UK Athletics bottles it on trans regulations

Just have a full ban of them. The 2 vision solution is easiest: female (open only to natal females) and open.

Still, we all know one unnamed runner that’ll always choose to race in the female division.

For those who don't get the thread title - UK Athletics bottles it on trans regulations - "bottle it" in British English means

to not do something because you are frightened; to fail at something because you are frightened" (Cambridge)

to not do something because you do not feel brave enough (Macmillan)

to lose courage at the last moment and not do something you intended to do (Collins)

The issue of whether UK Athletics recently received poor legal advice on this issue aside, I can understand why the officials at UKA might be hesitant to upset anyone. Indeed, UKA officials have good reason to feel frightened about the potential negative repercussions of barring males from female athletics even if they have reduced their testosterone and received a "gender recognition certificate" from the UK government making them women legally for most purposes.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that UK Athletics official and former pro rugby star Ralph Knibbs and two other UK Athletics staff were the victims of a vicious, premeditated stabbing attack at the hands of fell runner Lauren Jeska, a male who identifies as trans and previously competed in women's UK athletics. The March 2016 attack left Knibbs permanently disabled and caused Jeska to be convicted of attempted murder. All because UKA had "upset" Jeska.

Jeska tried to kill Knibbs after becoming upset and angry with UKA over the organization's rules pertaining to trans-identified males in women's UK Atheltics competition.

Jeska was the English women’s 2010, 2011 and 2012 fell-running champion, and won the British women's Championship in 2012.

But after UK Athletics determined that the athlete not provided the sports governing body with "relevant documentation" required by its rules including test results showing Jeska's testosterone levels at the times Jeska earned women's championship titles, UK Athletics voided Jeska's racing results and withdrew the championship titles in September, 2015.

After this, a psychiatrist told the court in Jeska's criminal trial, Jeska had recurrent fantasies for months about going to the UK Atheltics offices in Birmingham and killing all of the UK Athletics staff there.

One UK Athletics employee who was an eyewitness to Jeska's stabbing attack said Jeska was so violent and frenzied - and the knives Jeska had selected to use against UKA staff were so large and long - that it looked like the fell runner "was trying to skewer meat” as Jeska repeatedly stabbed Knibbs in the head and neck.

Knibbs suffered long-term nerve damage from the attack and the emergency surgery he needed to save his life afterwards. In the process, he suffered a major stroke. The stroke temporarily blinded him in one eye and caused permanent loss of sight in both eyes. The former professional rugby player, 51 at the time Jeska tried to kill him, now has limited movement, difficulty eating and chronic pain. He told the court that Jeska's stabbing attack has totally changed his life, turning a the previously healthy, physically fit man into a disabled man dependent on others to help him with the basic tasks of everyday living.

During the attack, Jeska also stabbed two other UK Athetics staffers, Tim Begley and Kevin Taylor, when they stepped in to stop Jeska from murdering Knibbs and used their first aid skills to stanch Knibbs' bleeding and save his life. Both sustained injuries serious enough to require emergency medical treatment at a hospital, but they've been able to recover physically.

At sentencing in 2016, Judge Simon Drew QC concluded that Jeska posed a significant risk of harming the public and imposed a sentence of 18 years.

This is a wild story. The law is so confusingly written that they didn't realize they could, do it?

independent.co.uk

UK Athletics accused of misinterpreting transgender ‘sporting exemption’ clause

UK Athletics said it believed its desire to reserve the women’s category for female-born competitors would be “very difficult” to realise.

Link:www.independent.co.uk/sport/uk-athleti...

If only they had gone to this simple website which makes it very clear and is in agreement with my favorite twitter hashatg #sexnotgender.

sexnotgender.info

Home

The protected characteristic is sex, not gender. It's in black & white. In the Equality Act.

Link:www.sexnotgender.info/

Saying "full ban" is only ever going to get people offside.

Having a biological female category and an open category isn't a full ban. It doesn't exclude anyone.

A lot of this stuff could be resolved if people could restrain themselves and not fire off like this. The intention should not be to try and hurt people with policies and legislation, but to find a solution that everyone can stomach.

“it’s not a mental illness”

I'm not buying that UKA didn't know they could implement a ban. As the story I linked says, British Triathlon, British Rugby Union, and British Rugby League have all adopted bans on trans athletes in the female category. And the EHRC said they specifically told UKA that they could implement a ban.

UKA has chosen the path that gets it less grief on social media while it waits for the government to give UKA more political cover. It's spineless. UKA has, collectively, shrugged and said to female athletes "well, what can you do?"

News reporting in the UK has been odd to say the least on the issue.

The stance taken by UK athletics has been universally reported as being progressive and a bit risky on UK news outlets.

And the Lauren (formerly Michael) Jeske attempted murder case, shocking as it was, is never mentioned. In fact, if you try to discuss it at all on UK athletics or even general forums, your posts mysteriously dissapear and you frequently find yourself banned.

Waiting for the Lauren defenders to enter this chat, as they usually do.

