Trans people in UK could face rape charges if they don't reveal gender history

Lyaiera

Whatever about this thread. I have talked to plenty of trans people and there's not one of them who isn't open about being trans. And I don't just mean with potential partners, but with anyone significant in their life.

If I did know someone who was trans, and wasn't open with their partners about being trans, I'd stay well away from them. They're only going to cause trouble for me.

Grayson

JRant wrote: »

When you're dealing with psychologists then it is no longer in the realm of science and more in the direction of best guesses/ quakery. We know very little about how the brain works never mind why it works the way it does.

We know a lot about the brain. It's just there's a lot we don't know.

Now, here's where your logic fails. You can't say that because we don't know somethings, the things we do know must be rubbish. That's effectively your argument.

You're using it to tar an entire group of scientists. So that's exactly like when some idiot says that climate change is wrong because we don't know everything about climate change.

JRant

Grayson wrote: »

We know a lot about the brain. It's just there's a lot we don't know.

Now, here's where your logic fails. You can't say that because we don't know somethings, the things we do know must be rubbish. That's effectively your argument.

You're using it to tar an entire group of scientists. So that's exactly like when some idiot says that climate change is wrong because we don't know everything about climate change.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Climate change is a veritable walk in the park compared to studying the brain. We are starting to learn about how the brain works with MRI scanning being at the forefront but we know next to nothing about why it works.

Why do some people identify the way they do is as much a mystery now as it was 100 years ago. Thankfully we are more tolerant than then.

MrPudding

super_furry wrote: »

All this talk of "rape" laws for misrepresentation is on dodgy ground. Should a married man be charge with rape if he misrepresents himself as single to convince someone to sleep with him?

It isn't quite like that. it is more to do with a misrepresentation of the act itself. For example, if you were a doctor and told a patient that they needed a certain procedure, and then you had sex with them, telling them that was the procedure. There was another case in the UK (bear with me here, this one is a little crazy) where a guy called a girl, pretending to be the police, and told her that if she didn't have sex with this bloke she knew (who was actually the guy pretending to be a cop) then something bad would happen to him. You are misrepresenting them as to what the act is, it is a medical procedure, for example.

Pretending you are single, or rich isn't enough, though having sex with a woman when she has mistaken you for her boyfriend or husband is.

MrP

Regardless of anything else, should trans people be allowed to partake in sports for their current gender? There's the story doing the rounds of the transgender woman (so biologically a man) won was competing against women in Alaska.

Alaskan parents and their daughters are upset that a transgender student captured all-state honors in girls’ track and field.
Haines High School senior Nattaphon Wangyot took fifth place in the girls 1-2-3A 100-meter finals and third-place in the 200-meter race on May 27. The transgender athlete’s performance in Anchorage frustrated competitors and parents with the Alaska Family Council at Dimond Alumni Field.
“I’m glad that this person is comfortable with who they are and they’re able to be happy in who they are, but I don’t think it’s competitively completely 100 percent fair,” Hutchison High School senior Saskia Harrison told a local CBS affiliate.

Source: Washington Times

There's a reason men and women don't compete in many sports, so just because someone identifies as female (boiling it down to the core issue) does that mean they should be allowed to compete?

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of anything else, should trans people be allowed to partake in sports for their current gender? There's the story doing the rounds of the transgender woman (so biologically a man) won was competing against women in Alaska.



Source: Washington Times

There's a reason men and women don't compete in many sports, so just because someone identifies as female (boiling it down to the core issue) does that mean they should be allowed to compete?

I'd be very very interested in how some posters on this thread answer this question ...............

Lyaiera

A panel made up of doctors and scientists for the Olympics found trans people should be allowed compete after hormone treatment is maintained for a certain amount of time. So I'll agree with them and say they should be allowed compete.

If future evidence shows there is an advantage for trans people who have transitioned then I would say they shouldn't be allowed compete.

As far as I can tell, in this instance they were biologically male, but identifying as female. Not having been through any HRT (many articles I've read on this issue have just stated "identifies as female"), so surely this means they shouldn't be allowed to compete?

Lyaiera

Deleted User wrote: »

As far as I can tell, in this instance they were biologically male, but identifying as female. Not having been through any HRT (many articles I've read on this issue have just stated "identifies as female"), so surely this means they shouldn't be allowed to compete?

