The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Doodledog

It certainly seems that way, DL.

There is also this document but I'm guessing that Rosie is more interested in trisher's opinion than on what Stonewall has to say on the subject.

Well Stonewall says this if you scroll through to the EqualityAct

^A reformed Equality Act
that will protect all trans people. The protected characteristic should be changed from ‘gender reassignment’ to ‘gender identity’ and the use of the terms ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘transsexual’ should be removed. Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action^
And no mention of the removal of single sex spaces.
The term "transsexual" must be abhorrent to most of you.

trisher

DiamondLily

I found this on Stonewall's site:

'A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces"

Which seems to suggest that they do want exemptions removed, from the EA, and that TW be given equal status to biological women.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

Well that's funny because I found this. On a report to the parliamentary committee onreform of the Gender Recognition Act
Stonewall notes that the UK Government’s 2018 GRA consultation document, stated clearly that they did not plan to amend the Equality Act, and that changes to the Equality Act were outside of the scope of the GRA consultation, a point echoed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We concur with those positions in recommending that this inquiry does not call for changes to the Equality Act or Statutory Guidance.
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17743/pdf/
From the same document

4. The Equality Act and the accompanying Statutory Code of Practice also makes provision for single-sex services to provide a different service, or refuse their services, to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’ (regardless of whether or not they have a GRC), in exceptional individual circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
65. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) state that:
‘There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on ‘[women]-only spaces and services’, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010’
66. Stonewall has been very concerned to see media coverage suggest that GRA reform would impact women-only spaces and services, despite the EHRC’s statement. Stonewall hopes that the Committee and UK Government can play an important role in clarifying the relative remits of the two Acts
So your question Rosie51 is based on a false premise.

Well, I quoted straight from Stonewalls site, and provided the link.

Are they saying two things?

Doodledog

It certainly seems that way, DL.

There is also this document but I'm guessing that Rosie is more interested in trisher's opinion than on what Stonewall has to say on the subject.

Yes, I would think so. But Trisher said that she couldn't find where Stonewall had asked for this, so I provided a link that confirmed Stonewall are asking for this.?

So what is your position, trisher?

Would you like to see the exemptions removed?

DiamondLily

I found this on Stonewall's site:

'A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces"

Which seems to suggest that they do want exemptions removed, from the EA, and that TW be given equal status to biological women.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

Well that's funny because I found this. On a report to the parliamentary committee onreform of the Gender Recognition Act
Stonewall notes that the UK Government’s 2018 GRA consultation document, stated clearly that they did not plan to amend the Equality Act, and that changes to the Equality Act were outside of the scope of the GRA consultation, a point echoed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We concur with those positions in recommending that this inquiry does not call for changes to the Equality Act or Statutory Guidance.
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17743/pdf/
From the same document

4. The Equality Act and the accompanying Statutory Code of Practice also makes provision for single-sex services to provide a different service, or refuse their services, to someone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo ‘gender reassignment’ (regardless of whether or not they have a GRC), in exceptional individual circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
65. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) state that:
‘There is no reason why simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC should have an effect on ‘[women]-only spaces and services’, which are covered separately under the Equality Act 2010’
66. Stonewall has been very concerned to see media coverage suggest that GRA reform would impact women-only spaces and services, despite the EHRC’s statement. Stonewall hopes that the Committee and UK Government can play an important role in clarifying the relative remits of the two Acts
So your question Rosie51 is based on a false premise.

Rosie51

Doodledog

It certainly seems that way, DL.

There is also this document but I'm guessing that Rosie is more interested in trisher's opinion than on what Stonewall has to say on the subject.

Rosie is indeed more interested in personal opinions. I assume most of us would oppose any proposal to remove the exemptions, and would actually like them used more rigorously in appropriate areas.

Yes, I would.

For what it's worth, I think our politicians are very wary of this now that biological women have started to object loudly to their status being shoved aside by biological men, whatever they call themselves.

Politicians follow the biggest vote base, so I don't think they will take the risk of losing widespread political support, of biological women, to gain favour from a very small minority group, albeit a noisy one, of TW/TM and their supporters.?

Doodledog

It certainly seems that way, DL.

There is also this document but I'm guessing that Rosie is more interested in trisher's opinion than on what Stonewall has to say on the subject.

Rosie is indeed more interested in personal opinions. I assume most of us would oppose any proposal to remove the exemptions, and would actually like them used more rigorously in appropriate areas.

Yes of course. As long as everyone follows the same guidance re testosterone. They havent been through male puberty obviously.

trisher

I was wondering hw everyone would feel if a transman stopped taking hormones for a short time and when his level was acceptable competed in women's sport. Would that be OK?

If the testosterone level remained within the normal female range for at least a year (so no not just a few weeks before a competition), then of course as a female sex athlete they would be eligible to compete in the correct sex class.

It certainly seems that way, DL.

There is also this document but I'm guessing that Rosie is more interested in trisher's opinion than on what Stonewall has to say on the subject.

I found this on Stonewall's site:

'A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces"

Which seems to suggest that they do want exemptions removed, from the EA, and that TW be given equal status to biological women.

www.stonewall.org.uk/women-and-equalities-select-committee-inquiry-transgender-equality

I didn't see your post before I replied to trisher but I see you've asked the same question Doodledog, just a personal opinion on single sex exemptions and their removal or not.

I can't find the original article I read but this link womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/ provides interesting reading. There are other lobby groups and individuals that have said they favour the removal of the exemptions. Leaving aside any specific group, would you support or oppose the removal of the single sex exemptions from the EA? I'd vehemently oppose any such suggestion, imperfect as the exemptions are, and the unwillingness by so many to enforce them.

To save anyone the bother, may I ask whether you support or oppose the removal of single-sex exemptions from the EO Act, with or without the backing of Stonewall, trisher?

