010. And given the hurdles that people went through to obtain their GRCs in good faith I can see why they are well p*ssed off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained. But in practice it has. GRCs issued under GRA2004 are now no longer worth the paper they are printed on in terms of EA2010. And given the hurdles that people went through to obtain their GRCs in good faith I can see why they are well p*ssed off." Only found out you can get a GRC without transitioning fully, that can't be right, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"0.001% of the population attempting to intimidate 99.999 of the population. I’m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Just ignore them, eventually they will cause alarm, harassment and distress to women and girls and they will lose all support, baring the total extremists and people who just like to argue. The Mrs Most people don't really care. It doesn't affect their lives. Unfortunately the vocal minority in all subsections is often the problem. I agree entirely. Most women wouldn’t care if a transgender man used the women’s toilets as long as they don’t blatantly look like a bloke in a dress and don’t want to draw attention to themselves in the process. Mr says blokes don’t make eye contact in the gents so wouldn’t even notice who was using the toilets. The activists shout about blending in but the mere action of shouting and protesting achieves the opposite. You won’t see trans man wearing a dress , in the ladies toilets ! They will be wearing male clothing. Remember … this is what will happen now. Biological women, dressed as males using the female facilities. You can’t have it all ways. Nothing stopping a cis male walking in, pretending to be a trans man ! Nothing. god forbid an ugly woman, or a woman with masculine features( there are many ) entering the female toilets. Oh.. by the way. I still use the toilets that my protected status allows me to. Trans women are not a threat to women and girls. Cisgender men are , and always been. Predators do not need to dress in women’s clothing to attack women. The trans community is upset and angry at a government that is trying to erase us. The equality act 2010 already gave organisations, establishments the ability to refuse trans women entry into certain spaces, where a legitimate reason was given. That’s same equality act has been working just fine for the past 15 years. But no … oppression of a minority group is winning elections Hitler tried to erase the Jewish population too ! I’m not trying trample over women’s rights ! I only want equality, not hate. Also, I tend to wear a shirt / blouse , with trousers , Not a dress " If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained. But in practice it has. GRCs issued under GRA2004 are now no longer worth the paper they are printed on in terms of EA2010. And given the hurdles that people went through to obtain their GRCs in good faith I can see why they are well p*ssed off.Only found out you can get a GRC without transitioning fully, that can't be right, Mrs x" I agree it’s so wrong that GRC’s are handed out without fully transitioning | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only found out you can get a GRC without transitioning fully, that can't be right," They weren't easy to get but it no longer really matters as they are now meaningless in terms of EA2010. They will still give people some protection under other Acts but EA2010 is perhaps the most important one. I suspect this will go to the ECtHR now and the UK might lose given Goodwin v UK 2002 but any new leglislation will not come into effect for years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN " It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained. But in practice it has. GRCs issued under GRA2004 are now no longer worth the paper they are printed on in terms of EA2010. And given the hurdles that people went through to obtain their GRCs in good faith I can see why they are well p*ssed off." You are still missing the point... The GRA and the GRC have not changed at all they have are no different today than they were 4 weeks ago. Misunderstandings are down to the way some institutions chose to treat GRC holders beyond what GRA was intended for by allowing creeping changes within the definition of a woman. The definition of a woman hasn't changed either, it was the same 4 weeks and is the same today. You have simply become accustomed to the manipulation of the laws and definitions of a woman to the point that you believed they were correct, and the the clarity that was provided by the Supreme Court has actually changed the law. Last point: The activists are strong minded and able to influence, as we can see and why a court ruling was needed to remove that influence with fact. What is being misrepresented in this topic is the impact to trans people. There is no law stopping anyone from using a public toilet. Access is subject to policy, not law. Police do not have an issue with sex based procedures they already have clear powers and tools to conduct lawful searches based on biological sex, it is not an issue in reality. Where this clarification matters most is in areas where legal rights depend on biological sex. Maternity leave, single sex spaces, sports, corporate board representation and many more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter?" It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing has changed in the law, what has changed is legal clarity has been restored and the misinterpretation and boundary pushing will now be contained. But in practice it has. GRCs issued under GRA2004 are now no longer worth the paper they are printed on in terms of EA2010. And given the hurdles that people went through to obtain their GRCs in good faith I can see why they are well p*ssed off. You are still missing the point... The GRA and the GRC have not changed at all they have are no different today than they were 4 weeks ago. Misunderstandings are down to the way some institutions chose to treat GRC holders beyond what GRA was intended for by allowing creeping changes within the definition of a woman. The definition of a woman hasn't changed either, it was the same 4 weeks and is the same today. You have simply become accustomed to the manipulation of the laws and definitions of a woman to the point that you believed they were correct, and the the clarity that was provided by the Supreme Court has actually changed the law. Last point: The activists are strong minded and able to influence, as we can see and why a court ruling was needed to remove that influence with fact. What is being misrepresented in this topic is the impact to trans people. There is no law stopping anyone from using a public toilet. Access is