I would imagine that's just the way they wrote the article, trying to be inflammatory. If this was a serious school aged event under the auspices of official bodies I very much doubt they would let them compete unless they had reached the appropriate criteria of medical transition.

If someone hasn't had HRT then I'd draw the line at an under 6's school egg and spoon race, and a social mixed tag rugby league.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Regardless of anything else, should trans people be allowed to partake in sports for their current gender? There's the story doing the rounds of the transgender woman (so biologically a man) won was competing against women in Alaska.

Sore losers :pac:

There's a reason men and women don't compete in many sports, so just because someone identifies as female (boiling it down to the core issue) does that mean they should be allowed to compete?

The only reason being based solely upon their gender. It's not really a competition if everyone isn't allowed to compete. If women are good enough to compete against other men, and vice versa, then have at it I say! I've seen young girls play hockey against the boys and I had to jump out of the way on a few occasions to avoid one of the girls whipping the ankles off me with their hockey stick! Vicious little feckers!

TerrorFirmer

There was a trans woman who competed in MMA a while back, and didn't actually disclose that she used to be a man. That was very controversial.

LorMal

Lyaiera wrote: »

A panel made up of doctors and scientists for the Olympics found trans people should be allowed compete after hormone treatment is maintained for a certain amount of time. So I'll agree with them and say they should be allowed compete.

If future evidence shows there is an advantage for trans people who have transitioned then I would say they shouldn't be allowed compete.

That hormone requirement has been relaxed. Sonia O Sulliavn had a really interesting article on it on the Irish Times last week.
This has the potential to ruin many sports. Watching Casrer Semenya winning the most recent 800m in the Diamond League was ridiculous. She/he looked utterly different to the other competitors in the Woman's race. She/he won it at a stroll. Made a mockery of the race - the women may as well not bothered turning up.

drunkmonkey

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There was a trans woman who competed in MMA a while back, and didn't actually disclose that she used to be a man. That was very controversial.

Fallon Fox won her 2 first fights against actual women in the first round by brutal knockout.
I'm kinda on Joe Rogeans side of the fence when it comes to her in particular, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6_7BOGUXHM&sns=em

Little CuChulainn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Fallon Fox won her 2 first fights against actual women in the first round by brutal knockout.
I'm kinda on Joe Rogeans side of the fence when it comes to her in particular, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6_7BOGUXHM&sns=em

There's only so much hormones can change. You can change your future self all you want but it doesn't remove your past.

noaddedsugar

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of anything else, should trans people be allowed to partake in sports for their current gender? There's the story doing the rounds of the transgender woman (so biologically a man) won was competing against women in Alaska.



Source: Washington Times

There's a reason men and women don't compete in many sports, so just because someone identifies as female (boiling it down to the core issue) does that mean they should be allowed to compete?

They absolutely shouldn't be allowed.

kylith

In the world of sport; those born male are naturally stronger than those born female. I'm not sure how much HRT can attenuate what is a biological fact. IMO this constitutes an unfair advantage.

Regarding the OP; I think rape is too strong a word, but I agree that they should be upfront about it. However bad the rejection would be it would be much less than if their partner found out some way down the line.

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

Regarding the OP; I think rape is too strong a word, but I agree that they should be upfront about it. However bad the rejection would be it would be much less than if their partner found out some way down the line.

I tend to agree, but this might be a case of the law not developing as quickly as society. The sexual offences act was last updated in 2003. A lot has changed since then, and a lot of the things we are seeing now might simply not have been in contemplation.

The simple fact is, irrespective of what you or I might think, the requirements for rape might be satisfiedand until there is clarification, either in case law or legislation, there is uncertainty.

MrP

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

A panel made up of doctors and scientists for the Olympics found trans people should be allowed compete after hormone treatment is maintained for a certain amount of time. So I'll agree with them and say they should be allowed compete.

If future evidence shows there is an advantage for trans people who have transitioned then I would say they shouldn't be allowed compete.

Following on from this, if someone previously competed as a female but now says that "they always felt they were male", should they give back any medals won, given that it was misrepresentation AND a male would generally be viewed as having a physical advantage ?

Mind you, if gender is fluid why do we have only 2 categories ? Which sport category should someone who's 50/50 or "bigender" compete in ?

Should they all have their own competitions instead, given that they are misrepresenting themselves by competing as something they don't "identify" as ?

