Seems on this occasion they were right, Amber Rudd confirmed the exemption within the the Equalities Act is not going to be touched on the Andrew Marr show last week (right at the end).
Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?
- Thread starter The Flying Pig
- Start date
- Status
Seems on this occasion they were right, Amber Rudd confirmed the exemption within the the Equalities Act is not going to be touched on the Andrew Marr show last week (right at the end).
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Good find, I couldn't see it mentioned anywhere.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure they've thought through how that will work, if, for example, gender identity (rather than reassignment) is made a protected characteristic.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
No, it would lead to very confusing law. It seems far too early to say how this will eventually look if reforms are passed.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's not going to be. The consultation is on the GRA, not the Equalities Act. But carry on being wrong about this as well.
Athos
Well-Known Member
You're either being disingenous (again), or how these consultations work is another thing you don't understand. The GRA doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's quite possible that the result of the consultation on the GRA will be that it's not possible to amend that piece of legislation without considering the impact on others.
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? 'Cos the fact it's in **The Spectator** alone (regardless of what the author is, says about himself or is said about) already told me it wasn't being published without ulterior motives.
Better than that... Disregard those articles what do you have to say about what the four times Olympic champion woman athlete has to say about trans inclusion in women's sports at the end of this?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
at least one of them's a blog on the spectator website rather than an article in the magazine: rather different to being 'in the spectator'. and no one publishes stuff without some sort of motive.
what do i have to say about her comments? that you seem to wish them to have a wider currency than the context in which she said them.
i don't see any way we could put her performance down to have a 'manly physique' or not.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
But isn't "becoming a transsexual person" a protected characteristic in the equalities act? Not arguing, still trying to understand how streamlining the process would lead to bad law if it isn't already a problem. I can't see how it would alter the sex based protections as they already seem to be separate anyway. Must keep reading.
Some trans critical rad fems are angry that no women's groups were called to give evidence in person to the enquiry, although the views of providers of women's services were referenced in the final report. From Rudd's interview it now seems like they are going to follow the lead of the review being carried out by Women's Aid into their own employment practices and which looks like recommending women's service providers move to self-identification. This is their policy in Scotland and one shared by Scotland Rape Crisis who have both been fully trans inclusive for some time without any reported issue.
So it might be more correct for that piece to say that some women's voices are being overlooked, but the voices of women who actually work and live in women only services now seem to be at the heart of the government's policy plans.
I think it's important to recognise that the protests over Top Shop toilets and now Hampstead Women's Pool shows that some trans critical feminists are not concerned with preserving the right to biologically born female spaces, but are demanding all women's spaces be trans exclusive regardless of what those women actually think themselves. This really continues an agenda which has been going on since the 70s when feminist music collective Olivia Records started getting hate mail and threats of violence for having a trans sound engineer. Given that trans critical feminism has repeatedly attacked women's groups for choosing to be trans inclusive I'm not sure their claim to be the voice of women is particularly justified.
And this is what you went on and on about when it comes to the exemption, which had already been rejected just like the move to gender identity has been. You were wrong about that and you're wrong about this. But who cares, why not bang on and on about this now. I won't be joining in this time though.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That doesn't really work. The reason biological men have a higher top limit of physical performance than biological women is very precisely because they have a manly physique and a manly physiology. There is an obvious problem when mtf trans athletes switch from men's competitions to women's competitions. (It's the reason why sports are exempted from many of the provisions of the current gender recognition act here in the UK.)
Last edited:
It wouldn't, even the trans critical rad fems seem to have conceded that, hence their legal advice leaflets.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but you're wrong; you don't understand how law making works. Nothing has been rejected; it's all up for grabs. And all legitimate for women to discuss, despite what you and others would prefer.
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
She benefited from naturally occurring testosterone levels growing up that had women and girls disqualified at those ages. One year of low testosterone is not enough to lose the muscle and bone masses and lung and cardiac capacities developed during that time in order to become the athlete equivalent of women.
Why do you think volley nets in men's competitions are set higher than women's?
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
Yeah that's how it looks to me. The equalities act would need to be amended to say "transgender" rather than "transexual" to be compatible as far as I can tell, but that wouldn't leave us in much of a different situation, the only change is transgender people don't have to wait two years to start going by their preferred identity.
ETA: obviously all of section 7 would have to be amended.
Equality Act 2010
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any male who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i.e.? not e.g.? so you envisage the expansion being monopolised by natal men and not natal women. strange.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's still a problem. She's 194cm tall, for starters. No doubt she has teammates who are also that tall without having grown up with male hormones, but you can't deny the influence those hormones had on her that left permanent traces.
I don't see a good solution to this problem. Due to the new hormones in her body, she cannot now compete with men, but she does maintain a physical legacy from when she was a man that makes it far from simple for her to switch to playing against women. And her interests are not the only ones to be considered.
HoratioCuthbert
Deep seated inconsequence
I amended my post to say the whole of section 7 would need to be altered. But it still wouldn't make much difference to how things are now(it wouldn't alter sex based protections as they currently stand)
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
perhaps you should read the daily mail
Brazilian transgender player debuts in top volleyball... | Daily Mail Online
It can stay as it is, a GRC would be evidence of gender transition, but the exemption, which permits discrimination in some circumstances, would remain. So in most cases someone could not be discriminated against at work or in provision of services, if they had a gender recognition certificate unless those services felt discrimination was necessary to meet a 'proportionate aim', such as a women only refuge.
I have no idea what the heights of volley nets are, never been something i've had an interested in I'm afraid.
So the argument would be that those testosterone levels are exclusive to men (ie people born as biological males).
I don't pretend to understand it all.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Expand to, not replace.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I thought the whole sexual dimorphism thing was more or less bollocks that differences were negligible
- Status
Similar threads