Why did your mods delete a thread asking if people would be excited to watch trans events in the Olympic track schedule, or in the Diamond League - even if it means removing some gender binary events such as the men's 5000m and women's 800m to make room for the trans 10000m?

The concern the have is Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) which are documents issued in the UK since 2004 which allows the holder to change their gender for administrative purposes. For instance if you wanted your bank to update it's records to your identified gender, or if you wanted to change your passport or marriage licence you will need a GRC first.

Until recently, they have been uncontroversial however about six weeks ago the Scottish Parliament tried to change the process for obtaining a GRC to make it easier in its jurisdiction. For instance they lowered the application age from 18 to 16 and decreased the length of time you had to live in your preferred gender. **To repeat, these are just certificates to entitle you to administratively change gender, it has no impact on hormone treatment and it is not a pass to enter so called women's spaces unchecked**

Despite the benign nature of GRCs, gender-critical activists heavily protested the bill and it received widespread coverage across the UK. Because British journalism is appalling bad and routinely transphobic, it was covered as a broad brush "trans gender issue" rather than the specific bill that was being proposed.

The UK government intervened to completely quash the Scottish Parliament's reforms (the first time a hard veto has happened in 25 years) in what seemed to be a political move to weaken Scotland's first minister Nicola Sturgeon as she has a wing of her party that is ready to oust her if she cannot deliver another Scottish independence referendum.

The combined efforts of gender-critical activists and a transphobic and anti-independence media carried out a misinformation campaign about what Gender Recognition Certificates are and now even the CEO of UK Athletics thinks GRCs are some huge legal obstacle. If you want to know how things like Brexit happened, there's something to learn about British media here.

Not entirely accurate.There is going to be a court hearing debating the legality of the Scottish Government's gender equality Bill, mainly with regards to how it affects the UK wide Equality Act. The Scottish government may have acted beyond its powers. Thars why it will be examined in court before a final decision is made.

The Scottish government is reliant on a coalition between the Scottish National Party and the Greens. The Scottish Greens are a rather radical "rainbow" type party with done very radical ideas which have iased into law recently with little scrutiny, because Scotland doesnt have a second chamber to review its legislation. This has happened in a number of areas, not just trans rights. For instance, the ban in tobacco advertising seems likely to prevent Scottish athletes from participating in tournaments which have a tobacco sponsor.

Devolution for Scotland was done in a hurry by Tony Blair's government. There are too few checks and balances in the system and too little accountability. The only real check on bad law is what has happened with the gender equality recognition Bill, review by the Supreme Court of the UK, but this power to call in legislation is used sparingly because its politically controversial.

In Scotland though, the gender recognition Bill has gone down poorly with the public who probably can't understand why it is attracting so much attention in the middle of a severe cost of living crisis, and particularly with women, who can only dream of such protections against discrimination being given to them so quickly and easily.

The leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie I believe was previously part of a group who advocated for reducing the age of consent to 7 years old... Correct me if I'm wrong. Several of their candidates are white people who identify as "white witches" who can therefore claim protection against discrimination on religious grounds. Most are vegans. Almost none have run successful businesses or have worked in the higher level professions that usually produce politicians in other countries. Many of their policies are communist - they want a completely redistributive tax system, ownership of second homes banned, state ownership of under occupied property, farming severly curtailed by state compulsion if necessary, greater powers for the national environmental organisation to restrict access to private land, the reintroduction of wolves in the Scottish Highlands, and so on.

The SNP can't pass legislation without the support of the Greens, hence they have a far bigger influence on policy and law than their tiny number of elected MSPs should see them have.

Voter turnout in Scottish elections is generally less than 40%.

Its all a bit of a failure of Western democracy.

I see the anti-trans moral panic rolls on. Anyone ever met a trans athlete?

There are two ways the UK government can veto decisions made by the Scottish Parliament. First is Section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 which is a soft veto - if the UK government is concerned there is a conflict with existing UK-wide legislation or if they are unsure of the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to propose a type of legislation then it can use Section 33 to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The other way is Section 35 which is a hard veto and means the UK government is enforcing it's rights as the ultimate governing body in the UK. **This is the clause they are using in the instance**

The UK government has said they have concerns the proposed Gender Recognition Reform bill made by the Scottish government conflicts with the Equalities Act 2010 but as they are using Section 35 not Section 33 the matter is not being referred to the Supreme Court. The Scottish government might want to take it court themselves but the responsibility is for them to prove the UK has acted "unconstitutionally". The UK government has not acted unconstitutionally because it is written in the Scotland Act they have the power to use Section 35 for any decision they want to use it on.

So the UK government is simply saying it conflicts with the Equalities Act but as the matter is not proceeding to the Supreme Court, that is just rhetoric and there will not be a legal decision made on this. If the UK government were genuinely concerned about the legality of the legislation they should have used Section 33 instead. The UK government has also said it's unworkable to have two systems of issuing GRCs north and south of the border but have given no further comment on why that is.