That might be unwieldy.

How about we put everyone in to a single category competition, acknowledging that some people think they are not binary concepts ? Would that work ?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

In the world of sport; those born male are naturally stronger than those born female. I'm not sure how much HRT can attenuate what is a biological fact. IMO this constitutes an unfair advantage.

But that's the thing. Sporting ability isn't solely based upon physical strength, and in contact sports like martial arts, boxing, MMA, etc, these are as much about mental agility, fitness, technique, skill and knowledge and physical strength offers no real competitive advantage. There are different classes for each sport, and there is no reason whatsoever why these classifications couldn't be changed to allow for fairer competition between men and women.

A fact is only a fact while it remains true, so there are no biological facts that can't actually be overcome, it's literally only just a matter of time, and scientific discoveries like HRT are pushing back the barriers of what were once considered "biological facts". HRT can attenuate for literally any hormonal effects that occur naturally in the human body depending upon what stage they are introduced into the body. That's why putting children on HRT medication is so controversial and a treatment that many scientific and medical professionals consider unethical.

Renegade Mechanic

Jack Killian wrote: »

Following on from this, if someone previously competed as a female but now says that "they always felt they were male", should they give back any medals won, given that it was misrepresentation AND a male would generally be viewed as having a physical advantage ?

Mind you, if gender is fluid why do we have only 2 categories ? Which sport category should someone who's 50/50 or "bigender" compete in ?

Should they all have their own competitions instead, given that they are misrepresenting themselves by competing as something they don't "identify" as ?

That might be unwieldy.

How about we put everyone in to a single category competition, acknowledging that some people think they are not binary concepts ? Would that work ?

Actually I think a 200 meter gender fluid race would be interesting. Start the race as whichever gender you identify as at that moment, half way through the track, on your line, there's a box you tear into, where it becomes a race to see who can change into the opposite genders attire the fastest, then you cane it down the last hundred meters!

Jack Killian

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Actually I think a 200 meter gender fluid race would be interesting. Start the race as whichever gender you identify as at that moment, half way through the track, on your line, there's a box you tear into, where it becomes a race to see who can change into the opposite genders attire the fastest, then you cane it down the last hundred meters!

Ah now! They all run in t-shirts, shorts and running shoes - how could you possibly tell the difference ?

Jack Killian

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Just make it pink for me women and blue for the men

Greedy culchie! How many do you have and what's your secret ?

I cannot hear gender fluid without thinking of male and female ejaculation. Surely they can come up with a better term?

Lyaiera

Jack Killian wrote: »

Following on from this, if someone previously competed as a female but now says that "they always felt they were male", should they give back any medals won, given that it was misrepresentation AND a male would generally be viewed as having a physical advantage ?

Mind you, if gender is fluid why do we have only 2 categories ? Which sport category should someone who's 50/50 or "bigender" compete in ?

Should they all have their own competitions instead, given that they are misrepresenting themselves by competing as something they don't "identify" as ?

That might be unwieldy.

How about we put everyone in to a single category competition, acknowledging that some people think they are not binary concepts ? Would that work ?

From what I know it's based on a biological passport. This monitors for performance enhancing drugs, hormone levels, oxygen levels in the blood, etc. Changes outside the appropriate levels that can not be explained by doctors as within the medical boundaries can exclude anyone, whether they are trans or not.

The idea that male and female is binary is not supported by science. A previous poster brought up Caster Semenya, who for her entire life she thought she was 100% female. The IAAF were unsure and tested for a "rare medical condition" that might cast doubt on her 100% female status. Nothing was ever revealed about it, it is possible she is 100% female, and it is also possible she is intersex and she never knew she was intersex, and that may have given her an advantage. It is also possible she is not intersex, is 100% female but produces higher than average levels of testosterone which would give her an advantage. So then you get a situation where someone is 100% female, but due to an illness that in no way changes her sex would have an advantage.

For the likes of the IAAF and the IOC the reality is that they have had to do something about this. It is very possible that a huge amount of people competing in the past had a hormonal, or other advantage over their competitors due to being intersex, or other medical conditions that would not have been flagged by the testing options available at the time. I doubt these people knew they had this advantage, they had no indication they were any different from anyone else. They were just stronger, or taller, or faster, just like some people are weaker, smaller, and slower.

