How would that matter? Does physiology change then?
How would that matter? Does physiology change then?
Again, as you well know, the vast majority of rape survivors are women. It is truly a triumph of management of statistics to be unable to select a Chief Executive of Scotland's capital city from the percentage of the population who were born as women.
Thats important, because Scotland is historically a sexist, male dominated country with a relatively recent history of failing to protect womens' rights - e.g. not recognising that rape can occur within marriage, not permitting women to have bank accounts or obtain mortgages, etc, and it still has high rates of violence, including sexual violence against women. The vast majority of the Scottish legal aid budget goes on restraining orders against male former partners or husbands of women.
The other bigger problem is that the new Chief Executive then immediately became embroiled in the controversy which is becoming unfortunately increasingly common in Scotland by encouraging women to "reframe their rape experience" by becoming "re-educated" regarding transgender rights".
The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is more important than the name was suggest, because in Scotland it is a heavily tax subsidised body with increasing political aims, rather than an independent body seeking to help women. The Centre in fact deliberately encouraged applications from trans women.
Whadhwa (the transwoman who is now Chief Executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre) then went on to say "“Because you know, to me, therapy is political, and it isn’t always seen as that.”
Wadhwa also attempted to address concerns about natal males being in rape crisis centres by arguing “men are already in these spaces” because they were involved in decisions about its funding and “planning permission”: “The argument that women's spaces will be somehow compromised, from my perspective as a strategic thinker, that's already happening, because we are functioning in a man's world.”
I don’t know what a “2 vision solution” is exactly, but we already have two categories: men and women.
when your solution to a problem is to just keep things the way they are, then you are most likely imagining there is a problem in the first place.
Two categories - male and female...Oh wait we have had that since 1900!
The new two-division solution proposed isn't really the same as the system now in place, though.
The new system would restrict the women's division solely to female participants whilst turning the men's division into an open division.
As I understand it, the open division would be for:
-all males regardless of their gender identity, including those who have no gender identity;
-females who "identify as" the opposite sex, a combination of the two sexes, or neither sex, and take, or have taken, exogenous testosterone for reasons of "gender affirmation;"
-females who who don't want to compete in the female division because they don't "identify as" female but they don't have a history of taking T;
-females who wish to compete in the open division for any other reasons, including reasons that have nothing to do with gender identity.
Apologies ahead of time if I have this wrong.
Like instead of opening a can of whoop ass it's closing the can.
You are conflating the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate with the issue of trans women in women's prisons and other issues within the trans gender discussion. It makes no difference whether a prisoner is in possession or not of a gender recognition certificate, where they are sent is judged on a case-by-case basis. A male prisoner cannot get a transfer to a women's prison by applying for a GRC.
Here's what a Gender Recognition Certificate entitles you to do.
Looking at the very limited things it actually grants you the ability to do, making it easier to obtain one clearly does not affect the Equalities Act nor does it prevent an NGB from changing the rules of it's sport, especially as GRCs have been around for 19 years without notice until now. Both the decision to block the Scottish parliament's proposed changes and the statement from UK Athletics are rooted in the ridiculous levels of misinformation surrounding this topic.
"Open" and "Restricted." Any reference to sex or gender should be removed from the category names.
Limiting the female division to "natal female" does not solve the problem of DSD athletes, which is a much bigger problem in track & field than transgender athlete.
The question of who is and is not "natal female" should be left to medical professions, and sports governing bodies should stay away from it.
Actually, no I'm not. You are throwing around increasingly specific statements to suit your own agenda and desperate and emotive words such as "ridiculous". Your repeated tactic is to go from the general to the specific and back, over and over again, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being too specific or not specific enough. Its a clumsy style of discourse and its simply increasingly implausible the more you try to use it.
It would be much fairer all round to have a referendum on these issues, because all of the issues you have managed to conflate in your accusation lack public support, and that simply isn't acceptable in a democracy. But its a referendum that people with your views would undoubtedly lose.
General western legal theory is based on the notion of demos - power with public support and that implies that those powers should not be abused, particularly by single issue campaigners who wish to promote their own alternative views. That type of person is disproportionately drawn into power and checks and balances exist to prevent the abuse of such power. Arguing that people are biased or non-progressive because they don't agree with those views is unlikely to succeed in the long term, because this entire issue (and I am avoiding being too specific here deliberately) is too out of tune with public opinion and public decency, and its not something you change. Your views are likely to be left behind once law catches up with the recent changes that have been placed upon it.
You're also trying to show off and pretend that you have some greater knowledge but you are actually coming across as a bit of a Version V study subject. The problem is that women and girls might actually die or be harmed because of these type of views, and not only is that morally reprobate, its going to create potential liability.
No, I'm not "conflating the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate in the UK with the issue of" adult males in women's prisons, sports, locker rooms, hospital wards, shelters, domestic violence/IPV refuges, rape crisis centers, etc.
My comments were specifically about
the way that GRCs and the law that created them, the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, have been interpreted and applied to date by UK government ministries, departments, councils, state-run schools, NHS trusts and hospitals, private business establishments, arts institutions like theaters and museums, and providers of services originally founded by women to assist female victims of male sexual assault and male domestic and intimate partner violence.
I never mentioned the process for obtaining a GRC at all.
