Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[HoratioCuthbert]

You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).

Scots and Geordie very very similar! I have the Scots from being in Orkney too long but in Inverness we don't have that at all! There's lots of different Scots dialect up here and North of England really more like another brand of Scots(don't say that to anyone that speaks it they will be raging) Then there's Gaelic, which I speak due to going to the very first Gaelic unit in the highlands in the 80's but that's mainly West coast and western isles. It seems to me like the Celts ploughed through from the West and the East and North coast and Newcastle are all speaking Scots. sort of. Academics argue about this

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).

Ohhhhh! You meant MAN!!!! Ooops, in Geordieland there is lots of words that Orcadian dialect have in common!

Man, we started saying that late 90's. Too much telly!

 

[Vintage Paw]

what a sensible article about the GRA actually looks like:View attachment 127454

That anyone could object to a single thing he said boggles the mind.

 

[smokedout]

I think this is difficult stuff, but my initial thought on it is that nobody who previously competed as a man ought to be allowed to compete later as a woman. There is no fair way for that to happen. This may be harsh on late-transitioning trans women, but giving up a previous competitive sports career may be a necessary price they have to pay for transitioning. Whatever decision is made on that, one thing I don't think is valid is to treat this as a human rights issue - the right of a trans woman who grew up as a man to compete must be balanced against the rights of those they will be competing against who did not grow up as men. Their past is relevant to their present in this particular case.

Is that really the best that can be done, effectively banning trans women from all competitive sports? Surely an evidence led approach is preferable, one that looks at the needs of different sports and that is flexible enough to be able to respond if looks like things seem to be unfair. The weightlifter could be an outlier for example, you'd expect a few, given the growing number of trans athletes. If it happens again perhaps it's time to relook at the evidence surrounding weightlifting rather than ban trans women from all sports.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).

Inverness = mun! MUN! Orkney: Min
So I guess we have that too. This is my last post on that.

 

[smokedout]

Anyone got a link to, for example, a boring official website where I can learn some of the undisputed basics about that inquiry/whatever the proper name for it is?

Everything's here: Transgender equality inquiry

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Ohhhhh! You meant MAN!!!! Ooops, in Geordieland there is lots of words that Orcadian dialect have in common!

Man, we started saying that late 90's. Too much telly!

Well NE folk don’t say ‘ken’!

 

[elbows]

Everything's here: Transgender equality inquiry

Thanks very much. I am reading the report now. Clearly there is way too much in it for me to tackle, but already I find myself wanting to take note of some things mentioned in it to look at later.

We also heard from various quarters the view that the UK government should adopt the overarching principles on trans equality embodied in two international declarations:21

• the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, adopted by the International Commission of Jurists in 2007;22 and
  
  
• Resolution 2048: Discrimination against transgender people in Europe, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in April 2015.23

 

[smokedout]

None were allowed a hearing. None.

Several women's organisations were referenced in the report, they just weren't called to give evidence in person in what was a very broad inquiry. And who would you invite? Would you have been happy if Women's Aid Scotland had given evidence on the success of trans inclusion in refuges in Scotland? Wpmen's Aid England and Wales did offer to appear, but since there policy was under review then I'm not sure what they'd have said, they made it quite clear they oppose any discrimination against trans women in their written evidence.

And now it looks like that Women's Aid review is likely to inform the government#'s position. The biggest women's organisation is now at the heart of policy development so surely this concern has been addressed.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Well NE folk don’t say ‘ken’!

I ken I ken, I just went into Scots mode and didn't think haha! Mak, tak, doon, radgie etc though

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is that really the best that can be done, effectively banning trans women from all competitive sports? Surely an evidence led approach is preferable, one that looks at the needs of different sports and that is flexible enough to be able to respond if looks like things seem to be unfair. The weightlifter could be an outlier for example, you'd expect a few, given the growing number of trans athletes. If it happens again perhaps it's time to relook at the evidence surrounding weightlifting rather than ban trans women from all sports.

Trans woman athletes who transitioned in adulthood may be left in something of a nowhereland - no longer able to compete with men because of the effects of their treatment, but with a body shaped by years of being a man that may still confer advantages over women. Where that's the case, what do you do? I read testimony from numerous trans women athletes as to how their treatment has affected their performance, and it's clear that it does, but that on its own is not enough to be able to say that it's fair for them to compete with women. Really all that says is that they will now struggle to compete with men.

