[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Josquius]

Intersex athletes are far and away the main area where gender in sports has been an issue.
They're also typically far more an edge case than trans people, they highlight the incorrect science beloved of the transphobes that sex is as simple as an xx/xy binary. They are who you have to consider when thinking about where to draw the line.
Yet oddly there's a huge reluctance from those who think trans people in sport is such a big deal to even consider their existence despite it being key to the whole question.

Apart from the fact that transphobes are very bad people, I don't know what you're trying to say.  What do you mean by edge case?  How are intersex people the key to the whole question?

We agree no men in women's sports is desirable.
Some argue trans people count under this too because they have male genetics/testosterone/whatever.
But...that leaves the question of intersex people open. A question that has been open long before the current assault on trans rights began to get into gear.
Intersex people by definition have typically female and typically male aspects. They highlight the flaws in simplistic claim-to-science arguments against trans-people in sports as they perfectly show the uncomfortable truth that sex isn't a simple binary and scientifically defining quite who is a woman is no easy matter.
If we are to have segregated sports a line has to be drawn somewhere in defining who is a man and who is a woman. If we're to try and do this purely based on biology and chemistry rather than on sociology it is in intersex people that you see the territory of this line.

[Malthus]

I feel like a lot of you have zero idea how much months of hormone treatments do to change a person's body and base strength level. Or how hormone blockers will prevent any "advantage" for younger athletes. Also, why is the trans discussion like 99.9% focused on trans femme folks when there are also trans masc and non-binary trans people, too. The obsession with trans femme people whenever trans people are discussed speaks a lot more about those framing the arguments than those whose very existence and equality is being debated. This discussion has a very "Feminism Panel With No Women On It" feel to it. 

The key to this mystery is that it is obvious - in the area of sports, people focus on those who have transitioned to women, because people transitioning the other way presumably do not have an advantage over men who have not transitioned.

No need to impute base motives, or an appeal to emotion. Well, aside from the obvious argumentative fallacy reasons.

[Admiral Yi]

We agree no men in women's sports is desirable.
Some argue trans people count under this too because they have male genetics/testosterone/whatever.
But...that leaves the question of intersex people open. A question that has been open long before the current assault on trans rights began to get into gear.
Intersex people by definition have typically female and typically male aspects. They highlight the flaws in simplistic claim-to-science arguments against trans-people in sports as they perfectly show the uncomfortable truth that sex isn't a simple binary and scientifically defining quite who is a woman is no easy matter.
If we are to have segregated sports a line has to be drawn somewhere in defining who is a man and who is a woman. If we're to try and do this purely based on biology and chemistry rather than on sociology it is in intersex people that you see the territory of this line.

So you're saying trans women should be allowed to play sports based on the criteria the Olympics uses? Not sure I'm followiing.

[Josquius]

In other gay news- posted my GFs ballot last week for the latest round of Swiss referenda. On the table is gay marriage. Polling day is the 26th
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/equality-versus-tradition--switzerland-to-vote-on-the-future-of-marriage/46853474

So you're saying trans women should be allowed to play sports based on the criteria the Olympics uses? Not sure I'm followiing.

I'm not sure how you got that from my post.
But in the Olympics sure. If a trans person fits in the criteria then they should be allowed to take part.
At less professional levels however it should be open to all.

[grumbler]

The issue of who is a man and who is a woman for the purposes of sports is a red herring.  The issue actually is:  who is likely to only be able to compete in a sport if sports are segregated in some way that accounts for significant natural differences in biology.  The rule that persons with y chromosomes cannot compete in sports restricted to persons without Y chromosomes seems to fit the bill perfectly well.  Testing for Y chromosome is cheap, reliable, and independent of a person's perceived or self-identified sex or gender.   And it is binary, so the intersex issue doesn't come up: XXY persons have the Y chromosome.

It may disadvantage some XY persons socialized as female or who have received hormone treatments to emphasize their female traits, but sports has always disadvantaged people for such things; people with DNA making them shorter are disadvantaged in the high jump, for instance.  Some are genetically programmed to be superior at running, or coordination, etc.

[crazy canuck]

The issue of who is a man and who is a woman for the purposes of sports is a red herring.  The issue actually is:  who is likely to only be able to compete in a sport if sports are segregated in some way that accounts for significant natural differences in biology.  The rule that persons with y chromosomes cannot compete in sports restricted to persons without Y chromosomes seems to fit the bill perfectly well.  Testing for Y chromosome is cheap, reliable, and independent of a person's perceived or self-identified sex or gender.   And it is binary, so the intersex issue doesn't come up: XXY persons have the Y chromosome.

It may disadvantage some XY persons socialized as female or who have received hormone treatments to emphasize their female traits, but sports has always disadvantaged people for such things; people with DNA making them shorter are disadvantaged in the high jump, for instance.  Some are genetically programmed to be superior at running, or coordination, etc.

Your post reminded me of the times I was prevented against playing against kids my own age and I was forced to play up age groups because it would be unfair to the kids my own age if I competed against them.

[Sheilbh]

Bell v Tavistock overturned by Court of Appeal (I suspect it'll go to the Supreme Court)! The CofA's summary of their judgement for the press.

