Amnesty International say - 'no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’'

I've read some sports women say that they will never win again in their particular field if transwomen are allowed to compete. An example of what an unfair advantage such a person could have would be in cyclist Rachel McKinnon, who towers over her competitors physically, shoulders, thighs and muscles are still very masculine. Pictures of her seated depict the legs open male stance and not the legs together female way of sitting all of which are overtly male.

I was disappointed that Suzanne Moore was hounded out by other staff at the Guardian. Disgusted but sadly unsurprised by death and rape threats that followed. It seems routine these days that women are threatened with sexual violence so frequently.
The Courts have concluded that children have to give informed consent to pre puberty blockers or surgery. It sounds as though the Courts will be asked to mediate . That sounds to me to be sensible.

It is utterly tragic what has happened to the guardian. I have rarely seen such overt misogyny as I have seen on owen jones twitter feed.

Surely when it comes to sport, the differences between men and women is a difference in hormones driving the rate and effort involved in growing muscle? So therefor equalising those hormones for a proven amount of time would level the playing field so to speak?

I spoilt my ballot paper in the last election, won't vote Tory and both Labour and Liberal have views that go along with the Guardian. Sick of womens rights being watered down.

If there is only one biological body does that mean that now anyone can become pregnant by any other person. I wasn’t aware that we all have eggs and sperm.

No sex is not just about hormones, sex affects pretty much all aspects of the body which impact on performance in sport.

Astral, the position being taken is that a man can declare themselves a woman.

A baby has already been born from a woman to woman transplanted uterus, scientists have suceeded in growing small limbs and organs. One day, it will be possible I would expect to actually have functioning sexual organs for trans people.

I sure we will find a sensible way forward and sort it all out in a way that everyone feels comfortable, this is just the transitioning phase... Pun intended

It does seem among the vociferous minority of transwomen and their supporters, misogyny is rampant. A strange logic at work there imo. Male rape of women is an overt form of subjugation a way of making the female of the species acquiescent. A threat that is used as a tactic with those who wish to drown out any dissenting voices, so there's little evidence of the sisterhood there and lets not forget the occasions where natal women have been physically beaten by a couple of transwomen when they have crossed swords.

I think I read Janis Turner of The Times had drawn attention to the sacking of Suzanne Moore by The Guardian, over 300 colleagues had signed a letter objecting to an article she had written, but the paper was nevertheless happy to sponsor an evening with Owen Jones, OJ who castigated lesbians for not wishing to have sex with transwomen, whilst he as a gay man would not I believe not entertain the idea of sex with a transman, and Frankie Boyle, making the observation if I remember rightly that they both veered towards misogyny and the latter had made disabled children a but of his jokes. Many have also questioned the fact that The Guardian ran an obituary for Peter Sutcliffe.

I also think there is only one accepted point of view in certain industries. For example there were some who were working on the publication of JK Rowling's "The Ickabog" who took exception to her comment "only women menstruate" I read in the The Sunday Times the CEO of that particular publishing house made a speech along the lines of it wasn't part of publishers remit to agree with everything an author might say, he cited the publisher George Weidenfeld, who fled Austria during the rise of The Nazis and went on through his publishing house Weidenfeld and Nicholson to publish all manner of material he didn't personally agree with. I believe those who were working on "The Ickabog" and were traumatised by JK Rowling's deeply contentious comments were given the choice of working in another area within the company.

Pictures of her seated depict the legs open male stance and not the legs together female way of sitting all of which are overtly male.

Meaning no disrespect at all to Terribull, but it's statements like this which make me wonder about the whole validity of the 'feeling of being born in the wrong body' statements. Sitting with legs together is a cultural imposition enforced by short skirts and expectations of 'modesty' in women. When women wore floor length skirts or dresses no-one knew where their legs were when they were seated. I can recall, in my youth, elderly ladies who did sit with legs apart (offering embarrassing glimpses of pink bloomers), a stance habitual from their long skirted younger days.

I cringe when I see statements about 'tomboy behaviour' in girls or a love of doll in boys being cited as evidence of being 'in the wrong body'. These are all cultural impositions, not innate sex based behaviours.

