Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[seanie]

And a significant point of the ruling is that in some instances there will need to be third spaces.

 

[seanie]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

 

[TomC]

There are legitimate reasons to segregate some spaces on the basis of sex,” particularly for females.

What reasons are those, and how are they helped by forcing women to share sex-segregated spaces with "biological females" who look, speak, and act like men?

Privacy, dignity, safety, and fairness.

If you disagree, you should be arguing for the eradication of separate spaces entirely.

Unisex sports, changing rooms, toilets, prisons, hostels, rape crisis centres etc.

You know what is kinda weird about this discussion?
I'm a naturist. I'd be fine with with everyone, young or old, male or female, black or white, whatever. All using such facilities together. But that's me personally.

Not everyone is okay with that. I do understand why real women aren't so comfortable with persons of penage, in situations where they feel vulnerable. I believe that they have a right to a place that they feel secure in, and if male women feel entitled to bully their way in, then tough shit for them. There's a restroom or a sports league right next door that males are entitled to use at will!
Tom

 

[seanie]

Well, yeah.

A person's sex matters to other people in some circumstances, because those people have rights too.

It's a question of balancing rights.

Nobody should be subject to unfair discrimination, but sometimes discrimination is fair.

Such as excluding all males from some spaces reserved for females.

 

[bilby]

There are legitimate reasons to segregate some spaces on the basis of sex,” particularly for females.

What reasons are those, and how are they helped by forcing women to share sex-segregated spaces with "biological females" who look, speak, and act like men?

Privacy, dignity, safety, and fairness.

If you disagree, you should be arguing for the eradication of separate spaces entirely.

Unisex sports, changing rooms, toilets, prisons, hostels, rape crisis centres etc.

There's another option - private spaces.

Why are we asking people to share spaces in which they want "Privacy, dignity, safety, and fairness" at all?

Why, if I want a shower after working out, am I required to share a space in which I want privacy (and dignity, and safety) with anyone else at all?

My bathroom at home isn't a mens or womens bathroom; It's just used by one person at a time. Why public facilities cannot be managed the same way, leading to greater levels of privacy, dignity, safety and fairness, I do not know.

It seems to be partly a matter of cost, but more a hangover of a past age of communal living. Privacy is a relative novelty*, and dignity and safety were always restricted to the powerful in communal spaces. At school they kept the girls separated from the boys, but gave no thought to separating the bullies from their victims; Dignity and safety were notable by their absence.








* Privacy for non-aristocrats was essentially non-existent until the chimney became a widespread architectural feature in the C14th.

 

[seanie]

How does that work in sports, prisons, communal spaces etc?

You can have unisex provision in some circumstances, but there are some situations where you need to segregate by biological sex.

 

[bilby]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

 

[seanie]

And your bathroom at home isn't a public space that anyone can enter.

I presume you restrict entry to your home?

 

[bilby]

How does that work in sports, prisons, communal spaces etc?

Sports and communal spaces are already mixed in many cases.

Prisons are only sevregated by sex because the authorities are incompetent to protect prisoners from each other - something that should and could be easy to do, given that prisoners have no freedom.

You can have unisex provision in some circumstances, but there are some situations where you need to segregate by biological sex.

Are there? Like what, specifically?

Where is there such a need that cannot be met by having individual private spaces (just like a domestic bathroom, in which a single user can exclude everyone else, until they are finished with the facility)?

 

[bilby]

And your bathroom at home isn't a public space that anyone can enter.

I presume you restrict entry to your home?

That's not relevant to the analogy.

My bathroom at home is a space that a single user can occupy to the exclusion of all others.

Single user spaces are automatically and always single gender spaces, no matter how many genders we recognise.

 

[seanie]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

That's just silly.

Whilst there's a huge overlap in performance, males have an innate physiological advantage in most sports.

It's not even close.

15 year old school boys routinely break Women's World Records in track and field.

The lowest weight classification in male weightlifting beat the highest classification in women's weightlifting.

Sex segregation in sport is absolutely required to allow exellence in females to be recognised.

 

[seanie]

How does that work in sports, prisons, communal spaces etc?

Sports and communal spaces are already mixed in many cases.

Prisons are only sevregated by sex because the authorities are incompetent to protect prisoners from each other - something that should and could be easy to do, given that prisoners have no freedom.

You can have unisex provision in some circumstances, but there are some situations where you need to segregate by biological sex.

Are there? Like what, specifically?

Where is there such a need that cannot be met by having individual private spaces (just like a domestic bathroom, in which a single user can exclude everyone else, until they are finished with the facility)?

Most sports are not mixed, most are segregated by sex, and you may not have noticed but most public bathrooms indicate they're for the use of either women or men.

And as I've already said, some space can operate on a unisex basis.

Some can't.

 

[bilby]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

That's just silly.

Whilst there's a huge overlap in performance, males have an innate physiological advantage in most sports.

