So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?
— frank

Yes. — Michael

Autism spectrum?

hose seats on the boards were reserved for women and men who identify as women are not women. — RogueAI

Do you see this as the most common view in your community?

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?

No. It includes those with a GRC and is why the issue was raised. Scottish Women Ltd argued that that inclusion is contrary to the EA 2010 and that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to contradict UK law. — Michael

So the outcome is that transgender women can't take the place of biological women for the purposes of the 50% women rule. Right?

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women?
— frank

The women were right. — RogueAI

Could you explain why you think so?

1. Women ought make up at least 50% of the board
2. The term "woman" in (1) includes anyone with a female GRC — Michael

Did you mean "excludes" there?

I see where you're coming from. So, it became a rights issue because a group of women objected and yes, the public should pay attention. But I don't think there is an absolute answer as to whether they were right or wrong. The situation is contingent on the objection which is contingent on the cultural context, which is contingent on local cultural values. If this group hadn't objected, and perhaps in another country there might not have been an objection, this issue wouldn't have arisen and wouldn't have needed to. It's culturally conditioned and would seem, in this case, to be very difficult to universalize. That's just my take. I'm not deep into this and I have no objection to attempts to argue for either side. It could be interesting. — Baden

Well on behalf of the Scottish women, thanks for at least acknowledging the nature of their complaint. Other participants have made it clear they couldn't care less.

The world in general is following the UK lead on transgender issues. The US is in the process of following the British pullback on transitioning youths. My guess is that something like the Scottish issue will come up in the US eventually. For now, we're as woke as you Irish.

Part of what constitutes values are balances of rights and these are intertwined with socially determined definitions. I know cis-women, for example, who would virulently object to excluding trans women from womanhood and consider it a (trans)woman's right to use the woman's bathroom as much as a woman's. And even if we accept your premise and speak of biological women's rights in opposition to trans-women's rights, we still identify a conflict of rights in the overall sphere of human rights between some* biological women who object to certain things---e.g. trans women using their bathrooms---and trans women. So, I think we are indirectly speaking about rights just by discussing who is affected in what way and so on. — Baden

The recent UK ruling didn't start with concern over bathrooms. That's just the issue that took over this thread. It was about public boards, which administer government services. Those boards were supposed to guarantee seats for women at 50%. A group of Scottish women objected to transwomen taking seats reserved for women.

I imagine the seats were supposed to be reserved for women so that a female voice would influence the government's decisions. The Scottish women publicly stated that they believed that filling seats reserved for women with transgender women was a threat to women's rights.

Whether one agrees with these women, or not, when a bunch of women complain that women's rights are endangered, the public ought to pay attention. The UK government did pay close attention and ruled in their favor: that when the seats were guaranteed to women, the point was that they should be reserved for biological women.

It would be very fitting if instead of reducing the issue to bathrooms, we talked about whether the women were right. Was the UK Supreme Court right? Were women's rights endangered by substituting transgender women for biological women?

do you think they felt that way?
— frank

I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. — Michael

That's a despicable thing to say.

But when it comes to something like bathrooms, it’s hard to see how person A using a bathroom affects person B’s rights. One person using a private cubicle to take a piss has no impact on anyone else. — Michael

The ruling was about seats on public boards. Should seats that were guaranteed to women be given to trans women? The women in Scotland said no. Why do you think they felt that way?

I think it's just old fashioned misogyny. — Malcolm Parry

I honestly don't get it.

(I only interjected really to make the point that the important difference seems to be one of cultural values not what social reality as defined by social institutions is currently telling us.) — Baden

What about women's rights? Nobody even wants to mention the issue that brought on the recent UK ruling. Aren't women's rights enough of a concern to even talk about it?

I didn’t say that.

I said that I don’t know of any UK law that dictates which bathrooms people can use.

The recent UK Supreme Court ruling is only that the words “sex”, “man”, and “woman” as used in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 are referring to biological sex, biological men, and biological women. The implications of that ruling are not entirely clear, and the interim guidance issued by the EHRC that you referenced is just that - interim guidance - and not statute. — Michael

Right. I get the feeling you don't really want to face the consequences of this ruling.