The approach these international bodies are taking is to monitor these types of situations, decide what the appropriate levels of hormones, etc. in the body should be, and they're determining categories based on that. They just have the "male" and "female" names on these categories. Theoretically a fully 100% genetic, biological, legal, social woman could be excluded due to abnormalities where they produce higher levels of testosterone.

mayway

wakka12 wrote: »

beach_walker wrote: »

I agree. To be honest I don't see a whole lot of difference between this and the case where the woman was jailed for having sex with her friend while pretending to be someone else.

How..?? She was pretending to be somebody which she is not. A trans person isn't pretending, they have just changed their body to look like somebody new. They arent pretending

Are you serious? I'd blow a gasket if I ended up with a bloke who had had his lad cut off. Just because some bloke gets his tackle whipped off doesn't make him a her. Now he's just a geezer with no equipment. Stone me, I'd go ballistic. Getting charged with rape would be the least of his worries.

TerrorFirmer

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Fallon Fox won her 2 first fights against actual women in the first round by brutal knockout.
I'm kinda on Joe Rogeans side of the fence when it comes to her in particular, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6_7BOGUXHM&sns=em

Yes, completely agree with him as well. It's a fair video.

mayway

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I cannot hear gender fluid without thinking of male and female ejaculation. Surely they can come up with a better term?

I can't get my head around this gender fluid stuff at all

Gender fluid? What does that mean?

I heard the other day about a bloke who was trying to get into the ladies because he was "identifying as a woman" on that day. If my bird was in the jacks and some geezer walked in because he was "identifying as a woman" I'd attack him with a crowbar. Then he'd be "identifying via his dental records". What a load of cobblers.

One eyed Jack

Lyaiera wrote: »

Theoretically a fully 100% genetic, biological, legal, social woman could be excluded due to abnormalities where they produce higher levels of testosterone.

One of the more interesting areas of genetic research for me personally anyway is genetic chimerism -

A genetic chimerism or chimera (also spelled chimaera) is a single organism composed of cells from different zygotes. This can result in male and female organs, two blood types, or subtle variations in form. Animal chimeras are produced by the merger of multiple fertilized eggs. In plant chimeras, however, the distinct types of tissue may originate from the same zygote, and the difference is often due to mutation during ordinary cell division. Normally, genetic chimerism is not visible on casual inspection; however, it has been detected in the course of proving parentage.

Another way that chimerism can occur in animals is by organ transplantation, giving one individual tissues that developed from two genomes. For example, a bone marrow transplant can change someone's blood type.

Chimera (genetics)

mayway

mayway wrote: »

If my bird was in the jacks and some geezer walked in because he was "identifying as a woman" I'd attack him with a crowbar. Then he'd be "identifying via his dental records". What a load of cobblers.

.. why?

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

From what I know it's based on a biological passport. This monitors for performance enhancing drugs, hormone levels, oxygen levels in the blood, etc. Changes outside the appropriate levels that can not be explained by doctors as within the medical boundaries can exclude anyone, whether they are trans or not.

The idea that male and female is binary is not supported by science. A previous poster brought up Caster Semenya, who for her entire life she thought she was 100% female. The IAAF were unsure and tested for a "rare medical condition" that might cast doubt on her 100% female status. Nothing was ever revealed about it, it is possible she is 100% female, and it is also possible she is intersex and she never knew she was intersex, and that may have given her an advantage. It is also possible she is not intersex, is 100% female but produces higher than average levels of testosterone which would give her an advantage. So then you get a situation where someone is 100% female, but due to an illness that in no way changes her sex would have an advantage.

For the likes of the IAAF and the IOC the reality is that they have had to do something about this. It is very possible that a huge amount of people competing in the past had a hormonal, or other advantage over their competitors due to being intersex, or other medical conditions that would not have been flagged by the testing options available at the time. I doubt these people knew they had this advantage, they had no indication they were any different from anyone else. They were just stronger, or taller, or faster, just like some people are weaker, smaller, and slower.

The approach these international bodies are taking is to monitor these types of situations, decide what the appropriate levels of hormones, etc. in the body should be, and they're determining categories based on that. They just have the "male" and "female" names on these categories. Theoretically a fully 100% genetic, biological, legal, social woman could be excluded due to abnormalities where they produce higher levels of testosterone.

