I guess that depends on the circumstance. I don’t have all the answers when it comes to how locker rooms work. It’s worked pretty well up to this point with more or less informal understandings. As I’ve said many times, I don’t think every situation needs a hard and fast rule that supersedes empathy and situational wisdom.
For folks who agree that there are valid concerns with allowing transwomen access to women’s sports, be aware that Stonewall UK is fighting World Rugby’s determination about the safety risks to female athletes.
In the year 2020, we are seeing women’s bodies literally getting crushed and broken in the service of gender affirmation. Some of these women will not be able to play again they are getting hurt so badly. Contact sports are dangerous even with a level playing field; in leagues that pit males against females, no parent in good conscious will encourage their daughter to enter this sport. And yet Stonewall is spinning the people who are causing these injuries as the most vulnerable. These are people who are more than capable of playing against men. They simply would rather hurt women.
“Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.” (Ginetta Sagan)
…blindly taking on faith words written on the internet just because you happen to agree with them reminds me of the moral panic over satanic ritual abuse. I’m sure of lot of the victims that came out were found to be insufficiently “innocent” and thus dismissed out of hand too.
Its propaganda. The entire reason behind starting the website was because they objected to a zeitgeist. That’s problematic in itself. The fact that none of the board have any expertise at all in the field says even more. You can put a website online for less than $20 a month. You can give yourself an “official scientific” name like “Gender Health Query.” You can write whatever-the-fuck-you-like and make it sound-as-authoritative-as-fuck but that doesn’t mean you’ve said anything worth listening too. GHQ are just random people posting on the internet pretending to be more knowledgeable than they really are.
And if you had read what I had written you would have seen that I acknowledged that the GHQ had cited numerous sources. But citing numerous sources, even sources that are peer reviewed, says nothing about the actual analysis, which is what I called into question. For example:
You’ve just cited a peer reviewed paper. But that paper has absolutely fuck-all to do with what we were discussing which was whether or not Mermaids or Stonewall were “supporting experimental treatment on children that is driven by ideology, not science, and that they were harming children.” You can’t just drop a peer reviewed study then expect us to “join the dots” when “no dots actually exist.”
No it isn’t really.
Its utterly shameful that you are invoking the disgusting practice of forced transitions as an emotional cudgel in this discussion.
…don’t complain to me about “problems with that definition.” You chose to cite merriam-webster as if it were some sort of authority here. We either accept the definitions as written or we don’t. I personally don’t give a fuck either way. But you cited the dictionary. If you want to withdraw that cite then that’s okay with me.
…LOL. you directed me to random people with no expertise on a subject posting on the internet. You’ve given us no reason to take them seriously.
Are you pretending that we actually haven’t already had this discussion? That I haven’t already given you an answer to that question? I’ve already said that the likes of Karen White should never have been sent to a women’s prison. Her previous offending history of indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, animal cruelty and dishonesty were not taken into account and that was a serious mistake on the part of the Ministry of Justice. It isn’t Karen Whites status as transgender that is at issue here (although the prosecution alleges that to transition has been less than committed,”) It’s the fact that she is a predator and risk to women prisoners and that should always take precedence over other concerns.
I’ve already told you this. Why are you acting like I haven’t?
Answered. Again.
Then point to a meaningful definition yourself. The way definitions work is that you can look up definitions of the other words and come to an understanding of what is meant. The definitions of “woman” and “female” in the dictionary are fine and are consistent with what society generally understands those words mean. I’ve asked for definitions many times in this thread of what “trans woman” and “woman” mean, but the only responses seem to be “a trans woman is a male who identifies as a woman” and “a woman is someone who refers to herself as a woman and uses female pronouns”. I have no problem defining trans woman that way, but that’s not the way woman is defined or is generally understood to be defined. Defining woman that way seems to be taking one of the describing attributes and then saying that anyone who applies those attributes themselves meets that definition. It would be like saying:
milk is a white fluid,
primer is a white fluid
therefore, primer is equivalent to milk and can be used exactly the same way
Consider that “TWAW” has syntactic and logistic confusion and is open to many different interpretations. Instead of getting mad and cussing, consider that the confusion is valid and help clarify things instead of just saying “TWAW and if you don’t agree you’re a hateful bigot”. Describe what is meant by TW and W so that it’s evident that TWAW or in what interpretations of the words that is meaningful.
Well that’s just a flat-out lie, isn’t it? You’ve not answered my question here or anywhere else. Your artless attempt to construe an answer to a completely different question as an answer to mine is unlikely to fool anyone.
…accusing people of lying (outside of the pit) is probably against the rules here in IMHO and even if it isn’t its pretty fucking rude. I didn’t lie and respectfully request you retract. My position (in case you were unable to parse it) is that every case should be examined individually. That there shouldn’t be a “one-size-fits-all” blanket policy. That the safety of women prisoners should take priority.