I guess I don't understand how transgender people could be restricted wrt restaurants, shops, hospitals, or shelters, but that this wouldn't apply to bathrooms. If you go to a gym, aren't the toilets in the changing rooms?

On 25 April, the EHRC released updated guidance in line with the ruling, declaring trans women to be "biological men" and trans men to be "biological women". The guidance applied to any school, workplace, sporting body, publicly accessible service (such as restaurants, shops, hospitals, or shelters), and any association of 25 people or more. The guidance stated that while trans women and trans men should be barred from facilities matching their gender, they can also be restricted from facilities matching their sex, and that only providing mixed-sex facilities could constitute discrimination against women. It did, however, say that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use. The guidance also stated that transgender men and women should be barred from gay men's spaces and lesbian spaces respectively.[81][82][83]

In response to the ruling, the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body announced on 9 May that all toilet facilities in Holyrood designated as male or female-only would now be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that a bank of three existing toilets in the public area of the building would be designated as a gender-neutral facility.[96] — wikipedia

But if you look at that article, this originally came up because women were guaranteed places on "public boards" (which sounds like what Americans call local councils?) The UK ruling says this does not apply to transgender women. So it would be unreasonable for you to say that the UK, in general, focuses on gender to the exclusion of biology. It does not.

The ruling is just that it is not illegal for a transgender man to be excluded from a space that is marketed as being for biological men. That's not the same as saying either a) that it is illegal for a transgender man to use a space marketed as being for biological men or b) that men's bathrooms are only for biological men. — Michael

1. UK law does not guarantee access to bathrooms based on gender.

2. Trans people can be excluded from use of bathrooms that align with their gender (in the UK)

3. UK law is contrary to your values.

Correct?

No. There's a nightclub that I sometimes go to where all the toilets are unisex. There's no law that dictates who can use which bathrooms. — Michael

The BBC and the Guardian say biology dictates use of gender designated bathrooms in the UK.

US hospitals also have unisex toilets.

So what good reasons are there for saying that Bathroom A should only be for biological males and that Bathroom B should only be for biological females? — Michael

It's the law in the UK, isn't it?

despite its common congruence with biological sex they are distinct things. — Michael

Sure. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see gender as being all that significant in the way I treat people though. Biology does make a big difference.

Okay, not really sure what the purpose of this line of questioning was supposed to be? — Michael

I was just thinking about what Malcolm said. I don't treat women differently than men for the most part. The only time it really shows up is in dating and intimacy. There's a huge difference between having sex with a woman and with a trans-woman, that being that the real woman can have an orgasm. With the transwoman, it's just me?

The point is that in the one way it really makes any difference, there's a huge difference.

If they’re attractive and have had bottom surgery, sure. — Michael

I think you're probably rare.

Usually just spending time with friends and it just happens one night. — Michael

Could you see it just happening with a trans woman?

I don’t ask anyone out on a date. — Michael

How do you get laid?

Trump is broadcasting false conspiracy theories from the White House. — Punshhh

I don't doubt it. I just ignore it.

Would you ask a transwoman out on a date?

A black person isn't trying to escape either kind of recognition. A black person says:

1. recognize the biological truth that I'm human, just like you.
2. recognize the social construction of blackness, and notice your own latent assumptions about me because I fit that category. Now refer back to 1.

The trans woman is saying:

1. ignore the biological facts, that I'm a man
2. treat me as the social construction I elected.

There was a time when I tried to understand what the trans-woman is saying. At this point, my answer is this: I'll treat you as a human. I'll avoid using pronouns, because I've got other things on my mind than how you want to be addressed. . As for sports and restrooms, biology is important in both cases. Be prepared to engage according to your biology.

By your logic, we should then call the higher level of violence against black people in the US to also be called a genocide — Christoffer

I don't think there's a white genocide going on in S. Africa. I already said that. It's my experience with insidious violence that makes me just stop and listen when people are claiming that there's been race related violence.

I don't think you need to follow my lead, though. :razz:

White supremacists have seized upon some of the farm-related violence in South Africa since the end of apartheid to peddle a propaganda campaign that exaggerates and distorts the situation — ADL

The white supremacist replacement thing is at least 100 years old. It was part of the motive for the Jim Crow laws. There actually has been violence against white farmers in S Africa. Rage against whites is understandable there. There's no need to deny it.

