Just for some clarity as a father of toddler daughter - I assume the bottom paragraph is just made up or taken out of context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Printable View
Just for some clarity as a father of toddler daughter - I assume the bottom paragraph is just made up or taken out of context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
USA fencing are banning men who identify as women from taking part in women's fencing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-FRfGD2CM
Yes it was nonsense, hence deleted. Carry on as you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Seems logical enough.
If men who identify as women aren't discriminated against in everyday life, like when trying to get a job, then to me that's a much more serious... and I'd imagine much more common... issue.
I think it's your understanding that's daft :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
As I said above ...."proportionate"
It's so nippy that there isn't an easy answer. I'd vote for paggering real anti trans people and anti trans rhetoric, also JKR is a ball bag for deliberately misgendering at every opportunity
Nothing to disagree with there.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the wording of the ruling, no biological males can use female toilets.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's not just me that thinks there's a problem either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgenpvzxddno
Are the STUC wrong?
The EA is quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Proportionality:
The exclusion must be a necessary and reasonable response to the legitimate aim. It cannot be overly broad or unnecessarily restrict access. For example, restricting access to a women's bathroom might be considered proportionate to protect women's privacy, while restricting access to all women-only activities might not be.
Individual Circumstances:
The decision to exclude a trans woman should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of the service and the individual's needs.
Refusal where it is proportionate. A woman who has gone through surgery, living as a woman for many years, would not be refused entry to female toilets, because it wouldn't be proportionate. It would be daft. As would a man not being allowed to take his toddler granddaughter into a men's toilet.
As with much relatively new legislation, it will be tweaked as appropriate through test cases and the like.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1meyvpl30eo
Maggie Chapman survives after the SNP support her. And she gets to vote as well which was the deciding vote, makes the Scottish Parliament look a bit daft that she gets a vote and it's the deciding vote.
https://news.stv.tv/sport/scottish-f...itive-football
SFA rule updated so only biological females can play in the woman's game.
Worth noting this impacts no current players - but seems reasonable to have the rule in place proactively. .
I think I agree with it. Competitive sport seems one of the more clear areas in the Trans debate although with reservation that it is a shame if this discourages trans women from participating in sport in future.
As a side note: how sad that it doesn't take many Twitter comments before the inevitable "*men" aimed at correcting the article headline and deliberate misgendering occurs. News that presumably aligns with their way of thinking and they still can't help but have a bitter dig at others.
I'm not sure if I posted on this thread about it but I watched a game last season with a trans female playing striker in a women's game and it wasn't comfortable viewing. She absolutely bullied a young CB for about 40 minutes, reducing her to tears before she was subbed off. It wasn't just a physical mismatch, which can happen in any football, it was someone with the muscular advantages of a grown man rag dolling a 16 year old girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
I felt sorry for both parties tbh. The defender because she was clearly hurt physically and emotionally by the game and was placed in a very uncomfortable position. I also felt exceptionally sorry for the striker. She is a really nice person who loves football and just wants to play. I don't like to see barriers put in place of anyone playing the game but sometimes you have to reluctantly agree there is just cause.
**** knows what the solution is right enough.
I don't think there's an "ideal" solution but I guess either a "trans woman's league" which I don't imagine will have enough interest to take off... or the striker here plays in the men's league - I imagine that would feel uncomfortable for them though but probably the correct thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I think they have come up with the correct solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Having a daughter who has played football since 4 years old and is now over in the US playing, I actually cannot believe it has taken so long to bring into practice. This is nothing to do with Trans rights and it's all about player safety. She played in both boys and girls teams until 14 - at that stage and after 2 broken ankles - it was clear that is was no longer save to play against males. If recreational leagues want to do their own thing and everyone signs up to it then thats fine but competitive football should not allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
Interesting development:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo
Trans woman can play with other males. The only barrier she would have is the same as me ; not being good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I can see why that is an imperfect solution though. I reckon a males football changing room would be a difficult environment for a trans woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
I think the ruling solves one problem in that it defines who can play women's football and that's good. It doesn't really solve the issue on what to do with trans footballers. To flip your suggestion that a trans woman should just play with males would it be acceptable for a trans man who has undergone testosterone and other hormone therapy and experienced significant muscle growth, facial hair growth etc etc to pitch up and play for a women's team because they are a woman in a biological sense?
I don't disagree with the current SFA decision but it still leaves issues and questions. 'Just play with whatever sex you were born' throws up plenty issues of it's own.
Depends on what you want to consider a "barrier" but, for me, at a high-level we're just talking about someone who wants society to treat them as a woman. They're being told "no" and being treated as a man. Now, I agree with the SFA here but that doesn't invalidate the feelings of the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Of course not, that would be doping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
However, they may also be able to treat men’s football as an “open” category, and trans men’s medication as therapeutic, as Messi’s growth hormone treatment was, or some asthma medication is.
Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Society, laws and rules tend to favour what's perceived as the common good and serve the broad majority. When we are drilling down into what affects a very small minority of people (0.4 % of people identified as trans in the census) and then start twisting and turning convoluted scenarios, there will always be individuals and situations that arise where folk lose out or perceive disadvantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
My gay cousin is a trans man, bearded, deep voice and he has asked me which toilet he should be using. I didn't ask if he had a cock, but would imagine common sense dictates he used male facilities.
Does it have to all be a big liberal bourgeois bitch fest, common sense and pragmatism would probably address most issues with zero fuss.
I've just come across this thread now that the Holy Ground has been opened up. I appreciate sensitivities around these issues, but can I ask what 'gay trans man' actually means? A trans man is a biological woman so I'm guessing a gay trans man is a lesbian? Otherwise how can they be gay? ie if they are attracted to men then they're hetrosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
On the wider debate around women's sport, of course no biological men should be involved. A man can never become a woman, that's a biological certainty. You carry that Y chromosome with you for life and having biological males in women's sport is not only unfair but often dangerous. Sporting bodies should have taken more decisive action on this earlier, rather than just in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The IOC have been the prime offenders here.
The trans man, who's youtube channel about his life in renovation of a rural cottage in Aberdeenshire describes himself as a gay man living in Aberdeenshire. He has undergone some surgery as part of his transition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
How you, or anyone else could understand what he has had to do is beyond me.
I don't understand. That was the whole point of my post. As I said, there's no intention to offend anyone, just a curiosity around something that seems bewildering to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Can you explain how being trans and gay works? eg If you're a trans woman (biological man) and you're also gay then logic would imply you'd be attracted to people of the same sex (ie men). And a gay trans man (biological woman) would presumably be attracted to women. You don't change sex by being trans, so a gay trans woman (biological man) who wants to sleep with other women surely can't be gay in the sense that they're attracted to the same sex. They're hetrosexual - and a gay woman being propositioned by a gay trans woman (biological man) makes no sense. She would regard that person as male.
It's little wonder that lesbians were among the most relieved by the common sense ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, which confirmed their freedom of association to meet as a single sex group.
What I don't understand is how things like this seem to exercise the minds of straight people when it doesn't affect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
When it is front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel, surely you understand why people would take an interest? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Today?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
6 months ago maybe, but there's other, more important things to worry about.
I'm not going to get involved in what I think is an incredibly polarised debate with no real world 'suits everyone' solutions. Bit I world encourage you to do a bit of reading about chromosomes. [emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Why do you think it's/was front page news on every newspaper, and the first item on every news channel?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Pretty much every single time you miss the point. It impacted women, that's 50% of the population. Some woman not so bothered others were, like the Nurse you think is a transphobe for wanting her legal rights upheld.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns