I'm simply a person who looks at the evidence and weighs up the effect it will have on people, with the ethos of "your rights end where my rights begin". (General "you" not specific you, and not specific to this issue.)
"Expensive utopia", huh. I'm sure that's what women were told when they advocated for women's bathrooms to be able to enter the public sphere in the first place. Public infrastructure is made for people, if this requires universal access for the people with disabilities, or more walls/higher doors for trans people's/bio women's safety, so be it. That's what public funds are for.
Do you play badminton/table tennis at the professional level? Power and speed are factors that would leave bio women outmatched. I've also played mixed sports for fun but it doesn't seem germane to the discussion at hand.
Yes, case by case could make sense, particularly for sports with no differences by physiology (e.g. shooting) or where the athlete never benefited from male puberty. After all, the goal is to match people roughly physically equal for a sporting chance/to keep them from unnessasry injury.
From what I've read of HRT, many of the advantages remain*. On this basis, do you think there are some trans women that could safely compete in sports with physically-matched bio male competitors?
Edited to say: Regarding whether I support the Act. "People granted a full GRC are from the date of issue, considered in the eyes of the law to be of their 'acquired gender' in most situations." It says "in most" situations, sex-segregated spaces would be my exception, and I mean prisons and sports rather than, you know, book club. I do wonder though, if you are taken to the emergency room, would having "F" on your licence result in possibly compromised healthcare?)
Thanks for responding! (I was 99% certain I would get a "shut up, terf" response rather than discourse.)
*The study on long-term HRT effects is of interest, if you could please link me?