Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I would argue it better to control then escalate and thus the system should be setup in such an way transpersons or better worded a rapist monster who thinks ''hey i can abuse that trans law thingy to get closer to women'' will have no change to do such thing. Because the rules/law doesn't allow him to.

You think we should abolish the police force for the same reason?

 

[spen666]

.


The Supreme Court are not the legislature. In reaching their decision it is clear that they did not achieve what they set out themselves as their terms of reference - to clarify what parliament intended. ....

They did exactly what they were asked to do.

Its just you do not like / agree with the outcome. That is very different from saying the Supreme Court didn't do what it was asked to

 

[monkers]

How about offenders and victims? a person who is both an offender and a victim? And also i again reiternate my point law should prevent crime not predict it.

The state never pretends that it can prevent crime. It can define crimes, it can creates laws and deterrents. Most crimes against women happen in their own homes, how do anticipate the state can prevent that? Preventative policing is certainly useful, but it never eliminates crime.

 

[monkers]

They did exactly what they were asked to do.

Its just you do not like / agree with the outcome. That is very different from saying the Supreme Court didn't do what it was asked to

I think you just enjoy being controversial. My case is well enough stated for even the most simple mind to understand it.

It is clear from the evidence what the then government intended and how parliament voted.

The law was clearly founded with the inclusion of women with a GRC not being transgender women, but women for all purposes, and protected on the ground of sex.

Later the Tories further cemented those same rights with the implementation of the same sex married couple act.

It is you who does not like the Supreme Court ruling as you now see that it is flawed.

 

[monkers]

i don't agree victimhood does not make one imume for common laws and rules to make this an other persons protected against the terror's of a smaller group perpetrators

That is nothing like what I said.

 

[monkers]

But if i understand self-id correctly and men self-id-ing as women would be registered as women in the crime stats, so then automatically you don't get numbers for offences committed by trans persons right?

You need to be careful about what you mean by self-Id. I comment on this until you clarify.

Also whats the obsession with having numbers of offenders and evidence of abuse? wouldn't it be better to prevent instead? Shouldn't Self-id have mechanisms in them to prevent abuse by sexual monsters?

Oh I think I've covered this.

I'm interested to hear how you will pre-emptively prevent the crime of rape. Will you be castrating all men to do this or having women sewn up, or possibly both?

 

[AuroraSaab]

.... the problem with sex verification testing is that it is very complicated and usually affects anyone who is intersex.

It's not complicated. A cheek swab is a basic screen for sex. If required further testing could identify a specific dsd. People with dsd conditions are either male or female, with male or female specific dsds. With male dsd athletes this is commonly the 5ard dsd, where males are mistakenly recorded as females due to ambiguous genitalia at birth, and go through male puberty.

I suspect Khelife will retire before taking the swab test.

 

[icowden]

It's not complicated.

It turns out that it actually is.

Sex verification can be substantially more complicated than checking whether a person's sex chromosome pair[a] is XX vs. XY, or comparing their levels of key sex hormones to distinct reference ranges, to determine an athlete's sex. This is due to variations in human biology where some people are not unambiguously female or male, not all cells in a person's body have the same genotype or the presence of other atypical genetic condition. These reasons, among others, led sporting bodies to abandon chromosome testing towards the end of the 20th century and use hormone testing instead. The downside of hormone testing, however, is that policies on hyperandrogenism (women with naturally higher testosterone) were required, which have sparked both public debate and legal battles.

Barr body tests were conducted by taking samples from inside the cheek to find evidence of XX chromosomes, supposedly indicating the athlete was female.[14] This test was first conducted by the IAAF in 1967 at the European Cup Track and Field event in Kiev, Soviet Union.[13] Those who passed the tests and verified as females were provided femininity certificates which they could use at all future international competitions. Compulsory sex verification tests were commonplace and not many female athletes questioned the practice until the late 1980s.[14]

Chromosome testing was criticized by scientists, such as de la Chapelle, Ferguson-Smith, Ferris, Ljungqvist, and Simpson. They, among others, argued the Barr body test did not take into account gonadal, morphological, and psychological sex attributes. Ultimately, a central contention was whether a Y chromosome yields a competitive advantage because it is not always accompanied by "manly" attributes that provide greater strength, power, or flexibility.[14]

Finnish geneticist Albert de la Chapelle worked alongside Martínez-Patiño to appeal the decision to the IAAF. De la Chapelle protested sex testing in sports for years, arguing that the Barr body test incorrectly identified intersex women. Furthermore, he pointed out that the finding of the abnormal sex chromatin and exclusion of these athletes from women's sporting events violated their rights and caused psychological damage. With de la Chapelle's support, the IAAF reinstated Martínez-Patiño in 1988. Martínez-Patiño's case, and later advocacy, led to the elimination of chromosomal sex verification tests.[17]

This method of testing was later abolished, as it was shown to be inconclusive in identifying maleness.

