Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I represent myself

Good to hear. So there must be some other explanation for the use of 'we'. Is this your pronoun? Do say, I'll be happy to use it.

 

[monkers]

You've at least twice given us lengthy postings on hrt and floppy penises as evidence that transwomen are unable to rape anyone. Even though that is a) irrelevant and b) nobody could possibly know which males are on hrt, and c) hrt is not required to be a transwoman.

I gave a clear explanation of the effects of hormone replacement therapy on the genitalia of trans women on one occasion. It is true that I have referred to this since.

While you may not have appreciated the explanation that HRT causes large scale atrophy of the penis, testes, and scrotum, others thanked me for it as they had no previous knowledge of it. It is true that I used the term 'floppy penis' in ridicule of some ridiculous claim that you made that trans women on HRT remain a big risk due to their ability to rape women. It was part of your untrue alarmist narrative that deserved to be mocked.

Surgery is not necessary to reduce any level of risk from trans women in this way, they lack the desire, libido, and the sexual function. The treatment was used to 'correct' gay men at one time in under sodamy laws. In that respect that treatment was successful in denying gay men from the physical pleasures that we all have rights to.

On the one hand you pursue the argument that medicalising treatments for young trans people is irreversible and damaging, while all the while claiming that trans women are such a risk to society or women prisoners. This is just one example of the paradoxes that you create for yourself.

All that you have is what to some passes as a convincing narrative, but some of us, well we are not to be taken for fools.

 

[AuroraSaab]

"You do realise that most women have fathers, sons, partners, who are kind and lovely? We still don't think they should be in women's changing rooms etc." is what I said. Are you seriously saying most women think their sons, husbands, uncles, brothers, should have access to women's spaces and services? I would be absolutely astounded if they did.

That's essentially what you demand though when you claim there is a special class of male born people to whom society's accepted exclusions of males don't apply.

 

[monkers]

You've suggested the nebulous 'laws' of the UN override UK domestic law. They don't - countries can implement these UN principles as they see fit. I have quoted at length from the Equality Act; you simply don't accept it because... well who knows anymore.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights are not 'nebulous' laws. These rights operate at two levels; absolute, and qualified.

Each member state that has acceded to the United Nations is required to implement the absolute rights. Each member state was able to use their individual sovereignty to become signatories to the qualified rights.

Freedom of expression for example is a qualified right. The USA has not signed that article since their constitution promises citizens the right to absolute free speech. In context of the UK, the article is applied in the context of the prevailing primary legislation contemporaneous with the UNDHR. Therefore the UK has never had absolute freedom of speech, though some like to pretend that is the case.

The UK is signatory to all 30 articles of the United Nations. Every intergovernmental organisation that the UK is a member of respects them, including NATO, WTO, The Council of Europe, The European Court of Human Rights, the EU, the European Court of Justice. The form of words is often copied and pasted into this legislation throughout the world.

The International Court of Justice is the world's highest court, it is the apparatus of the United Nations. Only permission from the security council of the United Nations can give legal effect to a military attack on another country. This is the foundation of the objection to the British involvement in the Iraq war. Blair did not have permission from the UN security council, which is why the reputation of the UK became so damaged on the world stage, and why many people believe that Blair belongs in jail. Throughout the world he is known as 'the butcher of Baghdad.

The only thing 'nebulous' is your understanding and respect for law especially when it doesn't fit with your agenda.

 

[monkers]

"You do realise that most women have fathers, sons, partners, who are kind and lovely? We still don't think they should be in women's changing rooms etc." is what I said. Are you seriously saying most women think their sons, husbands, uncles, brothers, should have access to women's spaces and services? I would be absolutely astounded if they did.

That's essentially what you demand though when you claim there is a special class of male born people to whom society's accepted exclusions of males don't apply.

There it is again, the woman who claims to only represent herself speaking for everyone.

I've made no demands, but I have criticised your own. I make no claim for a 'special class'. Just more lies, or must I say 'invention' in order to remain polite.

I have clearly set out the legal position for the human rights protection of trans people. That is not a demand of my own, it informs you of what the law demands of you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Surgery is not necessary to reduce any level of risk from trans women in this way, they lack the desire, libido, and the sexual function.

This is a non argument. Other men with erectile dysfunction aren't allowed into women's single sex spaces and services. They are excluded because they are male.

I've made no demands, but I have criticised your own. I make no claim for a 'special class'. Just more lies, or must I say 'invention' in order to remain polite.

I have clearly set out the legal position for the human rights protection of trans people. That is not a demand of my own, it informs you of what the law demands of you.