If they had used Section 33 and it was sent to the Supreme Court, it would rule on the side of the Scottish government because there clearly is no conflict with the Equalities Act. According to the UK.gov website, having a gender recognition certificate means you can: update your birth or adoption certificate; get married or form a civil partnership in your affirmed gender; update your marriage or civil partnership certificate; and have your affirmed gender on your death certificate when you die. That's it. Despite what the stupid paid talking heads say, there's no threat to other women at all from GRCs and no harm making it easier to obtain one.

The issue has become so poorly explained to the public and so full of bad faith actors that even the CEO of UKA is using these certificates as cover and making ill-conceived comments on them. Britain is so full of misinformation that a man in charge of one of the biggest sports organisations in the country is claiming GRCs are stopping him changing the rules of his sport.

The concern is that women's spaces are not protected, as you well know. There has been huge upset this week because a formerly male rapist was placed in a womens' prison in Scotland. Equally, there are concerns that vulnerable women who use refuges from domestic violence, etc could be forced to share with former men. The CEO of Rape Crisis is Edinburgh is a former male. etc. etc.

watching the evil wee crankie squirm and get things hopelessly wrong is very entertaining though.

None of those things are impacted by the legislation the Scottish Parliament was proposing and Gender Recognition Certificates. Because of the furore that has ensued and misinformation regarding GRCs, the CEO Ian Beattie is mistakenly of the opinion the government needs to remove or restrict the ability of transgender people to get GRCs so they can change the rules for athletics. That is incorrect as the Equality & Human Rights comission has confirmed but it opens the path for people who deliberately want to begin the process of removing rights from the statute books. This government trades in lies and misinformation so you can bet your bottom dollar they'll use ill informed statements such as the one made implying it's too difficult to exclude trans, to gain public support to outright repeal or water down the Gender Recognition Act 2004 from which GRCs and many trans rights in the UK originate from.

I will comment on the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre - it assists women and both boys and girls who have been victims of sexual abuse. It has never been a charity for the benefit solely of women, it has always allowed boys and trans gender people to access it's services and will continue to do so.

Not everyone agrees that the UK's gender recognition certificates(GRCs) allowing adults to change their legal sex have "benign natures" like you say - and it's definitely not true that "until recently, they [GRCs] have been uncontroversial."

It's also not true that GRCs do not provide adult males who hold them with a "pass to enter so called women's spaces unchecked." At least not according to the way that GRCs and the law that created them, the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, have been interpreted and applied to date by UK government ministries, departments, councils, state-run schools, NHS trusts and hospitals, private business establishments, arts institutions like theaters and museums, and providers of services originally founded by women to assist female victims of male sexual assault and male domestic and intimate partner violence.

For example, in England, Wales and Scotland, male convicted criminals who have obtained a GRC prior to conviction are automatically sent to women's prisons, even if they only applied for their GRCs after being arrested and charged. Moreover, male convicts can (and do) obtain GRCs whilst they are serving time in men's prisons for past convictions - and once a GRC is granted, they automatically have the right to seek immediate transfer to a women's prison.

For example, Lauren Jeska - the male runner convicted in 2016 of premeditated attempted murder for trying to kill UK Athletics staff in a violent, frenzied stabbing attack that left three big, strong men injured and one nearly dead which I detailed in my earlier post - is serving Jeska's sentence in a women's prison.

Males with GRCs - and in recent years, many without GRCs too - are being placed in women's prisons in England, Wales and Scotland even if the crimes they are currently serving time for, or were convicted of in the past, include crimes of sexual violence against women, including rape.

This creates huge safety risks for female inmates of women's prisons, and for female prison staff as well, because an unusually high proportion of adult males in UK prisons who "identify as" women are convicted sex criminals whose victims were/are women and girls (the female kind).

The figures vary from one year to the next, but according to the UK's Ministry of Justice, in recent years anywhere between 44% and 58% of the adult males in prison in England and Wales who claim to "identify as" women have convictions for sex crimes against women and/or children. By comparison, a much smaller proportion - about 16% - of the rest of the grown men in prison in E&W in any given year of late are convicted sex offenders.

Moreover, the crimes committed by males with GRCs - including rape, which in English law is a crime that by definition involves sexual penetration with a penis - are automatically recorded by police and the CPS as crimes committed by women. This has led to many police forces also recording crimes committed by men as crimes committed by women so long as the men simply say they "self ID" as women.

Recording and counting male crimes as female crimes has led to marked skewing of UK crime statistics in recent years. When crimes committed by men are recorded as crimes committed by women, it not only hides the extent and nature of male violence, it also unfairly makes women appear to be the culprits of male misdeeds - and it makes women appear to have considerably higher rates of criminality than we actually have.

The practice of recording men's crimes as crimes committed by women has also led to a noticeable rise in sex crimes supposedly carried out by women in the UK in recent years. These include many kinds of sex crimes that female people don't customarily commit - such as rape, possession and distribution of photographic and video imagery showing children being sexually abused, voyeurism, sexual spy camming, upskirting, sexual stalking and menacing - along with crimes in which the perpetrators are said to have used or exposed "her penis" such as flashing and forced touching of the perps' so-called "manhood."