 

[CXRAndy]

Before the next Olympics many suspect athletes will quietly retire

 

[monkers]

It's not complicated. A cheek swab is a basic screen for sex. If required further testing could identify a specific dsd. People with dsd conditions are either male or female, with male or female specific dsds. With male dsd athletes this is commonly the 5ard dsd, where males are mistakenly recorded as females due to ambiguous genitalia at birth, and go through male puberty.

I suspect Khelife will retire before taking the swab test.

Swab testing has a high accuracy when expressed as a percentage. As I keep saying though, nothing says it like raw numbers.

Swab testing has an reliability rating of approaching 99.9%. About 10 500 competitors took part in the last olympics. If they were all swab tested 11 of them would have faulty results. That's not insignificant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It turns out that it actually is.

You're quoting a passage from a Wikki article as a source to support your 'it's complicated' argument - even that article says the tests you claim mean 'it's complicated' are no longer done.

"This method of testing was later abolished, as it was shown to be inconclusive in identifying maleness".

The only thing that's slightly complicated if an athlete 'fails' a sex test is working out which dsd (if at all) they have. In the case of suspected males competing as females this is very likely to be 5ard as it's the one which results in ambiguous genitalia thus mistaken registering as a female birth, but later on, male puberty. Other male dsds don't usually result in mis sexing at birth.

Swab testing has an reliability rating of approaching 99.9%. About 10 500 competitors took part in the last olympics. If they were all swab tested 11 of them would have faulty results. That's not insignificant.

It's a tiny % which could be cleared up with a blood test. A cheek swab to check sex is more accurate than an initial drug test for doping in sports.

I don't see anyone saying we should drop tests for doping because they are only 99.9% accurate and because it's invasive to have to be watched while you pee in a bottle. It's only when it's fairness for women that suddenly it's all too difficult and complicated.

 

[icowden]

You're quoting a passage from a Wikki article as a source to support your 'it's complicated' argument - even that article says the tests you claim mean 'it's complicated' are no longer done.

It's a tiny % which could be cleared up with a blood test. A cheek swab to check sex is more accurate than an initial drug test for doping in sports.

Make up your mind. You pointed out that the cheek swab is no longer done because it's complicated.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I was talking about early sex testing. The science has moved on and it's now a straightforward initial screen that is highly accurate. If the results are disputed the testing moves to the next level.

One of your arguments quoted from Wikki seems to be that men with a dsd should be allowed in Women's sports. We know a lot more about genetics and dsds now and this is a discredited argument. When you say of sex testing 'It affects intersex athletes' it actually affects men with a dsd who seek to compete as females.

 

[monkers]

I was talking about early sex testing. The science has moved on and it's now a straightforward initial screen that is highly accurate. If the results are disputed the testing moves to the next level.

One of your arguments quoted from Wikki seems to be that men with a dsd should be allowed in Women's sports. We know a lot more about genetics and dsds now and this is a discredited argument. When you say of sex testing 'It affects intersex athletes' it actually affects men with a dsd who seek to compete as females.

What about the results that are false positives? What if a person does have a dsd and a Y chromosome the swab test fails to show? Do we then just go by Tweets made by Musk and Rowling?

It could spawn a new TV show, celebrity witch trials with those two as 'special' hosts.

Have you had your chromosomes tested?

 

[spen666]

I think you just enjoy being controversial. My case is well enough stated for even the most simple mind to understand it.

It is clear from the evidence what the then government intended and how parliament voted.

The law was clearly founded with the inclusion of women with a GRC not being transgender women, but women for all purposes, and protected on the ground of sex.

Later the Tories further cemented those same rights with the implementation of the same sex married couple act.

It is you who does not like the Supreme Court ruling as you now see that it is flawed.

Your case is not wrll stated.

You appear unable to distinguish your dismay at the outcome with the task the Supreme Court has.

Their task as you describe it was to clarify the law.

They have done exactly that.

The fact you don't agree with their decision does not mean the Supreme Court didn't do its task.

Their task was not to make a decision Monjers agrees with.

It is palpable nonsense to conflate the two