The weightlifter is perhaps an extreme example, given the big gap in performance levels in that discipline between men and women, but I'd need convincing that it's not generalisably true.

It's hard to find reliable sources on this, but this pdf considering martial arts looks pretty considered. Its focus is certainly not trans-exclusion but rather how to find the right way to include trans women in combat sports that is fair on everyone, and it makes a point that cis female fighters generally jump at the chance of a bout with a trans woman as a chance to test themselves: a lot of this problem disappears once you're only talking about sport for its own sake rather than to win things.

www.nicholasrizzo.com/ringsidemedicine/transgender.pdf

Its main conclusions are worth quoting in full:

The following conclusions may be drawn from this discussion about MTF post-pubertal
transitioned athletes.
 Most physiologic and anatomic differences (muscle mass and development, testosterone
levels, bone density, red blood cell levels, muscle-to-fat ratio) between men and women
are reversed by complete transition (as is required by the Stockholm Consensus).
o Very little scientific evidence proving corresponding changes in athletic
performance exists. Therefore, it cannot be said from a proven scientific basis or
with complete certainty that male athletic advantages are completely neutralized
by completed transgender transition.
 Heart and lung capacity does not likely reverse completely, but it is uncertain if this
confers an advantage and to what degree.
 Aptitude in motor skills is assumed to be no different for pre-pubertal transitions, but is
likely different for post-pubertal transitions, and, again, it is uncertain if this confers an
advantage and to what degree.
o An athlete may be at a disadvantage in this area if having to re-learn how to use
muscles that are now smaller and weaker than before a transition.
 Two aspects of the male skeleton present additional issues and may create possible
advantages.
o One change that cannot be reversed hardly at all is male skeletal morphology.
This may result in greater forces generated by muscles over a male skeleton.
o Once change that cannot be completely reversed is male center of gravity. This
may contribute to generating greater striking forces when standing and also create
a different weight distribution when on the mat.
o These two skeletal difference may result in a fighting style most female-by-birth
athletes are unaccustomed to.
 The degree to which these any or all of these possible advantages may exist or be
significant is as yet unknown and unproven.
At this time there are no studies that I know of that compare these specific issues. Ideally,
someday we could have enough transgender combat arts athletes to comprise a large academic
study, but that is not likely to happen.
For there to be no advantage for MTF transgender athletes in combat arts per se (not necessarily
other sports), every single variable listed above would have to ultimately pan out to be to “no
advantage.” Given the relatively high number of variables, this is highly unlikely. Then of
course, if there is a cumulative advantage to them, whether it is significant or not, is another
issue that is not easily resolved.

Regarding the point about male/female skeletal shape and centre of gravity, this is something I'm very familiar with from training and teaching martial arts to both men and women. Women have to do many techniques substantially differently from men for this reason, and it's been a learning curve for me over the years to learn exactly what those differences are so that I can advise female students correctly.

 

[smokedout]

Trans woman athletes who transitioned in adulthood may be left in something of a nowhereland - no longer able to compete with men because of the effects of their treatment, but with a body shaped by years of being a man that may still confer advantages over women. Where that's the case, what do you do? I read testimony from numerous trans women athletes as to how their treatment has affected their performance, and it's clear that it does, but that on its own is not enough to be able to say that it's fair for them to compete with women. Really all that says is that they will now struggle to compete with men.

The weightlifter is perhaps an extreme example, given the big gap in performance levels in that discipline between men and women, but I'd need convincing that it's not generalisably true.

Golf, motor sports, equestrian events, gymnastics, figure skating? There's probably dozens of sports where there is no advantage and some where it might even be a disadvantage. Surely a case by case approach based on evidence is better than a blanket ban. And the evidence that does exist certainly makes a case for a significant loss in performance after a year or so on hormone treatment.

This is backed up by what's taking place in sport. Only two trans women are rumoured to have ever made it to the Olympics, and presumably they didn't win anything. The first (and possibly only) American trans person to ever represent the country at national level was a trans man. With the exception of Hubbard and the volley ball player no trans women seems to have been hugely successful in professional sports. I'm not aware of any trans women playing football at top flight status. This might change, but nothing has to be set in stone. It doesn't strike me as beyond the wit of sporting bodies to find a way for many or even most sports to become inclusive and fair without banning most trans women from competitive sport completely.