You have relentlessly tried to argue that transwomen are to be treated differently from other men. Low testosterone means they can be in women's sports, erectile dysfunction means they are no risk to women so can be in their spaces ..... this is special pleading that all the rules that apply to other men shouldn't apply to transwomen. It's unscientific, unevidenced nonsense.

Transgender people have their rights protected by the Equality Act, just like other groups. What they don't have is the right to have gender identity override sex in law.

 

[monkers]

This is a non argument. Other men with erectile dysfunction aren't allowed into women's single sex spaces and services. They are excluded because they are male.

And this is a non-argument because those men identify as men, and importantly their legal sex is male.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[monkers]

You have relentlessly tried to argue that transwomen are to be treated differently from other men.

I haven't argued any such thing. I have informed you that trans women with a GRC are legally female. You just can't handle the truth.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Lol and still able to be excluded from women's single sex spaces and services, even though you say they are not.

You know very well that transactivists don't seek to overturn the Equality Act exemptions just for those with a GRC but for anyone who identifies as the other sex.

 

[monkers]

Low testosterone means they can be in women's sports, erectile dysfunction means they are no risk to women so can be in their spaces ..... this is special pleading that all the rules that apply to other men shouldn't apply to transwomen. It's unscientific, unevidenced nonsense.

Low testosterone means that trans women can be permitted to be in some sports competing with other women. The law places the responsibility on the sports councils and other bodies. However if they get it wrong either way, then they are subject to criticism.

You can't seriously expect the same blanket ban be placed on sports where there is no contact between competitors, and no physical exertion.
Ban trans women from international chess? Why?

Show me where I've made 'special pleading' for trans women in sport.

You've relied on evidence of a few cases where trans competitors have done well. Posters here have given examples of biological women trouncing men in sport. There is one such case just this week. A game of top trump with outliers isn't so helpful.

I agree there is insufficient evidence. If I've done any special pleading, it is for more appropriate research. I'm far from satisfied or persuaded with your evidence offered.

 

[monkers]

Lol and still able to be excluded from women's single sex spaces and services, even though you say they are not.

You know very well that transactivists don't seek to overturn the Equality Act exemptions just for those with a GRC but for anyone who identifies as the other sex.

Do you never read what people actually write? Conversation with you is so very tedious.

I have stuck with telling you what the blank ink text of the legislation says, and what legal precedent there is from case law.

I am not a trans activist. I don't know how many more times I have to say this. It's like being 8 all over again and having to do lines for sticking chewing gum under the desk, when it was Billy that did it all along.

I am not a trans activist. I am making no special pleading. I am making no demands. This is all stuff made up by you.

What I do is rebut your incorrect account of law. I rebut your arguments when they are not cogent. I rebut your arguments when they are manifestly in bad faith.

This process has taken a lot of my time. And yet, you are here day after day telling lies.

You have such determination to win every argument, but you can't manage to do it with the truth. This makes everything you say worthless at one level and dangerous rhetoric for women and girls, and trans people on another.

As far as I'm concerned you have zero credibility because of this.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You can't seriously expect the same blanket ban be placed on sports where there is no contact between competitors, and no physical exertion.

Never been suggested.

Ban trans women from international chess? Why?

Never been suggested.

Show me where I've made 'special pleading' for trans women in sport.

Your lengthy posts on lowered testosterone.

You've relied on evidence of a few cases where trans competitors have done well. Posters here have given examples of biological women trouncing men in sport. There is one such case just this week. A game of top trump with outliers isn't so helpful.

It's not a few. It's quite a lot, especially in cycling. Some exceptional women will be better than many men. That's obvious. It doesn't negate the very clear evidence that men in general have an advantage in the vast majority of sports. An advantage that doesn't disappear with either lowered testosterone nor with a metaphysical belief about the self.

 

[monkers]

Never been suggested.

Never been suggested.

Your lengthy posts on lowered testosterone.

It's not a few. It's quite a lot, especially in cycling. Some exceptional women will be better than many men. That's obvious. It doesn't negate the very clear evidence that men in general have an advantage in the vast majority of sports. An advantage that doesn't disappear with either lowered testosterone nor with a metaphysical belief about the self.

Right. 'Never been suggested'. Therefore we need a measured approach, and not an outright ban for trans people in sport.

What gender critical activists and some politicians are calling for is a change to the EqA so that sex can only be interpreted as biological sex. The effect of which would be a ban on trans women competing against women in sport. The existing law gives responsibility to sporting bodies to set the policies - this does not make these bodies immune to criticism. I am critical of the CTT because their latest policy makes it clear that they have made a policy decision despite not understanding the issue.

I'm not sure that I've made lengthy posts on lowered testosterone - though I'm confident that you have. Trans women who have undergone GRS have a testosterone of almost zero, lower in fact than that of biological women. People of either sex exist in such a range of sizes, shapes and physiques. Sport has a way of differentiating by factors other than these factors. Boxing has weight bands. Golf has a handicap system. I've repeatedly said that I don't have the answers. I've repeatedly said that I am not satisfied that there is adequacy of research in order to make correct decisions. Your idea that I'm making special pleading is unfathomable to me, since I have not written anything to suggest it. It is not so cut and dried as you like to pretend.

 

[theclaud]

Any chance you could point out those places where you do share concerns with @AuroraSaab rather than leap on every tiny word of hers that you disagree with ??

You never know that might cool things down a bit..

I reckon I've tried a fair bit of that. The whole thread was an attempt to address an impasse by approaching it from a different perspective from that of the warring factions [Seems to be going well - Ed.]. It literally makes zero difference what one says to her because she foghorns the same (insulting and often wrong-headed) stuff at everyone whatever position they take, presumably in the hope of peak-transing the gallery.

As a woman (the old-fashioned AFAB-and-presumably-XX kind who'd probably pass most of whatever anatomical or genetic verification procedures Aurora has lined up for us) who has been thinking about gender in various contexts long before this row hit the mainstream, who comes at the subject from a long-standing radical feminist (more third- than fourth-wave) standpoint, and who is invested in sport as a spectator, participant, and grassroots coach, I've been endlessly taught to suck eggs by someone whose theory of gender is that 'it's just a feeling in your (meaning everyone else's) head, innit', accused of not caring about the destruction of women's sport by someone apparently indifferent to the entire field of endeavour, lectured to the effect that I don't know my own mind because I'm just a poor wee thing helplessly socialised to be kind to the poor menz (this latter characterisation would no doubt come as a surprise to the fragile and terrorised Cyclechat gammonati), and enjoined to believe that ultra-conservative right-wing grifters are actually somehow fighting for my rights.

Perhaps, if you're feeling like a peacemaker and you've got her ear (you haven't, actually, because they are made of cloth, but there we are), you could ask her not to be so fucking patronising?

Anyway, I see that Catharine MacKinnon has recently weighed in on the subject. You'd expect it to be smart and timely, and you wouldn't be disappointed.

 

[monkers]

I reckon I've tried a fair bit of that. The whole thread was an attempt to address an impasse by approaching it from a different perspective from that of the warring factions [Seems to be going well - Ed.]. It literally makes zero difference what one says to her because she foghorns the same (insulting and often wrong-headed) stuff at everyone whatever position they take, presumably in the hope of peak-transing the gallery.

As a woman (the old-fashioned AFAB-and-presumably-XX kind who'd probably pass most of whatever anatomical or genetic verification procedures Aurora has lined up for us) who has been thinking about gender in various contexts long before this row hit the mainstream, who comes at the subject from a long-standing radical feminist (more third- than fourth-wave) standpoint, and who is invested in sport as a spectator, participant, and grassroots coach, I've been endlessly taught to suck eggs by someone whose theory of gender is that 'it's just a feeling in your (meaning everyone else's) head, innit', accused of not caring about the destruction of women's sport by someone apparently indifferent to the entire field of endeavour, lectured to the effect that I don't know my own mind because I'm just a poor wee thing helplessly socialised to be kind to the poor menz (this latter characterisation would no doubt come as a surprise to the fragile and terrorised Cyclechat gammonati), and enjoined to believe that ultra-conservative right-wing grifters are actually somehow fighting for my rights.

Perhaps, if you're feeling like a peacemaker and you've got her ear (you haven't, actually, because they are made of cloth, but there we are), you could ask her not to be so fucking patronising?

Anyway, I see that Catharine MacKinnon has recently weighed in on the subject. You'd expect it to be smart and timely, and you wouldn't be disappointed.

Thank you @theclaud. I think this stands out as the most outstanding post on which has become a very long thread.

'I wish to associate myself with your sentiment if I may and I commend it to the house'.

I've made some headway with the link, but I think I'll leave finishing it until tomorrow. It so far reads as a very well considered essay, and likewise very well written.

I haven't quite managed to agree with each and every point, but Catharine MacKinnon and I are certainly close.

It seems we need buzzword for everything these days, but I do rather like phrase 'aggrieved entitlement' that I've seen some feminists use to label the syndrome.