…with all due respect: I’m not your fucking monkey. You are the one that dropped a link to the dictionary to tell me that “I was wrong.” But it should have been obvious from the outset that a link to the dictionary definition alone would be problematic. I’m glad you’ve just discovered that now. But it isn’t my job to teach you how to use google properly.
You could always start with wikipedia. Or read an opinion piece that argues the case. Or you could engage with Boudicca90, who is participating in this thread, who you have already engaged with once (to give her a condescending lecture on “reporting posts”) who could give you a better answer than I ever could.
Yeah, i’m not going to argue definitions with anyone. I don’t have to defend my “womanness” or whatever to anybody and i’m not going to be bogged down by semantics and technicalities they always like to bring up.
And people like Karen White and Anthony Scales are only brought up to try to link their criminal activities to them being transgender when they are criminals who just happen to be also dealing with gender dysphoria and have both shown they are a danger to other people and therefore shouldn’t be in the general population with men OR women.
I support Stonewall UK and the IOC on this, the current regulations are fine and this “study” is very suspect and has anti-trans fingerprints all over it.
…absolutely fair enough 
My apologies for dragging you into the conversation.
Please link to the post where you said this. Because I actually don’t remember you saying it.
So you agree that someone simply stating they are a woman is not enough to mean they should be treated as a woman in all circumstances? Some additional means of gatekeeping should be required?
I think it is important to pin you down on this because that seems to be the key point of this thread and if you agree with the above then, at least to this outsider, it seems like you do actually agree with such as YWTF and monstro and all that is left is to have the grown-up discussion about what form that gatekeeping will take.
But be in no doubt, your statement above is a call for “gatekeeping” of some sort or other and an unwillingness to clarify what it should be seems like you wanting to have your cake and eat it.
…a statutory declaration is much more than “simply stating you are a women.” I signed one the other day and there are legal consequences if what I declared to “be truthful” turns out to be a lie. In almost every case a statutory declaration suffices.
Thank you, but you didn’t drag me into it, I just wanted to state that I personally am not going to go down that road. 
In my case, I lived in Nevada when I transitioned and I legally changed my name and gender with the courts about 6 months in, once I felt more comfortable as myself in public. I signed a document saying that I wanted to change to name because I am transgender and that was it. I then went to the social security office and the DMV to change my name and gender markers on those documents and I was good to go. As far as hormones, I spoke to my doctor at the VA about being trans and then was referred to a psychiatrist who I spoke about my life and experiences and I was good to go on that front. It has always been my impression that the UK is far too restrictive when it comes to all of this and that needs to change.
Not what I asked. There have been examples in this thread that clearly show a desire for a simple self-declaration to be all that is required. Do you think that is OK or not?
Also, even if you think that a statuatory declaration gives enough legal clout…how exactly would that pan out? how would you make the judgement that the declaration “I am a woman” is a lie? what criteria would you assess? What criteria could you assess that would not obviously be some form of “gatekeeping”?
…in most cases, sure, why not? If a transgender person self declares in this thread, is that not enough for you? What is it, exactly do you want to do? Do you want me to pull down my pants and send you a picture? What level of gatekeeping are you expecting on a messageboard?
The same way that every other statutory declaration is examined? The same level of scrutiny that was given to Karen White after the Ministry of Justice admitted they had made a mistake, when they declared that her" approach to transition has been less than committed?"
I’ve never argued that gatekeeping, to some degree, isn’t required. And I think you will find if you read through the thread that this is the position held by most of the people, including those advocating for transgender rights in this thread. So you really are trying to pick a fight with the wrong person. But there is an order of difference between making a decision on where best to house a convicted sexual predator and how people identify on a messageboard. It would be best for you to not conflate the two things.
Did you/can you change the sex recorded on your birth certificate? That is what a GRC does. You don’t need one to change the gender on your driving licence or in most other situations.
Also in the UK transgender people are legally protected from discrimination in employment, housing etc under the Equality Act 2010. (Still, I know not everyone obeys the law.) And you can get treatment free on the NHS, though waiting times are long.
…thank you for sharing your story.
OK, which appears to be no different to pretty much everyone in this thread. in “most cases” it really doesn’t matter does it?
no gatekeeping is needed on a message board, it is not required and would be impractical in any case.
good, we seem to be making progress in clarifying things. So there is some level of scrutiny that is acceptable to you in making a judgment on whether someone is seriously in their claim of a trans identity. The productive discussion now seems to be what are those criteria and under what circumstances should they be applied?
If that truly is your position then unfortunately, at least for me, the tone and content of some of your more recent posts did a good job of masking it. But that’s fine, we cleared it up. You agree that just saying you are a woman is not enough to require the rest of the world to accept it.
I don’t recall anyone caring in the slightest about identification on a message board. I certainly haven’t conflated the two. People have made very well reasoned arguments about situations of safety and fairness that are far removed from the triviality of message boards and are far closer to the prison scenario. There seems to me to be a well-intentioned attempt to navigate this rather tricky ground and long may it continue.