And also, whether you agree that it is not for the likes of me to come up with ways of making everything fit perfectly for everyone so that transpeople can get their own way? Don't you think that acceptable solutions should be arrived at by trans people themselves, or by people with a remit to make policy for others to live by? Meanwhile, as it is women who are more at risk from transpeople of the opposite sex to them, does it make sense for men to accommodate transwomen in their spaces until a mutually acceptable solution is found? Women can do the same for transwomen, if you insist. Personally, I have never felt that it is fair to deny one group something they want on the grounds that it cannot be given to a different group, but it's not something I would worry about too much, if it meant that women's spaces were protected.

Finally, what do you see as the position re hormones in sport? I have given my response to your question - what is your view of the matter?

Sadly trisher, your response shows continuing blindness, deliberate or simply ignorance of facts, to the dangers that are occurring now, as the males you support try to override female rights.
This time not just by being male as shown in that chart, but by claiming to be female via the obfuscation and cheating that occurred in 2004.
Your version of intersectional feminism, better identified as trans-sectional feminism, as you have often demonstrated, means someone who claims to support all groups, but in fact supports any group except natal females
regardless of the colour, race, or creed of those females
and is happy for female rights and needs to be ignored when they do not fit in with the desires of males, now often disguised as TW.

These transsectional/intersectional females care little for the future of their granddaughters and their granddaughters descendants, probably because they won’t be around to see their pain, or to take the blame for the harm the TF/IF actions have caused.

Rosie51

Away for a day or so and pages to catch up on!
I saw someone's tweet on twitter that makes sense. If hormones can reverse the advantageous changes of puberty for male athletes, why do children need to take hormones blockers to stop the irreversible changes of puberty?

trisher you keep asking for answers to the 'Nic' question, but you've never answered the much easier one I've posed to you so many times. Do you support or oppose the removal of the single sex exemptions from the EA as Stonewall and others want? I suppose we know the answer is you support the removal because otherwise you'd have stated your opposition by now.

Rosie I've never answered your question because I have been trying to discover any evidence that Stonewall are asking for this. If you have something I can read please do post it then I won't have to keep searching.

If this is what they are teaching them at expensive private schools now, I'm glad I could never afford to send my children there:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10730869/Modern-feminism-focuses-straight-white-middle-class-women-private-school-pupils-told.html

Away for a day or so and pages to catch up on!
I saw someone's tweet on twitter that makes sense. If hormones can reverse the advantageous changes of puberty for male athletes, why do children need to take hormones blockers to stop the irreversible changes of puberty?

trisher you keep asking for answers to the 'Nic' question, but you've never answered the much easier one I've posed to you so many times. Do you support or oppose the removal of the single sex exemptions from the EA as Stonewall and others want? I suppose we know the answer is you support the removal because otherwise you'd have stated your opposition by now.

It sure is very flexible now, where drugs taken by sportspeople is concerned. ?

Mollygo

Here’s an aside-I know some posters like deviations, but this is an example of how women have had to fight for their rights.
When folks don’t understand why it’s a big deal that Kamala Harris is the Vice President (no matter your political affiliation), it’s helpful to use a simple visual aid.

See the red box? Until then, she would have been enslaved.

See the blue box? Until then, she couldn’t vote.

The yellow box? Until then, she had to attend a segregated school.

And see the green box? Until then she couldn’t have her own bank account.

And some posters on GN, some TW and trans-allies want to push AHF rights back into the hands of the patriarchy, in ways just as, or even more damaging than those on here.

Thanks for your post Mollygo It vividly illustrates why Intersectional feminism is so important because the degree of discrimination varies hugely between women, and colour and class are such important factors.
It is possible that a black women could have voted in the USA in 1920. My grandmother didn't get a vote in the UK until she was 29 because she was a working class woman and they had no vote until 1928. Although in practice many black people in the USA didn't vote until the 1960s because they were intimidated and stopped from registering.
Intersectional feminism recognises these differences still exist and recognises that transwomen are a minority oppressed group just like black women or working class women.
It is nothing to do with men. And it opposes the patriarchy who continue to rule through creating inequalities and setting one group against another. Buying in to those inequalities is the real threat.

Joking aside, if people can be disqualified for taking a low-dose painkiller, how is it ok for others to be full of synthetic hormones?

(and that's quite apart from the anatomical differences between men and women)

DD
When did it stop being illegal to take performance-enhancing drugs?

When it enabled men to cheat evidently!??

trisher

I was wondering hw everyone would feel if a transman stopped taking hormones for a short time and when his level was acceptable competed in women's sport. Would that be OK?

As I'm not a biologist, if you have another 'gotcha!' up your sleeve, I will fall foul of it; but on the face of it, why not? IMO everyone should compete in their sex class, and if there is evidence of any drugs having altered their chances of winning they should be disqualified.

When did it stop being illegal to take performance-enhancing drugs?

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-878105-0793a6de-c479-4be2-b952-5d79c721dc4b.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-71914-da6d78d7-b834-4847-8c4c-a7d15ed8337d.jpeg

Here’s an aside-I know some posters like deviations, but this is an example of how women have had to fight for their rights.
When folks don’t understand why it’s a big deal that Kamala Harris is the Vice President (no matter your political affiliation), it’s helpful to use a simple visual aid.

See the red box? Until then, she would have been enslaved.

See the blue box? Until then, she couldn’t vote.

The yellow box? Until then, she had to attend a segregated school.

And see the green box? Until then she couldn’t have her own bank account.

And some posters on GN, some TW and trans-allies want to push AHF rights back into the hands of the patriarchy, in ways just as, or even more damaging than those on here.

I was wondering hw everyone would feel if a transman stopped taking hormones for a short time and when his level was acceptable competed in women's sport. Would that be OK?