It's not even close.

15 year old school boys routinely break Women's World Records in track and field.

The lowest weight classification in male weightlifting beat the highest classification in women's weightlifting.

Sex segregation in sport is absolutely required to allow exellence in females to be recognised.

You just declared that no such excellence exists.

I suspect that you are wrong; But regardless, why would it be "silly" not to recognise the "excellence" of a sporting achievement that 15 year old schoolboys can routinely match?

I would argue that calling such a performance "excellence" would not only be silly, but also condescending.

 

[bilby]

And as I've already said, some space can operate on a unisex basis.

Some can't.

Yeah, you've said it repeatedly.

What I am waiting for is some evidence.

Where is there such a need that cannot be met by having individual private spaces in which a single user can exclude everyone else, until they are finished with the facility?

Single user spaces are automatically and always single gender spaces, no matter how many genders we recognise.

 

[seanie]

Because there are some spaces that involve other people.

How do you provide a group rape counselling session on an individual private basis?

How do you arrange a sporting competition on an individual private basis?

How do you set up a lesbian speed dating event if it's unlawful to exclude heterosexual males who identify as lesbians?

You need to do some thinking.

 

[laughing dog]

In the same way that allowing blacks to use public facilities excludes racists from using them.

I hate this stupid trope. It's nothing like racism.

Refusing to provide a race specific restroom doesn't keep racists from using the restroom. It just means that they don't have special rights.
Tom

Just like giving men legal rights to use a woman's rest room does not exclude any woman from using the room.

That theory ignores the reality of an awful lot of Muslim women's lives -- many are not free to make their own choices, but live under the authority of male relatives. If the government abolishes women's rooms but takes no effective action to free those women from the men who won't tolerate "their" women using de facto men's rooms, then it will be complicit in reimposing the "urinary leash".

Who is talking about abolishing women's restrooms?

 

[seanie]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

That's just silly.

Whilst there's a huge overlap in performance, males have an innate physiological advantage in most sports.

It's not even close.

15 year old school boys routinely break Women's World Records in track and field.

The lowest weight classification in male weightlifting beat the highest classification in women's weightlifting.

Sex segregation in sport is absolutely required to allow exellence in females to be recognised.

You just declared that no such excellence exists.

I suspect that you are wrong; But regardless, why would it be "silly" not to recognise the "excellence" of a sporting achievement that 15 year old schoolboys can routinely match?

I would argue that calling such a performance "excellence" would not only be silly, but also condescending.

What do you suspect I am wrong about?

If boys are faster than elite female athletes, should males compete in female athletics?

See how the best high school boys stack up against the best female Olympians and World Record holders in Track & Field and Swimming.

boysvswomen.com

 

[seanie]

In fact, sports may be a guide to many situations.

Most sports are segregated by sex for reasons of safety and fairness.

But safety and fairness for females, not males. Males are not adversely affected by allowing females to compete against them in most sport.

So, it's legitimate to have a protected female category, for biological females, and an open category for all, subject to doping rules.

The same could be true in many other circumstances: a protected female space alongside a unisex space.

But far better would be to drop the "female" category in favour of sporting divisions based on relevant and measurable attributes. Height, weight, reach, muscle-fat ratio, or lung peak flow would make a better basis for classification in sport than gender.

Having women's and men's teams is a tradition, not a law of nature.

Most men cannot compete in elite men's sports. That no women can either is not a justification for a separate 'women only' competition, it's a justification for a "less than elite" competition, or better still a whole hierarchy of them. And in most sports, such hierarchies already exist.

That's just silly.

Whilst there's a huge overlap in performance, males have an innate physiological advantage in most sports.

It's not even close.

15 year old school boys routinely break Women's World Records in track and field.

The lowest weight classification in male weightlifting beat the highest classification in women's weightlifting.

Sex segregation in sport is absolutely required to allow exellence in females to be recognised.

You just declared that no such excellence exists.

I suspect that you are wrong; But regardless, why would it be "silly" not to recognise the "excellence" of a sporting achievement that 15 year old schoolboys can routinely match?

I would argue that calling such a performance "excellence" would not only be silly, but also condescending.

And where did I declare female excellence didn't exist?

It absolutely does, and should be celebrated.

But that requires sex segregation in most sports because males have an unfair physiological advantage in most sports.

 

[laughing dog]

Giving males the right to access female spaces, removes the rights of women to have single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

I didn't realize those were rights.

This entire line of particular discussion, in my view, was prompted by the issue of transwomen in women's bathrooms. Certainly if women have rights to single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety or fairness, then so do transwomen, and men, and ____. However, in the world in which I live, there are not infinite resources to accommodate these rights for everyone at this time. Which suggests that there some compromises need to occur to allow the transition to appropriate, safe, private spaces.

 

[seanie]

How do appropriate safe private spaces work when spaces are communal?

Changing rooms, prisons, sports?