I don't know if such statements are just an attempt to express feelings that are extremely difficult to put into words or if the urge to transition is being driven by facile cultural expectations of male or female behaviour.

While I take trisher's point about overlaps in hormone levels and recognise that this has always been a contentious point in top level sport, I feel that at lower levels the acceptance of transwomen in women's sport just edges women out (and in contact sports, such as rugby, is positively dangerous)

(I apologise if all this has been debated before..)

Why is it so contentious to make distinctions between gender and sex? Gender is a social construct, sex is a biological fact.

Ok I take your point Maizie about the legs together when seated, quite a minor point of mine, but yes you are right, I have also seen older women, possibly because of expanding girth, sit with legs wide apart. Is legs together a cultural thing, or is it something that comes naturally being female? I think we tend to do that or cross our legs. I remember when I travelled by tube to work and got sick of my perception of men "man spreading" when seated taking up, imo more their fair share of space, complaining about this to a boyfriend at the time he pointed out "how else are we supposed to sit, things get in the way, we can't get our legs together" I realise that hadn't occurred back then, but when a transwoman sits with her legs apart it strikes me she still has her male genitalia.

"how else are we supposed to sit, things get in the way, we can't get our legs together"

Well, that's a load of b*llocks

As I write, Mr M is sitting on the sofa reading with his feet on the coffee table and his ankles elegantly crossed. Aka, sitting with his legs together.

Maizie absolutely

I agree Blossoming,but lets hope it`s not going to take 20 years.

The problem that trans people face is that it is possible to change their physically outward appearance to reflect their internal gender but it is not possible to change their gender to reflect their outward appearing sex.

So society only has two choices which are to disallow people to make changes to their sex to match their gender or simply refuse to accept them resulting in serious mental illness and even suicide or find a way to include trans people as valued members of society.

We cannot even start to make necessary changes to safely include all members of society until we accept people for who they are rather than appearance.

Appearance, mannerisms, gender roles etc are all social constructs and our sexual organs just don't define our character or capabilities. They do not define ANY of us and women have been fighting that ridiculous notion for a very long time.

I do think that the limitations of what a female body can do are actually due to the restrictions placed upon women by a male dominated society. There is historical evidence that when we were a nomadic people and there was no issue about property women occupied roles now considered male. They were archers, warriors and hunters. The Amazons were dismissed in the past as the product of Greek imagination but the belief that they were real is gradually rising. A female skeleton bearing evidence that she was an archer has been found. So what we possibly regard as the weakness of a woman's body may in fact be a social construct. If you realise as well that women until the 1960s were considered unsuitable physically to run marathons you realise how far we have come in the last 60 years. It may take more time but I see no reason why eventually women may not once again be judged equal in every sense,

Astral

Surely when it comes to sport, the differences between men and women is a difference in hormones driving the rate and effort involved in growing muscle? So therefor equalising those hormones for a proven amount of time would level the playing field so to speak?

That might be true for someone who has had hormone treatment since before puberty (which was the subject of the Keira Bell case).
It is not true for someone who has gone through puberty and had hormone treatment at some point after that.

In any case, in non-professional sport, there is no requirement for any kind of treatment.
There is, in addition, a demand for anyone who says they are female/male to be totally accepted as that at all times - with no need for any treatment at all - and this is being taken seriously by politicians and by others such Amnesty.

Yes those lazy sportwomen they just need to try harder. Pretty much every single sport with exceptions of some such as show jumping etc have enormous discrepancies between male and female records. There are archers and hunters now who are female, so what? The issue is about the difference between the male and female sex in sport.

Are you saying we remove sex as a protected characteristic from the equality act astral?

Astral there is another choice - that people be accepted, however they wish to present themselves, end of.

Eddie Izzard used to say he was a man who liked dresses and make -up - fine.
Now he claims to be a transwoman.
Actually he's still a man who likes dresses and make-up but now he has long hair because he's a 'woman'.

trisher I think you are over optimistic in thinking that women will be able to match the abilities of men, in sports requiring strength.

FarNorthI think much the same attitude was taken to women running marathons until the 1960s. I had no idea about this until I met the first woman to run in a marathon. She did so in Boston by registering with just her initials, when officials realised she was a woman they tried to pull her out of the race, her male runnng friends protected her. She still runs.