Why resist it?

no role models of those who have led good and decent lives

And the reasons for that?

We don’t know about all these quietly existing trans because they didn’t feel the need to announce it to the world. It’s wrong that it puts them in danger, but since it does, why not just get on with quietly existing?

Maybe the actions and demands of the few TW, together with their violent supporters make the quietly existing afraid to come forward.

On the news, we hear that children stab or shoot other children for lots of reasons in today’s world. BG’s life choice was another excuse that was used for violence, with a tragic ending.

Maybe the actions and demands of the few TW, together with their violent supporters make the quietly existing afraid to come forward.
I'm sure it does. There is a very different agenda from the TRAs who scream rape threats at women who refuse to let them do as they wish where they wish to do it (always in female spaces that have become targets since the rise of misogyny across the world.

Unfortunately, this hatred has meant that 'genuine' TW (who are still male) are less likely to be left alone if they too want to change alongside teenage girls at the swimming pool or whatever. There is no way to differentiate. These days TW may be drag queens with 'womanface', they may be made-up and modestly dressed like Hayley on Coronation Street, or they may be bearded gruff blokes who say they are women and threaten anyone who says otherwise. How can one group be 'left alone to live their lives' and the others not?

Doodledog

Cossy

Cannot remember exact words, it could have been biological sex at birth!

It was probably 'gender assigned at birth', which is another nonsense. Sex is observed, not 'assigned', and 'gender' is just a social construct which has nothing to do with anyone except you (or whoever the form applies to). It doesn't alter someone's biology, and shouldn't give them special status.

I think gender is occasionally 'assigned at birth' in cases where the gender is unclear because of certain physical elements/attributes and the doctors have to make a decision as to which sex should be attributed to the baby, it's not a nonsense.

Mollygo

^ There is no reason why previous convictions should be overlooked because crimes were committed in their original identify^
There is indeed no reason, but pretending to be something you’re not in the hope that you can then claim discrimination or misgendering because you are classified as your true sexual identity is something that already goes on.

It's done on finger prints so your previous convictions and name will show up.

knspol

Doodledog

Cossy

Cannot remember exact words, it could have been biological sex at birth!

It was probably 'gender assigned at birth', which is another nonsense. Sex is observed, not 'assigned', and 'gender' is just a social construct which has nothing to do with anyone except you (or whoever the form applies to). It doesn't alter someone's biology, and shouldn't give them special status.

I think gender is occasionally 'assigned at birth' in cases where the gender is unclear because of certain physical elements/attributes and the doctors have to make a decision as to which sex should be attributed to the baby, it's not a nonsense.

It is an absolute nonsense to make policy for all based on the incredibly rare circumstances in which this happens.

Mollygo

^no role models of those who have led good and decent lives^

And the reasons for that?

We don’t know about all these quietly existing trans because they didn’t feel the need to announce it to the world. It’s wrong that it puts them in danger, but since it does, why not just get on with quietly existing?

Maybe the actions and demands of the few TW, together with their violent supporters make the quietly existing afraid to come forward.

On the news, we hear that children stab or shoot other children for lots of reasons in today’s world. BG’s life choice was another excuse that was used for violence, with a tragic ending.

Well, yes, I agree mollygo. It almost certainly makes people want to hide that side of themselves unless they feel very safe to do otherwise, family, close friends.

It seem to me that with first the Cass report, then tightening up on access to womens prisons, now Prof Alice Sullivan's report, our society is trying to "get it right".

I'm pretty certain that a couple of people in my gym changing rooms are trans, but because they always used the cubicles (as do others for a myriad of reasons) and sometimes just said hello to others I'd never know, and they certainly weren't a "threat to teenage girls".

I have no easy answers to some of the situations that crop up, except to say that trying to answer by either denying the existence of transpeople or banning from huge numbers of social activities doesnt sit well with me. there are third ways.

Hate is not an answer, whether its race hatred, disability hatred (yes, this still happens quite significantly, and worries me re my granddaughter who often appears to be very "odd") , homophobia or trans hate.

Trans hate, hetero hate, race hate, and disability hate, transphobia, femphobia, are all prevalent at the moment and equally bad.

knspol

Doodledog

Cossy

Cannot remember exact words, it could have been biological sex at birth!

It was probably 'gender assigned at birth', which is another nonsense. Sex is observed, not 'assigned', and 'gender' is just a social construct which has nothing to do with anyone except you (or whoever the form applies to). It doesn't alter someone's biology, and shouldn't give them special status.

I think gender is occasionally 'assigned at birth' in cases where the gender is unclear because of certain physical elements/attributes and the doctors have to make a decision as to which sex should be attributed to the baby, it's not a nonsense.

The days when doctors had to make such decisions are long since gone. Any baby born with indeterminate genitalia can be DNA tested at birth which will reveal the child's sex. No need for any 'assignment'.

I was hoping you'd be along with a post based on expertise, Rosie.

Wyllow, I hope you don't think I deny the existence of trans people, as I don't. I just don't want male people in what should be safe spaces for women. If TW don't insist on being in those spaces I am very willing for them to live as they choose. It is not 'hatred' to want women to be safe, is it?

Yes I think spaces should be safe for women, for example refuges are a no go for TW for me, but we probably disagree on some other spaces like my gym example.

Anywhere that involves women being vulnerable (eg because of being ill, trapped or in a state of undress) would be 'no go' IMO. It's not always say to talk about whole sectors, as designs vary, so for example one gym may have individual lockable cubicles, and another changing rooms demarcated by sex, but many TW are in fact heterosexual men, and should not be where they can watch women and girls changing, and should not be able to be alone in a 'Ladies room' with a woman, particularly when (as is often the case) it is positioned away from the main areas of the venue. This is for reasons of safety and vulnerability- not hatred.

I agree Doodledog, in particular shower areas in gyms are often separated from the locker room. So this is where members emerge from the shower cubicle with just a towel round them. I have experienced, very occasionally, being the only person using the showers. So in practice, how many women or indeed a young adolescent girl would be happy to step out of the shower wrapped in just a towel to find a male bodied person sharing that space. Virgin Active's reply to Michelle Dewberry mentioned up thread offered up the well worn cliche of "we are endeavouring to be inclusuve" whilst compromising female members safety

Doodledog

Anywhere that involves women being vulnerable (eg because of being ill, trapped or in a state of undress) would be 'no go' IMO. It's not always say to talk about whole sectors, as designs vary, so for example one gym may have individual lockable cubicles, and another changing rooms demarcated by sex, but many TW are in fact heterosexual men, and should not be where they can watch women and girls changing, and should not be able to be alone in a 'Ladies room' with a woman, particularly when (as is often the case) it is positioned away from the main areas of the venue. This is for reasons of safety and vulnerability- not hatred.

It's a case by case depending on a lot of circumstances, the layouts, gym guidelines, lot of other factors. Including rules about acceptable behaviour and the right to withdraw membership (which they have done on individuals).

No men in women's spaces. Zero.

Wyllow3

Yes I think spaces should be safe for women, for example refuges are a no go for TW for me, but we probably disagree on some other spaces like my gym example.

Gym-no problem, our groups, swimming, aquafit, Zumba, spin classes, Tai Chi are mostly mixed. No problem.
The only problem I’ve ever observed was a TW being unwilling to wait his turn on a piece of equipment that was being used by . . . a female.
That behaviour often occurs when men need to get through quickly because they have an important appointment.

Changing rooms are something else.
If their bodies still display male attributes, even in a female costume, they shouldn’t be there. That’s the sort of behaviour that started the issues with TW.

Really, they shouldn’t be there anyway, because female changing rooms are for females and just saying you’re a woman doesn't change that, and as so many people have said (accurately or not) you wouldn’t know.

Including rules about acceptable behaviour and the right to withdraw membership (which they have done on individuals).
This shows that despite guidelines and rules there has been a need to expel people. For each time that has happened there will be a distressed woman or girl as a victim. It is not worth the risk.

Doodledog

*Including rules about acceptable behaviour and the right to withdraw membership (which they have done on individuals).*
This shows that despite guidelines and rules there has been a need to expel people. For each time that has happened there will be a distressed woman or girl as a victim. It is not worth the risk.

Or a bunch of very angry women, demanding the management act.

As we have occasionally for poolside/sauna behaviour that is unacceptable from men, or any hint of being pushed out in the weights area. Which has definitely happened.

Ah, maybe I've misread. I thought you were saying that TW have had membership withdrawn because they have broken guidelines. Sorry if that's not the case and I've misunderstood.

What I am saying is that any offensive behaviour is not tolerated, and is acted upon quite strictly which can include withdrawing membership from the gym.

David Owen gyms, an upmarket chain, have said no TW members at all, although I'm not sure how they can tell which people apply unless it's obvious.

Wyllow3

What I am saying is that any offensive behaviour is not tolerated, and is acted upon quite strictly which can include withdrawing membership from the gym.

David Owen gyms, an upmarket chain, have said no TW members at all, although I'm not sure how they can tell which people apply unless it's obvious.

Same at our gym.

Perhaps David Owen gyms rely on people being truthful.
Based on current events, that’s not going to work.

athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/world-athletics-to-introduce-pre-clearance-tests-for-women-1039998430/

What great news for women's athletics. Now do we think boxing and other sports could adopt the same rules? And should the Rio Olympics women's 800m results be adjusted for fairness?

Seb Coe would have been a great president for the Olympic committee, a shame he wasn't elected.

Galaxy

There is also a problem about blindingly accepting this idea of a gender identity. I don't have a gender identity. I have a sex, the rest is my personality.

Yes, but, there are people, whose personality so leans towards the other sex that they act and think and are more in harmony with members of the other sex than their own, biological sex.

Having said that - another but - sex is unchanged and unchangeable and all the cosmetic surgery in the world will not change it.

Why is it not possible to accept and work with the fact that your personality matches the personality of someone of the opposite sex and you are free to dress, act and live anyway you like, without pretending you can change your physical sex - which you cannot.

I really feel for the women who have lost possible titles to male athletes. The window of opportunity in many sports is small, and losing to a male will mean that there may not be a chance the next year, as they will be a year older and younger competitors are coming up all the time. So yes, I do think that there should be retrospective adjustments to titles.

900 medals apparently - source JKRowling. I wonder whether there could be some sort of joint legal action.

Wyllow3

What I am saying is that any offensive behaviour is not tolerated, and is acted upon quite strictly which can include withdrawing membership from the gym.

David Owen gyms, an upmarket chain, have said no TW members at all, although I'm not sure how they can tell which people apply unless it's obvious.

David Owen?
Like the politician? Or David Lloyd ?