Actually, you're the one conflating different things here. You also seem confused about basic facts. There is no such thing as "the Equalities Act" in the UK. The correct name is the Equality Act 2010, often referred to as the Equality Act of 2010.
Yes, the link you provided shows that that GRCs grant people the right to do what appear to be only "limited things" insofar as the UK government goes. Mostly GRCs per the statute that created them enable people to change their sex marker and name on other vital government documents such as birth and adoption certificates and marriage certificates.
But changing those documents can have profound and far-reaching effects, not just on the individuals obtaining GRCs for themselves, but on others. Just read or listen to the stories of all the women and children whose husbands, male partners and fathers now have GRCs stating that they are legally women. And the mothers whose sons have them too.
Or ask the women born into wealthy and titled British families chagrined by the fact that the GRA of 2004 states that even when men in the UK become women legally by obtaining GRCs, they still will always retain the inheritance rights granted solely to males such as first-born sons under the age-old custom and rule of male primogeniture.
The GRA also explicitly states that women who obtain GRCs to change their legal sex to male still cannot inherit the fortunes, real property and titles of their families of birth that longstanding inheritance laws and customs stipulate are to go exclusively to male members of those families.
But the letter of the law is only one part of the problem here. The underlying issue is the ways the GRA of 2004 - and the the section of the EA 2010 designating "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic - have been interpreted, misconstrued and implemented across all sectors in the UK.
Fact is, UK government bodies and most other institutions in the UK over the past decade or more have chosen to interpret and implement both the original GRA of 2004 and the "gender reassignment" clause of the EA 2010 to institute sweeping polices effectively giving adults 18 and up in the UK the right to self-identify their sex.
This has had many negative consequences across society, particularly for women and girls - and also for many people who are same-sex attracted, meaning lesbians, gay guys and bisexuals of both sexes.
As a 2017 BBC article - "Gender identity: What do legal changes have to do with women's rights?" - explained, at that time the guidance from the UK government to service providers - such as women's refuges, Girl Guides, public sports and recreation facilities like swimming pools and gyms, clothing stores with fitting rooms, bars and restaurants, etc - was that adult males who've obtained a GRC saying they now have a "woman gender" as well as men who dress so as to look like women or who merely "identify as" women
"should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes".
That means that anyone who identifies themselves as a woman - whether that is their legal status or not - can already use separate-sex facilities such as changing rooms, toilets or single-sex gyms.
The fact that you are convinced that the UK's GRA and GRCs "have been around for 19 years without [anyone taking] notice until now" just shows how little you've been paying attention. I'm a Yank and I've been following the brouhaha over the UK's GRA and GRCs in the British press and in online discussion forums for years.
Two categories . . . male and female. Agree. As long as we agree trans women are women.
Yes, and he won an NCAA womens title. Sucked to be places 2-8 in that race.
Did you have some sort of point, besides looking foolish and denying science/biology?
That athlete was declared ineligible to compete in the Olympic trial two years ago.
But now that the testosterone limit is halved, and the duration of that limit is doubled, other trans athletes will come out of their closet and dominate women's sports.
I am so confused - denne setningen er så forvirrende skrevet. Hva gjør kommaet der?
What's a "natal female"?
Asking for a non-English speaker
Maybe a woman from Natal in South Africa?
Basically, someone who was recognized as a female at birth. whether it was by a doctor, a midwife, a parent or someone else, most often based on her external anatomy.
So many people with 46XY DSD are "natal females."
Irrelevant what the certificate does or does not grant you, bottom line it's a waste of my tax money on irrelevant sh*te for people who should be recieving mental help for their delusions and perversions. Things like this as well as being a collosal waste also serve as a way to legitimise the mentally ill warped reality.
Also, tangentially, I don't want my own kids to be the victim of a mass murderer whose vendetta was cause by their idiotic parents allowing them to chop it off and drug up at 10 years old for Reddit gold
Really? I thought that for many years now "assigned female at birth" has been the preferred term for people with 46,XY DSDs and other disorders or differences of male sex development who were thought to be female at birth based on the appearance of the external genital anatomy.
By contrast, I though the term "natal female" as it's most commonly used nowadays means someone actually born female. Meaning with female chromosomes, genetics, gonads (ovaries rather than testes), other female internal organs, female physiology, androgen receptors, immune response, airway cells, etc - regardless of the appearance of the external anatomy at the time of birth.
So for example, an 46,XX person with the DSD known as classic CAH who was born with genitals that looked male, or more male than female, at the time of her birth would be a "natal female" just as I and other female people without DSDs are.
In other words, a 46,XX person thought to be a boy at birth due to male-looking external genitals caused by the DSD condition CAH would be "a natal female assigned male at birth."
My impression is that nowadays the term "natal female" is used most often to distinguish actual female people from two groups of males: 1) those with DMSDs like Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya who are commonly described as women, "intersex women" "women with naturally high testosterone" and "hyperandrogenic women" and who, it's often said, were "assigned female at birth" and "raised female"; 2) males without DSDs who say they are girls, women, and/or female because they have adopted a "female gender identity."
#1 are natal females and #2 are natal males.
Chand is a cisgender woman, because she was assigned female at birth and identifies herself as a woman.