subject to policy, not law. Police do not have an issue with sex based procedures they already have clear powers and tools to conduct lawful searches based on biological sex, it is not an issue in reality. Where this clarification matters most is in areas where legal rights depend on biological sex. Maternity leave, single sex spaces, sports, corporate board representation and many more. " Spot on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to government figures, in England and Wales, approximately 18% of the sentenced prison population is composed of male prisoners convicted of sexual offences. That's in comparison to 50% of biologically male transgender inmates who have been convicted and jailed for sexual assault." We are looking at an extremely small number of offenders and I'd point to a study by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan which if I understand correctly found that trans women had essentially the same offending patterns as the general male population. In other words trans women present no higher risk than men. And once again I'll point out that I believe there are only three trans women in prison for sexual offences that have GRCs. People with GRCs present a tiny risk to women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter " I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to government figures, in England and Wales, approximately 18% of the sentenced prison population is composed of male prisoners convicted of sexual offences. That's in comparison to 50% of biologically male transgender inmates who have been convicted and jailed for sexual assault. We are looking at an extremely small number of offenders and I'd point to a study by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan which if I understand correctly found that trans women had essentially the same offending patterns as the general male population. In other words trans women present no higher risk than men. And once again I'll point out that I believe there are only three trans women in prison for sexual offences that have GRCs. People with GRCs present a tiny risk to women." That’s still 3 that shouldn’t of even got a GRC | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜" A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to government figures, in England and Wales, approximately 18% of the sentenced prison population is composed of male prisoners convicted of sexual offences. That's in comparison to 50% of biologically male transgender inmates who have been convicted and jailed for sexual assault. We are looking at an extremely small number of offenders and I'd point to a study by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan which if I understand correctly found that trans women had essentially the same offending patterns as the general male population. In other words trans women present no higher risk than men. And once again I'll point out that I believe there are only three trans women in prison for sexual offences that have GRCs. People with GRCs present a tiny risk to women." Men who commit SA are rarely reported, because we know there's next to no point. Women even less so, because there's not even a hope of proving the physical actually happened, never mind proving the lack of consent, add on the stigma and emasculation that would be assumed by even admitting it for the majority of men and women are simply much less likely to be reported. Even if the police believe you, the CPS will only take it to court if they believe there's a reasonable chance of conviction. Some nobody with no history, probably not worth bothering, but it will be logged so that the next time someone reports it there's at least some history. Someone with a reputation or just something juicy that they believe a jury will latch onto, much more likely to accept a case. Some people are just better targets for the CPS for some reason 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are still missing the point... The GRA and the GRC have not changed at all they have are no different today than they were 4 weeks ago. Misunderstandings are down to the way some institutions chose to treat GRC holders beyond what GRA was intended for by allowing creeping changes within the definition of a woman. The definition of a woman hasn't changed either, it was the same 4 weeks and is the same today. You have simply become accustomed to the manipulation of the laws and definitions of a woman to the point that you believed they were correct, and the the clarity that was provided by the Supreme Court has actually changed the law." Your argument is all over the place. One minute you say the law hasn't changed, the next you say it has. What this ruling does is override Section 9 of GRA2004 which says... "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)." The meaning of gender, sex and woman here are not the everday meanings people think of, they are very specific to law. No manipulation, creeping change or nefarious influence has been involved, these are technical legal matters that affect a tiny number of people's lives but in very profound ways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces" That is a very subjective view. It certainly makes sense, in a pragmatic way, if accompanied with an announcement made from outside saying "father assisting daughter coming in, please speak up if this is an issue" or similar. Equally, it could be seen by some as an infringement if he just walked in, for example, if a Muslim woman was adjusting her niqab or hijab in front of the mirror (and didn't want a man to see her hair). Once it's subjective, it's hard to draw a line. Or perhaps that's the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"According to government figures, in England and Wales, approximately 18% of the sentenced prison population is composed of male prisoners convicted of sexual offences. That's in comparison to 50% of biologically male transgender inmates who have been convicted and jailed for sexual assault. We are looking at an extremely small number of offenders and I'd point to a study by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, and Professor Alice Sullivan which if I understand correctly found that trans women had essentially the same offending patterns as the general male population. In other words trans women present no higher risk than men. And once again I'll point out that I believe there are only three trans women in prison for sexual offences that have GRCs. People with GRCs present a tiny risk to women." Doesn't matter if the trans person r@ping you or sexually assaulting you has a GRC or not. The offence by a trans woman still causes the same damage, emotionally, physically and the majority of trans woman in prison in the UK have