That statement re binary doesn't seem right if you're using "might" and "not revealed" and other such phrases. "Scientific analysis is inconclusive" might be the proper phrase.

However maybe you were basically saying that in sporting terms the system is flawed.

However we've been talking about people who "identify" themselves as (whichever); not what a flawed test shows or doesn't show.

And before you jump on the "flawed test" phrase as if it proves anything, I'm fairly sure that a post-menopausal woman could fail it too.

Re sport and classification itself, other people could be taller, have higher metabolisms, etc, which gives them "an advantage" - think Paul O'Connell & Peter Stringer.

So my point - which I actually clearly stated in the question re "someone who always thought of themselves as....", not someone who changed their mind / was tested yesterday - was whether those advocating the "fluidity" / right to "identify" theory would apply it across the board in a consistent manner, viewing the categories and past achievements of those who "always" thought they were the other sex/gender as retractable in favour of their new paradigm ?

Jack Killian

mayway wrote: »

trans person isn't pretending, they have just changed their body to look like somebody new. They arent pretending

Interesting phrasing......

Lyaiera

Jack Killian wrote: »

That statement re binary doesn't seem right if you're using "might" and "not revealed" and other such phrases. "Scientific analysis is inconclusive" might be the proper phrase.

However maybe you were basically saying that in sporting terms the system is flawed.

However we've been talking about people who "identify" themselves as (whichever); not what a flawed test shows or doesn't show.

And before you jump on the "flawed test" phrase as if it proves anything, I'm fairly sure that a post-menopausal woman could fail it too.

Re sport and classification itself, other people could be taller, have higher metabolisms, etc, which gives them "an advantage" - think Paul O'Connell & Peter Stringer.

So my point - which I actually clearly stated in the question re "someone who always thought of themselves as....", not someone who changed their mind / was tested yesterday - was whether those advocating the "fluidity" / right to "identify" theory would apply it across the board in a consistent manner, viewing the categories and past achievements of those who "always" thought they were the other sex/gender as retractable in favour of their new paradigm ?

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "Scientific analysis is inconclusive" bit. I said "might" and "not revealed" because the results of the test weren't made public. The tests could have been very conclusive. We don't know. But she's been allowed to compete in the women's events.

As for women in the past who later transitioned to male, and men who transitioned to women. Their biology and hormones were appropriate for what they competed in at the time.

You seem to have completely ignored my post which was all about how these bodies aren't using a simple criteria of what the competitor says, but what their biology, hormones, blood tests, blood oxygen levels, etc. say. The whole premise is that sex isn't simple, and is made up of many things, and that's what the competition and advantage is based on.



And for anyone wondering why some people aren't completely out in the open about being trans, I'd say the vast majority of the public proclaim a live and let live attitude, but all it takes for you to be killed is one guy with a crowbar.

pickarooney

.Under UK law, people who are unaware of the nature of a sex act are not able to give consent, meaning non-disclosure of gender history can be seen as a breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

So 'she said she was 18' means she raped him?

MadDog76

The sporting aspect of transgenderism really throws a spanner in the works!!

If a 6ft5 20 stone man decides he wants to now identify, dress and live as a woman and transitions to the point that he is legally a woman then obviously "she" can now become a female MMA fighter ......... but that just doesn't seem fair and/or logical ........... perhaps it would be more realistic to say that yes, you can now live as a woman and legally change your name, photo on your passport etc. but you are not an actual woman so in certain circumstances (sexual partners/sports) you are legally obliged to disclose your true original gender/sex.

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "Scientific analysis is inconclusive" bit. I said "might" and "not revealed" because the results of the test weren't made public. The tests could have been very conclusive. We don't know.

You had typed

The idea that male and female is binary is not supported by science.

That statement seemed a little too broad for my liking due to the fact that - as you say yourself - we don't know.

But she's been allowed to compete in the women's events.

Which is why I acknowledged that you may have been speaking in a far more targeted manner than the sentence above seemed to imply.

As for women in the past who later transitioned to male, and men who transitioned to women. Their biology and hormones were appropriate for what they competed in at the time.

And yet - going back yet again to my question - if they "always identified as the opposite" then they were misrepresenting themselves; happily misrepresenting themselves at that. Putting themselves on show as the best of their (or rather not their) gender.

People now want them to be able to be true to themselves, purely because of their choice, but you're defending the "test" because it suits your argument even though you're arguing against the "test" performed when they were born ?