 

[Sue]

Transgender first for Australian football

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

8ball dealt with all this pages ago

 

[elbows]

Several women's organisations were referenced in the report, they just weren't called to give evidence in person in what was a very broad inquiry.

I have just reached the part of the report where I can first see clear signs of this.

110. The Equality Act 2010 allows for the provision of separate-sex and single-sex services where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (a form of words intended to require the application of an objective standard of justification). The Act also effectively permits service providers not to allow a trans person to access separate-sex or single-sex services—on a case-by-case basis, where exclusion is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

111. We heard a range of views on this difficult and sensitive issue. Some voices were raised in support of the law as it stands. Women Analysing Policy on Women told us:

There are situations such as women-only domestic and sexual violence services where vulnerable women surviving in crisis find it very difficult to feel safe. Some of these women may feel unable to access services provided by or offered jointly to all women including transwomen; this produces a clash with the rights of transwomen to be treated exactly the same as other women. In such cases when the safety, wellbeing and recovery of women are reliant upon their ability to access services the law has created exemptions to allow for women only services that do not include some transwomen, in some circumstances.

112. Similarly, we heard from the Prison Reform Trust that:

Some organisations working with female prisoners, such as those providing support for women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault may decide not to provide services to transwomen as long as the decision is legitimate and proportionate. We support the current position.

And then shortly thereafter the other things you recently mentioned also come up in the report, but I'm obviously not going to start quoting a very large amount of this stuff. Their conclusion to this section was interesting though, for reasons including them suspecting that the proportionate test in the existing Gender Recognition Act would not be met by many of the contentious instances anyway.

32. Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

It's no surprise that legislators are pretty well tuned to judging things in terms of the current legislation. Including variations between the actual way the current legislation is used so far, the original spirit of the legislation and any other laws (and declarations, international or regional stuff) that the current legislation was supposed to be an implementation of or be compatible with. And whether specific bits of the legislation are actually working and whether any tests in them are really being used as tests and have had a chance to been illuminated further via court precedent. It doesnt surprise me that, when this is combined with some groups telling them that these safeguards need to stay, and others describing the various ways the current legislation is doing harm and not serving any of its intended purposes properly, they are more likely to come up with a preferred solution that involves hitting many of these targets in one go. In this case, even if they found the voice of groups who want to maintain the current position more compelling, they dont think many of the assumed existing safeguards are actually legally safe in terms of the proportionate test, and combined with other flaws and incompatibilities its no surprise they'd rather ditch it.

Anyway I know that even by my standards this post has probably been especially tedious and full of unnecessarily wordy sentences and shit. Sorry. But I cannot help but compare a particular sentence from this aspect of the report to one of the things that certainly influences the accusations of bad faith that frequently erupt on this thread.

These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I know all sides will seek to claim the legitimate, proportionate ground, but if I were a betting man I would look at the existing legislation and the spirit into which various things have been instigated this century, including the entire purpose and spirit of that inquiry, and I would certainly not be trusting the sums of a terf accountant. I know its hardly a revelation that their aims are not just to thwart the current proposals but to try to undo some of the past gains. But I suppose I've still been interested to see this specific example of both a past legislative flaw/largely untested ambiguity and rights that were nonetheless somewhat enshrined in spite of the flaws, hugely influencing future recommendations.

 

[Sea Star]

The Express standing up for feminism - there's a first. Definitely legit! No agenda there, obvs.

Corbyn's transgender NIGHTMARE: Mumsnet fires back at Labour leader over self ID policies

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I have just reached the part of the report where I can first see clear signs of this.



And then shortly thereafter the other things you recently mentioned also come up in the report, but I'm obviously not going to start quoting a very large amount of this stuff. Their conclusion to this section was interesting though, for reasons including them suspecting that the proportionate test in the existing Gender Recognition Act would not be met by many of the contentious instances anyway.