But, basically, prescribing puberty blockers is a decision for clinicians who should assess the competence of under-18s to consent to that medical treatment, not for the courts - which is the traditional position for under-18s medical consent. And, having found that the policies and practices of the Tavistock clinic were not unlawful, the lower court should have dismissed the judicial review claim:

In  this case, the Court  of Appeal  (Lord Burnett Lord Chief Justice,  Sir Geoffrey  Vos Master  of  the  Rolls,  and  Lady  Justice  King)  allowed  an  appeal  by  the  Tavistock  and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (Tavistock) against the decision of the Divisional Court (Dame Victoria Sharp, Lewis LJ and Lieven J).

2.  Since 1989, Tavistock has operated a Gender Identity Development Service for under-18s  suffering  from  gender  dysphoria,  which  involves  a  strong  desire  to  be  and  to  be treated  as  being  of  the  gender  other  than  their  natal  sex  at  birth. Gender  dysphoria patients suffer significant distress or impairment in function.  The treatment of children for  gender  dysphoria  is  controversial,  and  raises  medical,  moral  and  ethical  issues, which are the subject of intense debate.  That debate can obscure the role of the courts in deciding the specific legal issues raised in the proceedings.

3.  If  Tavistock  is  satisfied  that  it  is  medically  appropriate  to  do  so,  it  refers  patients  to paediatric endocrinologists at either University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation  Trust  ("UCH") or Leeds  Teaching  Hospitals  NHS  Trust  ("Leeds") for consideration of whether they should be prescribed with puberty blockers.  Tavistock does not itself prescribe them.

4.  In this case, the courts have not been required to determine whether treatment for gender dysphoria is wise or unwise.  Such policy decisions are for the National Health Service, the medical profession and its regulators and Government and Parliament. It was not suggested in these proceedings that the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria was  unlawful. It  was,  however  suggested  by  the  claimants  that  the  court's consent should always be obtained before they were prescribed.   

5.  The claimant, Quincy Bell was treated at age 17 with puberty blockers, and progressed to cross-sex hormones and began surgical intervention to transition from female to male, before regretting embarking on that course. Mrs A is the mother of a child who suffers from gender dysphoria but who has not been referred to Tavistock, whose interest in the proceedings  is  largely  theoretical. The  claimants  challenged  Tavistock's practice  of prescribing puberty blockers to under-18s with gender dysphoria, and sought a declaration that Tavistock's practice was unlawful in the absence of an order from the Court determining that the treatment was in the child's best interest.

6.  The Divisional Court did not hold that the policies or practices of either Tavistock or the  NHS  Trusts  (UCH  and  Leeds)  to  whom  it  referred  patients  for  consideration  of treatment  with  puberty  blockers  were  unlawful,  or  that  the  information  provided  to patients was inadequate to form the basis of informed consent.

7.  Instead, the Divisional Court  made a declaration  as to  the  relevant information that  a child under 16 would have to understand in order to have competence to consent to the administration  of  puberty  blocking  drugs. That  information  was:  (i)  the  immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms, (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones and therefore that the patient is on a pathway to much greater medical interventions, (iii) the relationship  between  taking  cross-sex  hormones  and  subsequent  surgery,  (iv)  the  fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility, (v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function, (vi) the impact that taking puberty blockers may have on future  relationships,  (vii)  the  unknown physical  consequences of  taking  puberty blockers, and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for puberty blockers is as yet highly
uncertain.

8.  Tavistock  appealed this  declaration  and the guidance that the Divisional Court gave. The guidance was based on the Divisional Court's view that (a)  it  was  highly  unlikely  that under-13s would ever be competent to give consent to treatment with puberty blockers, and (b) it was very doubtful if 14 and 15-year olds could understand the long-term risks and  consequences  so  as  to  have  sufficient  understanding  to  give  consent.  In  those circumstances, the Divisional Court said that  clinicians "may well consider" that it is not  appropriate  to  move  to  treatment  without  the  involvement  of  the  court. This  has understandably been understood by clinicians  as  suggesting that an application to the court should be the norm.  The Divisional Court also said that an application to the court in respect of 16 and 17-year olds would be appropriate if there were any doubt about the long-term best interests of the patient.

9.  The claimants accepted that the only real question before the Court of Appeal was whether the Divisional Court, not having held that Tavistock's policies and practices were unlawful, was right to make the declaration and give the guidance it did.

10.  The Court of Appeal allowed Tavistock's appeal.

11.  Despite  the  broad  discretionary  power  of  the  court  to  grant  declaratory  relief  or  an advisory declaration (which was not sought here), no previous case was cited in which a  declaration  had  been  granted  in  judicial  review  proceedings  where  a  clear  legal challenge had failed.  Here, the Divisional Court had refused a declaration that the law required a court order before puberty blockers could be prescribed, and did not hold that the Tavistock's guidance was unlawful in not requiring such a court application to be made.