My query was whether that misrepresenting of themselves was a factor, and it's the reverse of the same misrepresentation that applies re the thread topic. Which do you want ? You can't have it both ways ?

You seem to have completely ignored my post which was all about how these bodies aren't using a simple criteria of what the competitor says, but what their biology, hormones, blood tests, blood oxygen levels, etc. say. The whole premise is that sex isn't simple, and is made up of many things, and that's what the competition and advantage is based on.

I didn't ignore it. A sporting body has no jurisdiction on real life, and as I said you're hiding behind them and their test to avoid answering even though it's the opposite to the supposed mindset of "self identifying" or the test at birth that "failed".

Maybe the above test that "allowed her to compete" failed too ?

And for anyone wondering why some people aren't completely out in the open about being trans, I'd say the vast majority of the public proclaim a live and let live attitude, but all it takes for you to be killed is one guy with a crowbar.

I objected to that post re the crowbar, but you're simplifying it a little too much. The guy with that isn't objecting to the person, they're objecting to where that person is.

I'd never randomly attack someone with a crowbar, but if they were in my house I might; not saying the two scenarios aren't very different, but if someone ever said "all it takes to be killed is Jack with a crowbar" they'd be misrepresenting it as a hate crime rather than a reaction to a scenario. So just making that point.

Object to it, but do so fairly.

A crowbar is a way OTT reaction to it, and would rightly result in an assault charge, whereas a "please get out" may or may not be acceptable depending on whose side you are on.

But the violence would be completely uncalled for.

Annasopra

MadDog76 wrote: »

The sporting aspect of transgenderism really throws a spanner in the works!!

If a 6ft5 20 stone man decides he wants to now identify, dress and live as a woman and transitions to the point that he is legally a woman then obviously "she" can now become a female MMA fighter ......... but that just doesn't seem fair and/or logical ........... perhaps it would be more realistic to say that yes, you can now live as a woman and legally change your name, photo on your passport etc. but you are not an actual woman so in certain circumstances (sexual partners/sports) you are legally obliged to disclose your true original gender/sex.

Again we go back to the point that this is legally enforced outing which puts trans people in danger of violence.

Lyaiera

Jack: You're comparing a sporting body with their own rules to a nation state. There are many drugs that had you taken would get your medal removed from you in the Olympics that are perfectly acceptable for a private citizen to take not competing in competitive sports. You're talking about two separate things.

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Jack: You're comparing a sporting body with their own rules to a nation state. There are many drugs that had you taken would get your medal removed from you in the Olympics that are perfectly acceptable for a private citizen to take not competing in competitive sports. You're talking about two separate things.

Agreed. But there are two tests, so my points and questions stand.

1) If someone can ignore the state test when it suits, why do they then accept the sporting body test and compete ?

2) if someone views their "self-identifying" as more important than either test, and has "always known", should they give the medals back ?

I wasn't looking for the specific inclusive test that you hid behind, I was asking yours and others' opinions, to see if you would be consistent.

It was you introduced the sporting test to avoid giving your own opinion.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The_Mac

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'll assume you're taking the piss but if not I feel sorry for your "bird"

to be fair as stupidly macho as his comment is, gender fluidity can't be real. I always assume it's just a confused trans person. There's no way someone wakes up and goes "well I'm a lad today".

Jack Killian

The_Mac wrote: »

to be fair as stupidly macho as his comment is, gender fluidity can't be real. I always assume it's just a confused trans person. There's no way someone wakes up and goes "well I'm a lad today".

In fairness I think we established earlier that the term is a misnomer; fluidity does imply that it changes regularly (as in a basin of water moving even as you walk) whereas apparently it's really a comparison of an individual male or female person to expected stereotypes and exaggerated characteristics.

JPNelsforearm

Lyaiera wrote: »

From what I know it's based on a biological passport. This monitors for performance enhancing drugs, hormone levels, oxygen levels in the blood, etc. Changes outside the appropriate levels that can not be explained by doctors as within the medical boundaries can exclude anyone, whether they are trans or not.

