Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

I would have hoped that the obvious would be evident. But for the avoidance of doubt, I am not monkers but her niece.

I'm probably not alone in being discombobulated by postings from beyond the grave!!!

Would you consider setting up an account of your own?

 

[monkers]

I'm probably not alone in being discombobulated by postings from beyond the grave!!!

Would you consider setting up an account of your own?

I'm here to reply to the messages. This really isn't a place I want to be otherwise - there's little sense of being made welcome. I'll give it a few more days to reply to people, then I'll be gone.

 

[AuroraSaab]

My standpoint is perfectly simple;
transwomen* are women.

That's a metaphysical belief, which you're entitle to hold of course. But if you truly believe that then you must also think such men should also be in women's refuges, prisons, lesbian groups, changing rooms, sports, including boxing and rugby - without any gatekeeping whatsoever - because there's no gatekeeping re being female in those things.

If you think there should be some limitations on access or any gatekeeping then you don't really think they are women. If you honestly think men should have access to spaces where women and girls are vulnerable, just on their say so, then you are a man who has no regard for the safety or feelings of women because you prioritise men's feelings over theirs.

Introducing a dumb clusk who assaults people doesn't have any bearing on that.

It's very relevant. Men in women's spaces compromise women's safety and privacy. Mixed sex spaces are less safe for women.
If you think transwomen are women you are advocating for women's spaces to be mixed sex and therefore less safe.

* I think you'll find that 'transwomen' is considered a bit transphobic amongst those you align yourself with btw. Your grammar is bigoted. Oh dear.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That's a metaphysical belief, which you're entitle to hold of course. But if you truly believe that then you must also think such men should also be in women's refuges, prisons, lesbian groups, changing rooms, sports, including boxing and rugby - without any gatekeeping whatsoever - because there's no gatekeeping re being female in those things.

It's very relevant. Men in women's spaces compromise women's safety and privacy. Mixed sex spaces are less safe for women.
If you think transwomen are women you are advocating for women's spaces to be mixed sex and therefore less safe.

* I think you'll find that 'transwomen' is considered a bit transphobic amongst those you align yourself with btw. Your grammar is bigoted. Oh dear.

I think I've made my position clear enough down the time this thread's been running. It's different to yours. Neither of us is going to convince the other so there's no mileage in having the last word.

Some things need gatekeeping if only to keep out those with ill intent and I'd include prisons in that.

GRCs were supposed to put the sex/gender of their holder beyond doubt. The Supreme Court has, or appears to have, driven a coach and horses through that.

As to my terminology I'll set myself some lines!!

 

[CXRAndy]

All babies born in the UK to be tested for genetic diseases from DNA analysis.

Upside, at least every child will never need to worry about what sex they are 👍

 

[AuroraSaab]

It does sound a useful project and should flag some dsd's early rather than them only being diagnosed at puberty. I would think it's main use will be with genetic conditions like Huntington chorea and those diseases that benefit from early intervention.

 

[monkers]

All babies born in the UK to be tested for genetic diseases from DNA analysis.

Upside, at least every child will never need to worry about what sex they are 👍

FYI

Not every difference in sex development (DSD) can be detected through DNA testing alone—there will still be anomalies that remain unexplained, even with whole-genome sequencing.

A large international study using targeted gene panels found that only about 43% of patients with 46,XY DSD received a likely genetic diagnosis. In certain subtypes, like disorders of androgen synthesis or action, the diagnostic rate was higher—up to 60%—but that still leaves a significant number of cases without a clear genetic explanation.

Why the gap? Several reasons:

• Undiscovered genes: There are likely genes involved in sex development that we haven’t identified yet.
• Non-genetic factors: Hormonal influences, epigenetic changes, or environmental exposures during development can play a role.
• Complex interactions: Some DSDs may result from multiple subtle variations rather than a single identifiable mutation.

So while DNA testing is a powerful tool—especially when combined with hormonal and anatomical assessments—it’s not a crystal ball. It can clarify many cases, but not all.

 

[CXRAndy]

Not talking about DSD, they are such a small number, not of concern, but will in most instances be spotted.

I'm talking about the vast majority of children, who will clearly have a 100% confirmed sex from DNA analysis.

What happens from there will be down to deranged parents forcing eg a boy for example to behave as a girl.

As Jordan Peterson once very clearly explained


View: https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1927322747421557130?t=w7x2bUYxjSSizlHr_FVFjQ&s=19

 

[icowden]

So while DNA testing is a powerful tool—especially when combined with hormonal and anatomical assessments—it’s not a crystal ball. It can clarify many cases, but not all.

Whilst you are still hanging around here, it would be really interesting to hear your point of view regarding both transwomen in sport and also the strong arguments about protecting biological women's rights. What lines would you draw, if any (and lets try and keep out of toilets - it over-excites a number of people here!)?

I'm also curious as to whether you think that the pro-trans movement is being hijacked by fetishists and fantasists, which is one narrative view that I see quite a lot?

 

[monkers]

Whilst you are still hanging around here, it would be really interesting to hear your point of view regarding both transwomen in sport and also the strong arguments about protecting biological women's rights. What lines would you draw, if any (and lets try and keep out of toilets - it over-excites a number of people here!)?

If one sets out one's initial argument on the premise that without trans women in sport, that can be taken to mean that sport is then guaranteed to be fair, then one is overlooking all that has already known, not only the nature of sport but all other forms of competition.

Each sport is affected by their combination of determinants relevant to the nature of the sport. These factors include speed, precision, flexibility, agility, physical strength, ability to withstand a training load, and fatigue resistance in the event.

Far and away the biggest contribution to success comes from one's parents. That is to say, the content of ones genes and the resources that ones parents put behind growth and development. A child raised in hunger will never have the same potential for growth and development as one who is not.

A child born to Dutch parents will have advantages when compared with say Peru. In the Netherlands the average height of a female is 170.7cm with a stature ratio between men and women of 1.08. In Peru the average height of a female is 151 cm with a stature ratio of 1.09.

Does a girl born and raised in say Afghanistan have the same potential for sport as one raised in the USA? Does a child born and raised in a country where the state intervenes to select and sponsor children for sporting prowess in international competition for the glory of the state have an advantage?

Advantage and disadvantage comes from the accidental circumstances of one's birth. This is so well known that it is referred to every day in every day language: ''the apple never falls far from the tree'' for just one example.

I happen to be a 'tidy' pianist, but then monkers was a very good pianist, which is hardly surprising since her father graduated from the Royal College of Music in piano. monkers (the lack of the initial capital was her choice - rather like bell hooks) always owned and maintained a good piano. To this day it has been carefully regulated and tuned.

I had lessons all funded by monkers, and I had the right conditions to practise. Accordingly many of my friends play instruments, and we frequently play together. When we discuss top-flight musicians, we tend to use the same phrase and then laugh, ''they went to all the right places''. This is in recognition of our own privilege, and recognition of the fact that there are those elite level musicians who have more talent and had more privilege.

One has to remember that elites will almost without exception do their bit to protect the elites - it is never solely about innate talent.

When Laura Trott married Jason Kenny, it became inevitable that any child of theirs will have advantages, both natural and as a result of privilege.

Now to the thorny question - do trans women have advantages in sport? The answer has to be that it depends. It can not be the case that going through a male puberty is the only one factor - but it is without doubt a factor that is more significant is some sports than it is in other.

A child born xy and raised in all of the societal norms of the associated gender, by probability will have advantage. If we compare two children born and raised under the same circumstances, let's say unidentical twins, one boy and one girl, and they are raised in their associated genders, there exists a high probability that the boy will outperform the girl in some competitive sports, but the girl will outperform the boy in others. In sports that are less sex specific, such as say hockey, boy's performance is likely to be superior to the girl's - but still not guaranteed.

Testosterone plays a major part during child development when a foetus, and again post puberty - but not during the gap in between. Despite this boys usually out-perform girls. This indicates another disruptive factor to the assumption, that being xy is the only or prime cause behind superior performance. Studies have shown that the differences stem from parental and societal expectations. So again girls have a disadvantage.

Hormone levels in men and boys are fairly constant across any given month, for women and girls hormone levels are not, which is another disruptor - much to do with sex, but not so much to do with bone or muscular development.

I guess I must reiterate some small points about myself. I am a trans woman, and despite this I don't know my chromosomes for sure, since there were never tested to my knowledge during my transition. I will have to assume that I am xy. In my everyday life, this means nothing to me or to others; it is invisible and unknown, and a non-issue.

I did not go through a male puberty, I used puberty blockers until I was prescribed cross-sex hormones. I am barely half an inch taller than the average height of women in the UK, but shorter than both monkers or my mother or their younger sister - all three being taller than their brother. I have a small frame, and the curves that you would expect of a woman. My testosterone levels are zero, so less than those of an xx woman of my age.

Do I have any advantage in sport. I will say not. Not just because it suits somebody in my position to say so, but because I have no prowess in sport whatsoever - there is no family history of any of us enjoying any level of success in sport. I have played sports like table tennis, ten pin bowling, pool, badminton with friends. They rate me as on a range between ''useless'' to ''pathetic''. They don't like to play me at scrabble.