It's no surprise that legislators are pretty well tuned to judging things in terms of the current legislation. Including variations between the actual way the current legislation is used so far, the original spirit of the legislation and any other laws (and declarations, international or regional stuff) that the current legislation was supposed to be an implementation of or be compatible with. And whether specific bits of the legislation are actually working and whether any tests in them are really being used as tests and have had a chance to been illuminated further via court precedent. It doesnt surprise me that, when this is combined with some groups telling them that these safeguards need to stay, and others describing the various ways the current legislation is doing harm and not serving any of its intended purposes properly, they are more likely to come up with a preferred solution that involves hitting many of these targets in one go. In this case, even if they found the voice of groups who want to maintain the current position more compelling, they dont think many of the assumed existing safeguards are actually legally safe in terms of the proportionate test, and combined with other flaws and incompatibilities its no surprise they'd rather ditch it.

Anyway I know that even by my standards this post has probably been especially tedious and full of unnecessarily wordy sentences and shit. Sorry. But I cannot help but compare a particular sentence from this aspect of the report to one of the things that certainly influences the accusations of bad faith that frequently erupt on this thread.



I know all sides will seek to claim the legitimate, proportionate ground, but if I were a betting man I would look at the existing legislation and the spirit into which various things have been instigated this century, including the entire purpose and spirit of that inquiry, and I would certainly not be trusting the sums of a terf accountant. I know its hardly a revelation that their aims are not just to thwart the current proposals but to try to undo some of the past gains. But I suppose I've still been interested to see this specific example of both a past legislative flaw/largely untested ambiguity and rights that were nonetheless somewhat enshrined in spite of the flaws, hugely influencing future recommendations.

TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
Urban75, 2018.

 

[elbows]

TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
Urban75, 2018.

I do get a little bored with how often my attempts to observe and describe things are equated with wholeheartedly supporting the things I am observing.

In this instance there is an obvious overlap between many of their conclusions and my own personal opinion about things, and I will not bore anyone by attempting to pretend otherwise. And this is bound to affect my tone and yes it may be possible to detect less than subtle hints of me cheering certain things on and attempting to rub terfs noses in other aspects.

So yeah, feel free to enter this as part of the mix. But I would also like to submit to the mix things such as being able to wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage despite it being delivered by a range of flawed state & power actors, without being sneered at along 'friend of the bourgeois court' lines. I wonder why the difference in standards eh?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
Urban75, 2018.

Basically you are kind of right, the workers at women's aid are far more sensitive to the needs of those in their care than some arbitrary law, but Elbows is right in that if this stuff went to court it would be ambiguous as fuck, pieces of Lego and Stickle bricks. None of which means feminists should be pouring all their energy into fighting the trans for their rights

 

[elbows]

Personally, if we are still operating within the confines of a system of states, institutions and legislative assemblies, I would at least have an additional completely separate thing that was entirely dissimilar to the ways and preferences of the legislators that I was just discussing. Because lets face it, without that then no matter how many appropriate groups are consulted, the complaint can just shift from one sort of not being listened to to another sort of not being listened to. Gloating was far from the only intent of my previous posts, I was genuinely also just observing how certain aspects of what has happened before legislatively carry great weight for subsequent inquiries and their conclusions. Even when it does not serve my own policy preference for some of these excluded voices to be heard properly, I'd rather they were. And since I have a reasonably low opinion of how much listening the establishment entities can muster, I would favour some radical additional parallel structure that was actually composed in such a way that the normal limitations of the elite consultation interface are overcome.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally, if we are still operating within the confines of a system of states, institutions and legislative assemblies, I would at least have an additional completely separate thing that was entirely dissimilar to the ways and preferences of the legislators that I was just discussing. Because lets face it, without that then no matter how many appropriate groups are consulted, the complaint can just shift from one sort of not being listened to to another sort of not being listened to. Gloating was far from the only intent of my previous posts, I was genuinely also just observing how certain aspects of what has happened before legislatively carry great weight for subsequent inquiries and their conclusions. Even when it does not serve my own policy preference for some of these excluded voices to be heard properly, I'd rather they were. And since I have a reasonably low opinion of how much listening the establishment entities can muster, I would favour some radical additional parallel structure that was actually composed in such a way that the normal limitations of the elite consultation interface are overcome.

A kind of social affairs committee?

If you're looking within the system, nobody is more accountable than an elected official. How would that parallel structure be constituted? It would have to be by some kind of vote/ballot system - its legitimacy can only come from those who appoint it.

tbh the consultation process here in the UK that can leave us behind other places is not a bad thing. It is a bit of bureaucracy that I am glad is there. It is a chance of representation, however imperfect.

