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

[seanie]

That 15 year old school boys routinely beat Women's world records is a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean female athletes aren't exceptional.

But male physiology confers such an advantage in most sports, that direct competition between makes and females is unfair.

Segregating most sports by sex is a way to celebrate and reward exceptional female athletes.

The top female athletes out perform a few billion males. But in most sports a few thousand males can put perform them.

Hence the need for sex segregated sports.

 

[bilby]

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

Nope. All he has to do is walk in.

The bizarre idea that people need to declare their gender in order to take a leak is utterly baffling to me.

Even more baffling is the idea that it's even remotely OK to challenge someone who is just taking a leak.

If someone is peering over the top of the stall, that's a different matter of course - but that's as likely to be a TERF trying to catch a blameless transsexual, as it is to be a pervert trying to sneak a peek at a blameless woman. And in either case it is a cause for their prosecution for harrasment - without need for any reference to or knowledge of their gender or sex.

 

[bilby]

That 15 year old school boys routinely beat Women's world records is a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean female athletes aren't exceptional.

But male physiology confers such an advantage in most sports, that direct competition between makes and females is unfair.

Segregating most sports by sex is a way to celebrate and reward exceptional female athletes.

The top female athletes out perform a few billion males. But in most sports a few thousand males can put perform them.

Hence the need for sex segregated sports.

The exact same argument justifies left handed people having segregated sport. But we don't have that, because having segregated sports based on physiology is a fundamentally stupid idea.

The whole point of sports is to find out which individuals are better than the rest of the competitors.

Being the best basketballer in the under 150cm height division is a more meaningful achievement than being the best female basketballer, because merely being female doesn't make you worse at basketball than someone who is 180cm tall - particularly if you are a 190cm tall woman.

 

[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.

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

Who said we did?

You're just being silly.

That there are some situations where sex segregation is important, doesn't mean it's always required.

 

[TomC]

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

What a bubba.
You've never had to change your pad have you?
Tom

 

[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

Nope. All he has to do is walk in.

The bizarre idea that people need to declare their gender in order to take a leak is utterly baffling to me.

Because you're a guy and don't care about such things.
It's great being a guy, isn't it? Not everyone has that advantage.
Tom

 

[seanie]

That 15 year old school boys routinely beat Women's world records is a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean female athletes aren't exceptional.

But male physiology confers such an advantage in most sports, that direct competition between makes and females is unfair.

Segregating most sports by sex is a way to celebrate and reward exceptional female athletes.

The top female athletes out perform a few billion males. But in most sports a few thousand males can put perform them.

Hence the need for sex segregated sports.

The exact same argument justifies left handed people having segregated sport. But we don't have that, because having segregated sports based on physiology is a fundamentally stupid idea.

You genuinely think that segregating sport by sex is a fundamentally stupid idea?

Then you're beyond reason.

 

[seanie]

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?

We expect people to respect social norms.

Like no males going into female only spaces.

Do you not respect that?

Do you not see how males going into female spaces might be discomforting for females?

 

[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.

Who said we did?

You did.

You're just being silly.

Right back at you.

That there are some situations where sex segregation is important, doesn't mean it's always required.

There are no situations where sex segregation is important.

Assault or harrasment do not require a sex difference in order to occur, nor does their prosecution require any specific sex or gender identity of either defendant or complainant.

Unsegregated changing rooms and bathrooms exist in many places; No increased level of crime is noted in those places.

Most transsexuals use bathrooms without other users even being aware that a transsexual is present. How is this problematic?

This is an entirely fictional problem.

 

[thebeave]

That 15 year old school boys routinely beat Women's world records is a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean female athletes aren't exceptional.

But male physiology confers such an advantage in most sports, that direct competition between makes and females is unfair.

Segregating most sports by sex is a way to celebrate and reward exceptional female athletes.

The top female athletes out perform a few billion males. But in most sports a few thousand males can put perform them.

Hence the need for sex segregated sports.

The exact same argument justifies left handed people having segregated sport. But we don't have that, because having segregated sports based on physiology is a fundamentally stupid idea.

You genuinely think that segregating sport by sex is a fundamentally stupid idea?

Then you're beyond reason.

The women themselves only want to play against women!

 

[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.

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

Who said we did?

You did.

You're just being silly.

That there are some situations where sex segregation is important, doesn't mean it's always required.

Is it a reading comprehension problem?

In many areas of life discrimination on the basis of sex is unjustified.

In some situations it is, to create single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

That's not even controversial. The issue is that you believe males who identify as female should be able to access those spaces, because you don't care about the dignity and rights of females.

 

[Toni]

"Treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin" is something it's possible for everyone to get.

It might be a good ideal, but I actually don't think it's possible.