The bottom line I think is this. If an xy competitor was raised as a boy, went through a male puberty, continues to have a testosterone level in the male range then their potential for success when competing against xx women is obvious, because they likely have the physiology and likely they were raised by parents and society with the expectations that fit with being xy male. Therefore I fully understand and support those who say that people should not be able to simply self-identity a gender and with that gender the associated sex. When we compare average levels of performance on as near a like to like basis, we can assume that there are differences likely to favour one person over another.

In conclusion then, in order to make sport more fair, we first have to realise that it will never be fair - it will be necessary to consider the sport itself, the level at which it is being played, and the history of the person. That leads to two choices in present binary thinking - ban all sport, or strictly divide competitors who are not strictly xx or xy. Is either of these a solution that is fair - in my opinion, absolutely not. The no sport solution is not fair to either competitors or those who like to spectate. The strict xx or xy solution, is not a solution because it still does not produce anything like a level playing field in sport.

In short, whatever is proposed or enacted, the elites will continue to dominate in elite level sport.

 

[CXRAndy]

having xx and xy categories works for most sports.

For certain sports they can be also categories for weight, boxing, martial arts, weight lifting. Still they are kept in see categories

 

[monkers]

I'm also curious as to whether you think that the pro-trans movement is being hijacked by fetishists and fantasists, which is one narrative view that I see quite a lot?

I'm not well-placed as a person for you to ask about kink. However it does highlight a problem; that people make the assumption that a trans woman would be well-placed to know about this.

I know that monkers did talk about the word 'transgender' in itself being problematic, and I agree with all she said in that regard.

'Transgender' is a range of identities and behaviours. The labels used within this such as 'transvestite', 'cross-dresser', 't-girl' etc are hot button topics and cause for disputes between those who inhabit that space.

I don't think that the ''fetishists and fantasists'' are the pro-trans movement, thought they may be more sympathetic. The group you are talking about are not the group that the anti-trans movement are resisting. This group are not those and to paraphrase ''demanding access to women's spaces'', the intended target is trans women like me with a GRC.

What the anti-trans idealogues do though in their creation of moral panic is to selectively include or exclude the ' sexual behaviour'' group as it suits their argument. For example, when talking about prison populations, they reference the numbers of 'transgender' people in prison - they are included: when talking about the numbers of people who will be disadvantages by a reduction in rights, they then only talk about the numbers of people with a GRC in order to make the number low.

In this way they portray trans people as 'predators' too large in number to be acceptable, but small enough in number to say that it is reasonable to remove their rights. You'll no doubt remember the fierce arguments in this place.

The Aurora and Mickle accusation was always that monkers was seeking to create some division as a distraction from the big picture. The acid test now is to see how the Supreme Court ruling has a bearing on prison population and accommodation statistics. As I hope you'll understand it will have no bearing, because what monkers correctly argued was that the state recognises trans people with a GRC as an identity group, and the balance of transgender people as a sexual behaviours group. The state also allows a pathway for those who propose transition to have protected rights while on their journey.

I may not have answered your question to your satisfaction - it's probably the best I can do.

 

[monkers]

having xx and xy categories works for most sports.

For certain sports they can be also categories for weight, boxing, martial arts, weight lifting. Still they are kept in see categories

Sure. So as you say, divisions created along the lines of xx and xy alone are not fair - other parameters need to be taken into account and applied.

But does this make sport fair? Of course not. Just to use your example of weight - a bar is determined. If a boxer is perilously close to the bar, they will spend the preceding days ensuring that they do not trip over that bar, as a result they can go into a match being under-nourished or under-fuelled for the match. Has the bar then made the match fair? Are measures taken to ensure that all competitors compete at consistent ambient conditions? Of course not, the idea that sport can be controlled tightly enough to ensure fairness is a whimsy. That is not say that the ambition should not be to make it as fair as can be achieved.

The one thing that is out of control in sport is the money. This is because as I have said, this is how the elites keep the ball of success in their court.

 

[CXRAndy]

Trouble is there is very little money in women's sport, around 1% of all revenue goes to women's prize money.

Then for men to literally muscle in and steal what little prize money they do get is beyond a joke.

Young talented girls in sports have lost sponsorships, scholarships and chances to compete in higher levels because some boy has stolen a place from them.

Sport is not fair at the best of times, allowing males into their competitions is an insult

 

[monkers]

Trouble is there is very little money in women's sport, around 1% of all revenue goes to women's prize money.

Then for men to literally muscle in and steal what little prize money they do get is beyond a joke.

Young talented girls in sports have lost sponsorships, scholarships and chances to compete in higher levels because some boy has stolen a place from them.

Sport is not fair at the best of times, allowing males into their competitions is an insult

What you seem to be saying is that because men get 99% of the funds, that must be the fault of all trans women because a handful of trans women are successful in women's sport. The insult is not what you think it is.