committed a sex crime. But it's OK because most of these perverts don't have a GRC, so why are woman kicking up a fuss? Is that what you are saying because Trans woman inmates present a huge problem to the rest of the female prison population. You need to acknowledge that, it's very much a real thing, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces That is a very subjective view. It certainly makes sense, in a pragmatic way, if accompanied with an announcement made from outside saying "father assisting daughter coming in, please speak up if this is an issue" or similar. Equally, it could be seen by some as an infringement if he just walked in, for example, if a Muslim woman was adjusting her niqab or hijab in front of the mirror (and didn't want a man to see her hair). Once it's subjective, it's hard to draw a line. Or perhaps that's the point. " I agree entirely about a Muslim lady which is why woman’s only spaces are needed not just out of spite, however the father walking in with his daughter is better than letting the young girl go In by herself and coming face to face with a man dressed as a female | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜 A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces" So long as he doesn't wash his hands because that would be using the facilities? 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜 A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces So long as he doesn't wash his hands because that would be using the facilities? 💜" Shouldn’t of even set foot in the entrance to a woman’s only space | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The meaning of gender, sex and woman here are not the everday meanings people think of, they are very specific to law. " Agreed. By the same token the Equality Act explicitly differentiates between sex and gender - for example sex and gender reassignment are seperate protected characteristics, there are separate sections listing exemptions based on sex and gender reassignment and sex is defined explicitly in a binary sense. The point being that the lawmakers had the goal of seeing someone’s sex and their gender as two separate things and for the law to apply differently in accordance with those differences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜 A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces So long as he doesn't wash his hands because that would be using the facilities? 💜 Shouldn’t of even set foot in the entrance to a woman’s only space " I thought he was fine just a few minutes ago. Washing your hands after helping your daughter sort herself out is the line then. Who knew 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you have a penis then you should use the men’s toilet, a GN toilet or the disabled not a WOMANS toilet, you are a trans not a WOMAN It's a closed cubicle. What does it matter? It’s a WOMANS space, not for people with penis’s that’s what’s the matter I dunno though. I remember a dad being super embarrassed taking his young daughter into the women's toilets when the disabled was out of order. That seems better to me than taking a small girl to queue for the one cubicle in the men's beside the piss trough, or just leaving her to soil herself or be unattended in an unknown environment. Him making sure his child was safe and able to take care of bodily functions hygienically somewhere he could see me wash my hands really didn't seem like a problem to me. Maybe it did to someone else. Maybe some No Penis People signs would help 💜 A dad doing that for his daughter is fine as he isn’t using the facilities for himself but a man dressed as a female to use the facility for himself is infringing on woman’s only spaces So long as he doesn't wash his hands because that would be using the facilities? 💜 Shouldn’t of even set foot in the entrance to a woman’s only space I thought he was fine just a few minutes ago. Washing your hands after helping your daughter sort herself out is the line then. Who knew 💜" I mean a man trying to pass as a female as you well know you are just being argumentative like you have been on most threads | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The offence by a trans woman still causes the same damage, emotionally, physically and the majority of trans woman in prison in the UK have committed a sex crime. But it's OK because most of these perverts don't have a GRC, so why are woman kicking up a fuss? Is that what you are saying because Trans woman inmates present a huge problem to the rest of the female prison population. You need to acknowledge that, it's very much a real thing," Crimes commited by anyone no matter their sex or gender cause damage. I don't think anyone has ever disputed such a blindingly obvious fact. As far as I know over 90% of trans women aren't housed in the female prison estate. They are housed in male prisons. I'm not absolutley sure but I think the only trans women in women's prisons are those with a GRC. And again I think only three of them are there for sexual offences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The offence by a trans woman still causes the same damage, emotionally, physically and the majority of trans woman in prison in the UK have committed a sex crime. But it's OK because most of these perverts don't have a GRC, so why are woman kicking up a fuss? Is that what you are saying because Trans woman inmates present a huge problem to the rest of the female prison population. You need to acknowledge that, it's very much a real thing, Crimes commited by anyone no matter their sex or gender cause damage. I don't think anyone has ever disputed such a blindingly obvious fact. As far as I know over 90% of trans women aren't housed in the female prison estate. They are housed in male prisons. I'm not absolutley sure but I think the only trans women in women's prisons are those with a GRC. And again I think only three of them are there for sexual offences. " 70% of all trans woman offenders are guilty of committing sex crimes. That's a much bigger percentage than in the male population. So to say things, like certain posters have on here, that woman have no worries about harm from trans woman just from men is a ridiculous statement. 'Almost two thirds of transgender women in prisons who are legally recognised as men have been convicted of sex offences, new figures show. Some 151 of the 245 trans women in prison at the end of March 2024 have been convicted of at least one sexual offence, according to government figures. This is a rate of 62 percent [...its actually nearly 70%:as of 2025] and is an increase on previous figures which showed that 49 per cent of trans women who reported their legal gender as male had a conviction for a sexual offence.' So it would seem that bad people trans and men and woman are a threat but as a percentage trans inmates are particularly bad. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I mean a man trying to pass as a female as you well know you are just being argumentative like you have been on most threads " Oh that's a different line from what we were actually talking about, but if you say so 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agreed. By the same token the Equality Act explicitly differentiates between sex and gender - for example sex and gender reassignment are seperate protected characteristics, there are separate sections listing exemptions based on sex and gender reassignment and sex is defined explicitly in a binary sense. The point being that the lawmakers had the goal of seeing someone’s sex and their gender as two separate things and for the law to apply differently in accordance with those differences." I'd be grateful for a reference as EA2010 is 239 pages long. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you want to be a woman, the first thing you should do is start acting like one instead of acting like a testosterone hyped up boxer. " As a woman, born with a vagina, the implications that part of being a woman is that we must be quiet and meek or we're not proper enough just doesn't ring particularly true. If things need to be worked out then communication is key. On emotive issues of course there will be times when the discourse is less than productive while people express their exasperation. Humans do that. All of them. Tensions and emotions have been heightened by many factors lately. People are being more argumentative and aggressive on all sides. It's all part of the process. And, much like my therapist doesn't always understand why I pay to argue with him for an hour, it's because the things we talk about in that incredibly aggravating hour can gestate and process through my head days or weeks later, it doesn't always look like it's helping at the time. But understanding is a key part of it. And you don't get that without being exposed to other people's points of view and why they feel the way they do 💜 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The offence by a trans woman still causes the same damage, emotionally, physically and the majority of trans woman in prison in the UK have committed a sex crime. But it's OK because most of these perverts don't have a GRC, so why are woman kicking up a fuss? Is that what you are saying because Trans woman inmates present a huge problem to the rest of the female prison population. You need to acknowledge that, it's very much a real thing, Crimes commited by anyone no matter their sex or gender cause damage. I don't think anyone has ever disputed such a blindingly obvious fact. As far as I know over 90% of trans women aren't housed in the female prison estate. They are housed in male prisons. I'm not absolutley sure but I think the only trans women in women's prisons are those with a GRC. And again I think only three of them are there for sexual offences. " You need to have a rethink about the figures you are quoting here. There are at least 5 transwoman, from 268 trans inmates, housed in female prisons. There are 13 transwoman inmates with GRCs but they are not included in the figures due to legislation prohibiting this information. They may on may not be housed withing the female estate. The data for the 13 GRC holders is not seemingly available, so I'd like to see where you got your evidence for the 3 of them you say are housed in the female estate. These figures are from a government website. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are at least 5 transwoman, from 268 trans inmates, housed in female prisons. There are 13 transwoman inmates with GRCs but they are not included in the figures due to legislation prohibiting this information. They may on may not be housed withing the female estate. The data for the 13 GRC holders is not seemingly available, so I'd like to see where you got your evidence for the 3 of them you say are housed in the female estate. These figures are from a government website." According to the HMPPS report for 2023-2024 there were 10 people in prison who had GRCs. It'll take me a while to trace where the number 3 out of those 10 came from being imprisoned for sex offences so I'll report back when I find the source. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you want to be a woman, the first thing you should do is start acting like one instead of acting like a testosterone hyped up boxer. As a woman, born with a vagina, the implications that part of being a woman is that we must be quiet and meek or we're not proper enough just doesn't ring particularly true. If things need to be worked out then communication is key. On emotive issues of course there will be times when the discourse is less than productive while people express their exasperation. Humans do that. All of them. Tensions and emotions have been heightened by many factors lately. People are being more argumentative and aggressive on all sides. It's all part of the process. And, much like my therapist doesn't always understand why I pay to argue with him for an hour, it's because the things we talk about in that incredibly aggravating hour can gestate and process through my head days or weeks later, it doesn't always look like it's helping at the time. But understanding is a key part of it. And you don't get that without being exposed to other people's points of view and why they feel the way they do 💜" I never mentioned the words quiet or meek. Misquoting people who you are supposedly having a constructive discussion with is hardly constructive. But if you think women are more aggressive than men, that says a lot about what you think of women. Is that how you feel? Aggressive? And that why you think you’re a woman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are at least 5 transwoman, from 268 trans inmates, housed in female prisons. There are 13 transwoman inmates with GRCs but they are not included in the figures due to legislation prohibiting this information. They may on may not be housed withing the female estate. The data for the 13 GRC holders is not seemingly available, so I'd like to see where you got your evidence for the 3 of them you say are housed in the female estate. These figures are from a government website. According to the HMPPS report for 2023-2024 there were 10 people in prison who had GRCs. It'll take me a while to trace where the number 3 out of those 10 came from being imprisoned for sex offences so I'll report back when I find the source. " No men should be in women’s prisons, regardless of the offences committed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