This is the part you're not getting. Trans activists fucked up. They went too fast without research to show their approach was beneficial. They did more harm than good. Read the whole article this quote comes from. What Bell is saying is exactly the same thing a number of American clinic whistle blowers said.

It is vital to distinguish between gender dysphoria and transgender . The former refers to childhood disturbance in relation to the sexed body, the latter is an umbrella term and is easily used to foreclose exploration

Gender dysphoria is most commonly transient, as evidenced by the high proportion who desist, its socially contagious nature in teenage girl peer groups, and by the testimony of large numbers of detransitioners. Its common comorbidities suggest that it is probably one contemporary means of expressing adolescent distress, alongside depression, anxiety, self-harm and eating disorders, among young people with histories of childhood trauma and those on the autistic spectrum. For these children, a therapeutic approach which is neutral and exploratory is essential, locating their gender dysphoria in the context of their personal histories, and recognising that it may be a temporary expression of their wider distress . — David Bell

There's a difference between outlawing and not approving — Banno

If it's not approved, it's against the law.

Not too keen on that. — Banno

Dude. It's already against the law in the UK. 27 US states have outlawed it. A federal ban is coming in the US. It's against the law in freaking Sweden.

I'm involved in health consumer advocacy hereabouts, so I hope not - and doubt it, since I get to hear more than my share of horror stories. I do hope for the best, though. Evidence based practice is in the consumer's interest. Legislation tends to be either misguided or too slow. — Banno

Banno. We don't approve medical treatments up until they're shown to be dangerous. We trial them. Rule 1 of medicine: do not experiment on 13 year old girls.

The recommendations lean in the right direction. — Banno

I agree. They basically transitioned a lot of kids who weren't actually transgender. That will not be happening in the future because it will be against the law.

. I prefer to see the decisions made "locally" than "globally", except in the case of evidence-based demonstrated harm. The first finding in CASS is - lack of such an evidence base. Then noting "conflicting views among clinicians regarding appropriate treatment." — Banno

You've got a fairly profound misapprehension about how medine works. You'll catch up eventually.

CASS review

You're right. Puberty blockers alone don't cause infertility. In combination with gender affirming hormones they're more likely to, but It's really the GAS surgery that ends fertility and sexual function. I misunderstood that.

Puberty blockers were outlawed in Britain for people under 18 because there's no evidence that they accomplish what they're supposed to. Other countries including the US are following their lead.

No. What do you have? — RogueAI

The suicide rate for post transitioners is a lot higher than for the non-trans population of the same age. I'll have to go back and find it if you're interested.

In the meantime, David Bell, is a good source for understanding what went wrong in gender affirming care for youths, and what we learned in the process.

Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS." — RogueAI

This research looks at regret related to transition surgery for all ages.

Do you have research that focuses exclusively on the post transition suicide rate for individuals who transitioned during adolescence?

is a prevaricating term. — Banno

Yea, I'm such a prevaricator.

But it is a decision their parents can make. Can we look at puberty blockers like certain drugs that have potential terrible side effects? Like chemotherapy? If I'm the parent of a trans adolescent who has been trans much of her life and is now suicidal over it, and the only thing keeping her going is the prospect of fully transitioning later on...aren't puberty blockers an option I should consider? You would take that away from me? — RogueAI

Absolutely. If she's suicidal, she needs to be in therapy. There is growing evidence that transitioning is not a solution to any mental health issues.

I'm not trying to win. To some extent, what happened was a failure of philosophers. They abandoned common sense.

And you know this... from examining a crystal ball? — Banno

Wait and see.

A good argument for better health care. Not for rejecting gender affirmation outright. — Banno

A person will have to be an adult to transition. I'm not arguing for that. It's a fact. That's where we're headed.

Or improved so as to avoid these complications. — Banno

In the clinics in the US and the UK, kids 13.5 years old would receive 2 therapy sessions, and then be approved for puberty blockers, gender affirming hormones, and surgery. By the time they were through, all the trans women they had produced were permanently infertile and sexually dysfunctional. This info is coming from whistle blowers who worked in the clinics. It was a disaster.