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

[seanie]

Our Equality Act sets out from a position of non-discrimination, but recognises that rights can conflict, so it allows discrimination in some circumstances, in particular on the basis of sex.

Some spaces should be segregated by sex, and the ruling of the Supreme Court was that meant biological sex, not whether someone had a certificate to the contrary.

 

[seanie]

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?

They're no longer women's restrooms if males are allowed in, are they?

This is not complicated.

Single sex spaces are only single sex, if they're restricted to a single sex.

 

[laughing dog]

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

The same way they are do now.

 

[TomC]

Our Equality Act sets out from a position of non-discrimination, but recognises that rights can conflict, so it allows discrimination in some circumstances, in particular on the basis of sex.

On what basis other than sex does Scottish law allow discrimination?
Tom

 

[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?

They're no longer women's restrooms if males are allowed in, are they?

This is not complicated.

Apparently it is complicated. If transwomen (i.e. men) are allowed in, then it is not open season for men to come in. Women can still use them. Abolishing women's restrooms means no restrooms for women.

 

[seanie]

We're not abolishing women's restrooms.

We're just restricting them to females.

No males, however they identify.

 

[seanie]

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

The same way they are do now.

Well that's just silly.

The question was about communal spaces, not private ones.

Because communal spaces exist.

 

[seanie]

Our Equality Act sets out from a position of non-discrimination, but recognises that rights can conflict, so it allows discrimination in some circumstances, in particular on the basis of sex.

On what basis other than sex does Scottish law allow discrimination?
Tom

Well the staring point is non discrimination, but there are exceptions.

So whilst age discrimination is unlawful in general, it's OK to exclude over 18's from playing in children's sport.

 

[TomC]

If transwomen (i.e. men) are allowed in, then it is not open season for men to come in.

Of course it is.
All a dude has to do to get access to the women's spaces is declare "I feel like a woman right now!"

That's it.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Our Equality Act sets out from a position of non-discrimination, but recognises that rights can conflict, so it allows discrimination in some circumstances, in particular on the basis of sex.

On what basis other than sex does Scottish law allow discrimination?
Tom

Well the staring point is non discrimination, but there are exceptions.

So whilst age discrimination is unlawful in general, it's OK to exclude over 18's from playing in children's sport.

Okay,
You've got an objective line. Age.

Draw a line between male and female.
Tom

 

[seanie]

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?

They're no longer women's restrooms if males are allowed in, are they?

This is not complicated.

Apparently it is complicated. If transwomen (i.e. men) are allowed in, then it is not open season for men to come in. Women can still use them. Abolishing women's restrooms means no restrooms for women.

If men are allowed in, then all men are allowed in. Women can still use those spaces, but they are not free from me. The law allows for sex segregated spaces in some circumstances.

 

[seanie]

Our Equality Act sets out from a position of non-discrimination, but recognises that rights can conflict, so it allows discrimination in some circumstances, in particular on the basis of sex.

On what basis other than sex does Scottish law allow discrimination?
Tom

Well the staring point is non discrimination, but there are exceptions.

So whilst age discrimination is unlawful in general, it's OK to exclude over 18's from playing in children's sport.

Okay,
You've got an objective line. Age.

Draw a line between male and female.
Tom

Sex.

The binary pathway a foetus goes down in utero, determined at fertilisation.

The Mulerian or Wollfian pathway.

 

[seanie]

A persons' sex is not remotely complicated 99.98% of the time, and everyone, regardless of DSDs, is either male or female.

And it's irrelevant to the issue of trans gender identity, because the entire point of being trans is not identifying as your actual sex. You have to be aware of you sex to identify otherwise.

Which is fine.

Mostly.

But sometime a person's actual sex does matter.

 

[laughing dog]

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

The same way they are do now.

Well that's just silly.

The question was about communal spaces, not private ones.

Because communal spaces exist.

As do safe private spaces in communal spaces. Your question was about safe private spaces work in communal spaces.

For example, dressing rooms in department stores or unisex restrooms with multiple stalls.

 

[seanie]

There are situations where unisex, communal provision can work.

And there are situations where segregation by sex is required for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness, especially for females.

In those circumstances, males who identify as female should be excluded from female spaces.

Not because they're trans, but because they are male.

And this is the position of the UK Supreme Court.

 

[bilby]

Because there are some spaces that involve other people.

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

By individual private invitations. Such groups should not be open to random members of the general public to begin with.

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

You don't. You don't need to segregate sport by sex or gender, just by ability.

eg having height divisions for basketball.

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

WTF is wrong with you?

You need to do some thinking.

Right back at you. You appear incapable of it though.

 

[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.

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

Why do you think it matters? Do you not know the meaning of "regardless", or are you just trying to pick a fight?

 

[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.

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

I bolded it for the hard of thinking.

 

[bilby]

We're not abolishing women's restrooms.

We're just restricting them to females.

No males, however they identify.

How do you plan to police this?

I prefer the original system, where it's not policed at all, and everyone decides for themselves whether they are in the right restroom.

The only people who are banned from any restroom are those who hassle other users; There's no need to know or care about anyone's sex or gender, all that you need to know is whether anyone is hassling other users of the space.

That would apply equally to men sexually assulting men in the men's room, men sexually assualting women in the ladies room, or TERFs physically or verbally assaulting people they suspect of being transgender in the ladies room.

If someone wearing a dress walks into the ladies room, uses a stall, washes their hands, and leaves, who are you, or I, or anyone else, to challenge them?

What, in brief, the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you want bathroom police at all?

 

[bilby]

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

The same way they are do now.

Well that's just silly.

The question was about communal spaces, not private ones.

Because communal spaces exist.

Sure, but they don't need to be segregated spaces. We don't have or need women only streets, or parks, or cinemas.