12.  The Court of Appeal decided that the declaration made by the Divisional Court covered areas of disputed fact, expert evidence and medical opinion, which were not suitable for determination in judicial review proceedings.  The case of Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority had decided that it was for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment.  It had been said in R (Burke) v. General Medical Council there were great dangers in a court grappling with issues which  were  divorced  from  the  factual  context  that  required  their  determination: "the court should not be used as a general advice centre". The declaration transgressed these principles.

13.  In addition, the Divisional Court was not in a position to give guidance that generalised about the capability of persons of different ages to understand what was necessary for them  to  be  competent  to  consent  to  the  administration  of  puberty  blockers. The guidance would require applications to the court when there was no legal obligation for such an application to be made. It placed patients, parents and clinicians in a difficult position, and should not have been given.

14.  The  Divisional  Court  had  concluded that Tavistock's policies and practices were not unlawful and  rejected the legal  criticism of its materials. In those  circumstances, the claim for judicial review should have been dismissed.

15.  The  Court  of  Appeal  recognised  the  difficulties  and  complexities  associated  with  the question of whether under 18s were competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers, but it was for clinicians to exercise their judgment knowing how important it was  for  the  patient's  consent  to  be  properly  obtained  according  to  the  particular individual circumstances. Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.

Edit: Having said that they can only appeal to the Supreme Court if they can find a point of law to challenge and I'm not sure there's an obvious one. The principle that "if you've not found any unlawful policies and practices, you shouldn't judicially review a body" seems pretty straightforward to me

[Josquius]

Switzerland says - oui.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swiss-vote-allowing-same-sex-marriage-referendum-2021-09-26/

Pleasantly surprising it seems every canton said yes, even the really backwards one's.

[Eddie Teach]

About time, Switzerland. We've been doing that for six whole years!

[The Larch]

I think this is the official thread for LGBTQ issues, right?

So, there's a new Texas law that seems exceedingly worrying/fucked up regarding Trans kids:

Texas Gov. Abbott: Agencies must investigate gender-affirming care for trans kids as 'child abuse'

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state agencies to investigate reports of transgender kids receiving gender-affirming care as "child abuse," but it's unclear what immediate effect the directive will have on kids, teachers, doctors and parents.

In a letter to the Department of Family and Protective Services sent Tuesday, Abbott said the agency "is responsible for protecting children from abuse." He warned that educators, medical professionals and others who don't report alleged abuse could face consequences.

Can't copy/paste the whole article, that's just the beginning.

This is how an activist describes it:

Greg Abbot has officially directed Family and Protective Services to begin investigating all trans children in Texas and prosecuting their parents as child abusers.

He has also instructed all teachers, doctors, and caregivers to begin reporting any trans students they see.

If you hare a "duty to report" in Texas, Texas is officially saying that you have to report trans youth to family and protective services or risk losing your job.

Unsurprisingly, Texas cites Tavistock vs Bell, the UK case that was later OVERTURNED that banned youth from transition care in the UK for a short time.

[The Brain]

Texas is all about freedom. Freedom from trans kids.

[Valmy]

Texas loves culture war, not freedom. This is an easy election year culture war win for him. Sorry about all the regular trans people who have to be casualties but that is culture war for you.

[garbon]

Texas loves culture war, not freedom. This is an easy election year culture war win for him. Sorry about all the regular trans people who have to be casualties but that is culture war for you.

Yes, I feel bad particularly for those born in Texas with no means to escape.

[Sophie Scholl]

It's only going to get worse and worse. Trans folks are the easiest red meat to feed to the Right's base and it gets either apathy or support from the Center and Left. It failed to be a legitimate talking point in 2014 so the American Right went to the UK with a massive war chest and proto messaging ideas where they worked out the kinks in their delivery system to bring back to the US and it is now working almost as well over here as it is in the UK. The media is buying right into it, too. Reporting on every Lia Thomas or other trans woman's wins, but not their much more numerous losses. How many trans athletes won in the last Olympics to have across the board equal trans access for instance? None. Didn't hear a peep about that though. Framing basic human rights for trans people as a both sides argument. Giving equal or more airtime to people expressing truly vile and unscientific gibberish. It is almost entirely directed at trans women, too. They've proven to be the easier and more consistently acceptable target. Anti-trans groups and individuals have basically filed off the "gay/lesbian/bi" wording in the old attacks and just written in "trans", too, and yet those communities are far too willing to remain silent or even sacrifice the trans community to ensure their gains are not questioned. Which is going to be a very short lived thing once trans people are removed. I honestly don't know what to do anymore. The silence from cis folks is deafening unless it is raised in words of hatred. Even here the mood and attitude of far too many folks absolutely destroys me. To see people I've bantered back and forth with for 20 years express such things is just... not good. At all. It is one of the big reasons I avoid this place so much these days. I legitimately can't stomach seeing it and seeing names I once looked forward to reading posts from and now just feel sick when I do. Once again, thank you to those who have spoken out in defense of trans rights here and on other platforms. I appreciate the heck out of you. We need more people like you.

[Sophie Scholl]

When the circles of Hell overlap, we get Steve Bannon and Erik Prince riffing on how Putin is awesome, Russia is great for being "anti-woke", and shitting on trans people all in one short clip. The threads are all connected and it is becoming impossible to ignore. I hope.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1496678275975897089