The idea that male and female is binary is not supported by science. A previous poster brought up Caster Semenya, who for her entire life she thought she was 100% female. The IAAF were unsure and tested for a "rare medical condition" that might cast doubt on her 100% female status. Nothing was ever revealed about it, it is possible she is 100% female, and it is also possible she is intersex and she never knew she was intersex, and that may have given her an advantage. It is also possible she is not intersex, is 100% female but produces higher than average levels of testosterone which would give her an advantage. So then you get a situation where someone is 100% female, but due to an illness that in no way changes her sex would have an advantage.

For the likes of the IAAF and the IOC the reality is that they have had to do something about this. It is very possible that a huge amount of people competing in the past had a hormonal, or other advantage over their competitors due to being intersex, or other medical conditions that would not have been flagged by the testing options available at the time. I doubt these people knew they had this advantage, they had no indication they were any different from anyone else. They were just stronger, or taller, or faster, just like some people are weaker, smaller, and slower.

The approach these international bodies are taking is to monitor these types of situations, decide what the appropriate levels of hormones, etc. in the body should be, and they're determining categories based on that. They just have the "male" and "female" names on these categories. Theoretically a fully 100% genetic, biological, legal, social woman could be excluded due to abnormalities where they produce higher levels of testosterone.

Caster Semenya is a terrible example, she has male sex organs, no womb, no ovaries and produces testosterone through testicles, which results in the male frame, bone structure, musculature and blistering athletics records. I dont give a **** what anyone does to make themselves feel happy, but when it impacts upon other people it changes things. Semenya should not be allowed to compete against women, even women who are doping will not not be able to match due to Casters bone structure etc

Its like Fallon Fox, beating the **** out of physically weaker actual women, because of "I feel", its a slightly more extreme example as it is legitimately dangerous, you cannot allow feelings to dictate biological reality.

A fully 100% biological female does not have testicles, male bone structure, testosterone ratio, and musculature, so your hypothetical argument is irrelevant.

Mr. CooL ICE

mayway wrote: »

I heard the other day about a bloke who was trying to get into the ladies because he was "identifying as a woman" on that day. If my bird was in the jacks and some geezer walked in because he was "identifying as a woman" I'd attack him with a crowbar. Then he'd be "identifying via his dental records". What a load of cobblers.

Mod: Unless you can provide a credible source for this actually occurring, I think we can assume this is an urban myth.

Either way, try to argue your point with resorting to fantasy violence.

One eyed Jack

pickarooney wrote: »

So 'she said she was 18' means she raped him?

That could only be determined by legal means if the man were to make a complaint to the authorities. In a social context, it's meaningless.

Lyaiera

Jack Killian wrote: »

Agreed. But there are two tests, so my points and questions stand.

1) If someone can ignore the state test when it suits, why do they then accept the sporting body test and compete ?

2) if someone views their "self-identifying" as more important than either test, and has "always known", should they give the medals back ?

I wasn't looking for the specific inclusive test that you hid behind, I was asking yours and other opinion, to see if you would be consistent.

It was you introduced the sporting test to avoid giving your own opinion.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The reality is if you want to compete in the Olympics you have to play by their rules. And there rules are that biological markers are what determines which event you compete in. Even someone who was 100% female, in every way possible wanted to compete, but didn't conform to those biological markers, wouldn't be allowed compete.

Also, I disagree with the situation regarding legal transition and changing the marker on your documents. I don't think self-identification is enough. I think at the least social transition should be necessary. If you self identity as a man, I will respect that and impede you in what you want to do. If you self identify as a man, but don't transition in some way I would be very worried for you.

I don't think this is much of an issue in reality, so it's not something I'm going to get up in arms about. I do think someone's going to abuse the situation, maybe not for a few years or maybe even longer, but some nutter will try and prove a point.

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about. The reality is if you want to compete in the Olympics you have to play by their rules. And there rules are that biological markers are what determines which event you compete in. Even someone who was 100% female, in every way possible wanted to compete, but didn't conform to those biological markers, wouldn't be allowed compete.

Also, I disagree with the situation regarding legal transition and changing the marker on your documents. I don't think self-identification is enough. I think at the least social transition should be necessary. If you self identity as a man, I will respect that and impede you in what you want to do. If you self identify as a man, but don't transition in some way I would be very worried for you.

I don't think this is much of an issue in reality, so it's not something I'm going to get up in arms about. I do think someone's going to abuse the situation, maybe not for a few years or maybe even longer, but some nutter will try and prove a point.