Quite specifically, it is impossible for everyone to be treated under the law without regard to sex, gender, and religion. Take out the gender bit, and we can make it work almost all the time... but you categorically cannot have reasonably equal treatment when the law allows some males to access female-specific spaces in a way that precludes those female spaces being used by anyone who is muslim or orthodox jewish.

Giving males the legal right to use women's public showers necessarily excludes muslim women from being able to use them.

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

Not at all. Racism is hatred towards people of another race and feelings of superiority over that/those race(s).

Modesty is a religious precept but it’s not restricted to any particular religion or religiin at all.

I dare say anyone here who is a parent of a daughter would be unhappy if their daughters were expected to share showers with men or post pubescent boys. I would be outraged. Nor would I expect my sons to share showers with girls or women.

I have nothing against all gender locker rooms/bathrooms/showers so long as there are sufficient spaces for those who do not wish to share such facilities while unclothed with members of those other than their sex or gender are able have free access to places that accommodate their modesty, whether it is personal or religious based.

I remember as a girl from 12-15 thst many of us found it embarrassing to shower in front of other girls our own age. For the most part, we had all been in school together for years. It was worse that the teacher and her assistant ( a female upper class mate) supervised. Some ‘got used to it’ over the years but others did not. Regardless of religious affiliation ( including mine) and household teachings, some individuals are more modest than others, even within a family. Two of my kids were relatively modest. Two were definitely not. In my family, I was far less modest than my siblings. Shaming individuals for being modest is not an effective method of teaching people to be less modest or inhibited. In fact, modesty is often a part of development during adolescence. Shaming or forcing acceptance is neither kind nor effective in teaching acceotance.

It is particularly cruel to expect the victims of sexual abuse to share intimate spaces where they or others might be undressed, particularly if the other individual visuals are the same sex/gender as their abuser(s).

 

[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?

We expect people to respect social norms.

Yes.

Like no males going into female only spaces.

And like nobody demanding you present your genitals for inspection before you can enter a bathroom.

Do you not respect that?

I do. Do you?

Do you not see how males going into female spaces might be discomforting for females?

Do you not see how asking people to show you their genitals before going into female spaces might be discomforting for everyone?

How do you plan to police this?

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?

 

[seanie]

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

 

[seanie]

And institutions have to have policies that abide by the law and set social norms.

Single sex spaces does actually mean single sex.

 

[seanie]

And if someone wearing a dress walks into the men’s room, uses a stall, washes their hands, and leaves, who are you, or I, or anyone else, to challenge them?

Why should that be a problem?

 

[laughing dog]

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

If this required a ruling from a supreme court, it is reasonable to expect some enforcement sometime somewhere.

 

[TomC]

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

You and me both.

But trying to explain that to the local trans ideologists is like trying to explain biology to a young earth creationist.
It can be amusing, but generally not productive.
Tom

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Well, Australia is worse.

You actually mean Australia is better.

We're not abolishing women's restrooms.

We're just restricting them to females.

No males, however they identify.

Except they are no longer male. It is nothing to do with how they identify.

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

This is being silly.

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.

Except that their "new sex" is their actual sex.

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

You and me both.

But trying to explain that to the local trans ideologists is like trying to explain biology to a young earth creationist.
It can be amusing, but generally not productive.
Tom

Who is being the ideologue here? History will decide, just as it has regarding other issues such as homophobia and racism.
Your attempted analogy is pathetic. especially considering that the topic of sex in biology is much more complex than you know.

 

[bilby]

Who’s policing restrooms?

We’re asking people to respect women’s right to women only spaces.

Everyone already is respecting womens' rights to women only spaces - except you.

If someone thinks she's a woman, and so chooses to use a women's restroom, then she is respecting womens' rights to women only spaces.

So, what are you on about?

The only possible reason for the existence of this discussion is that some people - apparently including you - want YOUR opinion about whether or not that person is a woman to be the criterion for deciding whether she is allowed to use that restroom, in place of HER opinion, which is the longstanding criterion.

But for anyone's opinion of whether someone is a woman, other than that of the person herself, to be usable as a criterion, there needs to be a test.

Somebody needs to police the restroom, demanding that everyone (or at least anyone they opine to be 'suspicious') show physiological evidence to demonstrate that their womanhood complies with YOUR definition.

This is only required if you take the decision about whether or not an individual is a woman away from the individual themselves.

The old, unproblematic, and traditional methodology of just letting everyone decide for themselves and themselves alone, works just fine - but you are asking for that to change. Why?

It can't be to protect restroom users from voyeurs, rapists, or other harrassers; There are already laws and police who will deal with anyone caught comitting offences against other restroom users, and if someone is harassing a restroom user, it matters not one whit what their sex or gender might be - it neither aggravates nor mitigates any offences they commit.