 

[elbows]

A kind of social affairs committee?

If you're looking within the system, nobody is more accountable than an elected official. How would that parallel structure be constituted? It would have to be by some kind of vote/ballot system - its legitimacy can only come from those who appoint it.

tbh the consultation process here in the UK that can leave us behind other places is not a bad thing. It is a bit of bureaucracy that I am glad is there. It is a chance of representation, however imperfect.

I wasnt intending to get derailed by any of the detail, I was just trying to indicate that there are myriad ways that these processes may be limited and may leave people feeling they have not been heard. And if I wanted that tackled properly, I'd favour having something of a pretty different nature so that all manner of real and perceived flaws with current setup are not present from the start. Yes even if this mythical new listening entity served its purpose well, there still needs to be an actual decision made one way or the other at some point and I've just shifted problems at that stage from being an internal committee matter to a clash between the existing committee and this magical parallel thing. Yes, problems, but I cant help but think that simply by carrying out its listening process in its different way, and being composed of different sorts of people, more people would at least be left with a genuine sense that they got to have their say and were listened to and, even if still patronised in some ways, at least in different ways to what they get when dealing with established formal UK PLC through all the usual channels. Even when still dealing with the confines of the state, representative democracy, accountability of elected officials, I think there is easily room to have bodies that are specifically geared towards the consultative aspects of policy work to be comprised less of the usual elite operatives and more of the broader range of humans from across society. For similar reasons to some of the problems public inquiries can face over their choice of establishment figures to chair the thing.

Anyway of all the different sorts of establishment documents that I end up reading, committee stuff is way easier to treat with a bit of respect than a lot of other shit. Its more likely to at least come across as balanced and fairly well thought out, although not without its flaws and limitations. I reached the NHS section of the report before running out of steam. It described a range of rather depressing things.

 

[elbows]

So I guess I'm sort of saying, committees can produce some interesting stuff, some obvious flaws and boundaries, I would love some similar things but comprised of different people so we get different flaws and boundaries as well and so even more interesting food for thought.

 

[elbows]

Although we already know from this thread the sort of thing that would ensue if an alt committee really tried to listen to certain sentiments and then felt unable to avoid conclusions such as 'some of this is transphobic shit that is to be loudly condemned'

 

[elbows]

Oh dear:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/1...urate-and-deeply-damaging-say-lgbt-activists/

A recently released guide, targeted at schools about transgender children, has been slammed by LGBT groups, who say it perpetuates myths and could potentially harm young trans people.

Transgender Trend, a group which describes itself as parents “concerned about the current trend to diagnose ‘gender non-conforming’ children as transgender”, released the resource pack yesterday.

The report, which says it aims to “protect vulnerable teenagers from political ideology”, tells parents that gender non-conforming children are likely to accept the sex they were assigned at birth, or that they will become gay or lesbians in adulthood.

It accuses transgender activists of teaching children an “ideology as fact promoting language and concepts which are anti-science”, arguing that transitioning is glamourized on social media.

 

[8ball]

Oh dear...

I thought it was commonly accepted that a lot of gender non-conforming children grow up to be non-dysphoric gay adults, and a lot as non-dysphoric straight adults.
But saying they are trying to protect kids from ideology is more than a bit disingenuous.

 

[bimble]

Instead of saying read it if you want but here's why we think its wrong and you should not follow the advice it gives, there's just a lot of this sort of thing instead. oh dear.

 

[elbows]

I thought it was commonly accepted that a lot of gender non-conforming children grow up to be non-dysphoric gay adults, and a lot as non-dysphoric straight adults.
But saying they are trying to protect kids from ideology is more than a bit disingenuous.

Well this thread contains some reasonable demonstrations of what happens when even commonly accepted truths or partial truths are used as ammo in ideological battles.

I need to read the full guide before commenting further, and I dont think I will have time for that until tomorrow.

 

[elbows]

Meanwhile, here is a terf video take on todays activity outside westminster court. Some audible comments and the direction the camera points at times is just further confirmation of the rancid nature of this overt transphobe.

 

[bimble]

What is the point. "defend the she wolf" because punching terfs is the way forward. Why not also taunt your enemy with 'you hideous ugly terf'. Inspiring stuff.