I asked 2 straightforward questions. Are you going to answer them or not?

suicide_circus

Maybe we can send all trans people to consent classes so well all know how to avoid unpleasantness? We are fans of consent classes, aren't we?

Jack Killian

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah Id be skeptical of the gender fluid thing as well, it was the fact he apparently thinks assault with a crowbar is more acceptable that I was getting at

I was actually wondering what would happen if some other bloke then saw HIM in the ladies'!!

Note to self - set up a crowbar shop near a ladies' loo!

Lyaiera

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Caster Semenya is a terrible example, she has male sex organs, no womb, no ovaries and produces testosterone through testicles, which results in the male frame, bone structure, musculature and blistering athletics records. I dont give a **** what anyone does to make themselves feel happy, but when it impacts upon other people it changes things. Semenya should not be allowed to compete against women, even women who are doping will not not be able to match due to Casters bone structure etc

If that's true then the IAAF are ignoring their own and the IOCs rules.

Lyaiera

Jack Killian wrote: »

1) If someone can ignore the state test when it suits, why do they then accept the sporting body test and compete ?

They are not ignoring the state test. The state in all likelihood considers a trans woman legally a woman, and a trans man legally a man, once they make it clear that that is their situation. It does not change their legal history. Everything a trans man has done while he was legally a woman is still subject to the law. At least in Ireland. They accept the sporting test because they have no choice. If they want to compete they are subject to the sporting body's rules. If they don't want to compete they are not subject to the sporting body's rules. The reality is that the sporting body is more stringent on a transitions outcome than the state body.

2) if someone views their "self-identifying" as more important than either test, and has "always known", should they give the medals back ?

No. Because according to the standards of the sporting body, which is based on biological markers and their own rules, not what an individual states, they were entitled to compete in that event. There is no situation where a trans man competing in a womans event, or a trans women competing in a mens event could gain in an advantage prior to transition. After they transition they are considered on an equal footing to their acquired sex according to the IOCs medical and scientific investigations and rulings, and are entitled to compete in an event as the IOC and sporting body decides.

Jack Killian

Lyaiera wrote: »

They are not ignoring the state test.

They are. The state looks at a baby and says "that's a boy". They say no, they're a girl.

The state in all likelihood considers a trans woman legally a woman, and a trans man legally a man, once they make it clear that that is their situation.

After the fact. Not beforehand, when they were ignoring it, leading to the trans, after which what you say applies.

Was there not a high-profile case re birth certs and passports ?

It does not change their legal history. Everything a trans man has done while he was legally a woman is still subject to the law. At least in Ireland.

Nice caveat! So you believe that Ireland's right and everywhere else is wrong ? This was meant to be your opinion, remember ? Not the state or another state's.

They accept the sporting test because they have no choice. If they want to compete they are subject to the sporting body's rules. If they don't want to compete they are not subject to the sporting body's rules. The reality is that the sporting body is more stringent on a transitions outcome than the state body.

Again, missing my point. I would never misrepresent myself as a woman to win a medal, or even to represent my country, regardless of whether I could get around a sporting body's test, because I wouldn't be being true to myself.

So it's not about "wanting to compete" or "having no choice"; it's a question of why they are happy to be "untrue to themselves" if they've "known all along".

No. Because according to the standards of the sporting body, which is based on biological markers and their own rules, not what an individual states, they were entitled to compete in that event. There is no situation where a trans man competing in a womans event, or a trans women competing in a mens event could gain in an advantage prior to transition. After they transition they are considered on an equal footing to their acquired sex according to the IOCs medical and scientific investigations and rulings, and are entitled to compete in an event as the IOC and sporting body decides.

Entitled to, yes. Once again my question was why they'd want to.

You're once again hiding behind the test, even though you disagree with the results of the real-life test, and though the sporting one is "more stringent" it is still inconclusive as you indicated earlier.

So why are you happy to cite one "inconclusive" test as the basis for your view while ridiculing another "inconclusive" test saying that it's wrong ?

What is your own view, without reference to either test ?

Feel free to say that you'd rather not answer, btw; it's not a court and I don't want to badger you.

But so far you do appear wholly inconsistent re the tests.

Edit: to put it another way, if someone "self-identified" as a woman and then failed the sports test, I doubt you'd be telling them that they weren't one.

So please let me know your opinion or else tell me that you're not prepared to answer, so that we don't hog the thread.