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

[seanie]

For all those horrified at single sex spaces being actually single sex, because “genital inspection” or an invasion of privacy, what are you suggesting?

That anyone goes wherever they want?

Changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, sports, rape crisis counselling sessions, restrooms?

Every individual just decides for themself?

Clearly some of the more hard of thinking believe that, but if you’re not deranged, what are your suggestions?

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you hate men?

I don't hate men. I'm generally fond of most men. That said, I also value my privacy, and I am aware that some men are a risk to women. I simply don't think that women should be required to surrender sex-specific intimate spaces so that some men with professed gender identity issues can have happier feels.

“happier feels” is a rather dismissive view of transwomen. I’ve known a couple of men who went through the entire transformative process.
It was painful in many dimensions, but they emerged better people. They easily passed as cis women. If they used men’s restrooms, they caused a problem. Explain why such people should be denied the use of the restroom of their choice because of someone’s fears?

This issue is thorny but simple one size fits all is not going to make it go away.

And let's be honest about this. If you give ANY men of any sort the privilege of using female sex-specific spaces, you end up giving that privilege to ALL men. Because there's literally no way at all to tell who is a male with a gender identity issue and who's a male exploiting the enormous loophole. Any man at all can simply claim to be trans and have the run of the place.

Bullshit.

 

[seanie]

If you’re premise is self-ID then of course that will happen.

Wi-Spa.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the consequence of giving men the legal right to use women's restrooms on the basis of their magic words.

It is a possible consequence in some cases.

In what cases is it NOT a consequence?

When it doesn’t happen. Duh

I don't even have words for this.

And yet you spewed a dystopian vision of stupidness.

Any man who wants to flash his junk at women doesn’t need to go into private spaces .

I don’t know what goes on in women’s restrooms, but I seriously doubt any man wanting to see boobies would infiltrate a restroom to do so. A locker room, yes. Restroom, no.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you hate men?

I don't hate men. I'm generally fond of most men. That said, I also value my privacy, and I am aware that some men are a risk to women. I simply don't think that women should be required to surrender sex-specific intimate spaces so that some men with professed gender identity issues can have happier feels.

“happier feels” is a rather dismissive view of transwomen. I’ve known a couple of men who went through the entire transformative process.
It was painful in many dimensions, but they emerged better people. They easily passed as cis women. If they used men’s restrooms, they caused a problem. Explain why such people should be denied the use of the restroom of their choice because of someone’s fears?

This issue is thorny but simple one size fits all is not going to make it go away.

Here's the reality: if someone ACTUALLY passes, they're not going to get challenged. Because they pass. Passing means that nobody can tell, and if nobody can tell, then nobody can tell. It's not ideal by any means, but if you can successfully cheat and not get caught, then you succeed. So if a man has all the surgeries, including all the ffm and tracheal shaving, and behaves appropriately, then hooray for him, he gets away with it.

But most do NOT pass. And the men who've made this an issue don't pass at all, and furthermore don't think that they should even have to try to pass - they genuinely think that them simply *saying* that they're women is enough. And I very strongly disagree.

And let's be honest about this. If you give ANY men of any sort the privilege of using female sex-specific spaces, you end up giving that privilege to ALL men. Because there's literally no way at all to tell who is a male with a gender identity issue and who's a male exploiting the enormous loophole. Any man at all can simply claim to be trans and have the run of the place.

Bullshit.

Educate me on how to tell the difference.

 

[seanie]

I’ve known a couple of men who went through the entire transformative process.
It was painful in many dimensions, but they emerged better people. They easily passed as cis women.

So men then.

Men who “pass” as women.

But still men.

Maybe men should be more accepting of other men who are gender non-conforming?

Accept them into male spaces?

Given that they are male?

Just a thought.

 

[seanie]

Or is “passing” an important metric?

Given you highlighted that?

So should access for males to female only spaces be based on “passing”?

How’s that going to work?

 

[laughing dog]

I’ve known a couple of men who went through the entire transformative process.
It was painful in many dimensions, but they emerged better people. They easily passed as cis women.

So men then.

Men who “pass” as women.

But still men.

Maybe men should be more accepting of other men who are gender non-conforming?

Accept them into male spaces?

Given that they are male?

Just a thought.

Since they aren’t men, think better.

 

[laughing dog]

Or is “passing” an important metric?

Given you highlighted that?

So should access for males to female only spaces be based on “passing”?

How’s that going to work?

The way it’s worked up to now. Duh.

 

[seanie]

You said they were men.

Whatever surgeries or hormone treatments they’ve undertaken, and regardless of how well they “pass”, they’re still men.

Men who identify as women.

Which is absolutely fine.

In most circumstances, but not all.

 

[seanie]

Or is “passing” an important metric?

Given you highlighted that?

So should access for males to female only spaces be based on “passing”?

How’s that going to work?

The way it’s worked up to now. Duh.

Explain.

Should male access to female spaces be based on “passing”, or not?

If not, what’s the importance you attach to “passing”?

 

[seanie]

I’ve known a couple of men who went through the entire transformative process.
It was painful in many dimensions, but they emerged better people. They easily passed as cis women.

So men then.

Men who “pass” as women.

But still men.

Maybe men should be more accepting of other men who are gender non-conforming?

Accept them into male spaces?

Given that they are male?

Just a thought.

Since they aren’t men, think better.

You said they were men.

Whatever they’ve done to make themselves “pass”, they’re still men.

 

[seanie]

so at what point does a biological male become a woman?

Surgery?

Hormones?

Or just if they say so?

Could you show your workings?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The objective should be equality. Not inflicting past harms on the innocent as a form of redress.

Nobody is inflicting harm on white men!

Please take your head out of your ass
And actually start considering people who are not male and not white as being every bit as worthy of being considered as white men.

When you refuse to consider them for a position you are inflicting harm on them.

There have been multiple discrimination lawsuits because white males were being unfairly excluded. Never have I heard a defense that the claims were false.

What is it that makes you so certain that white men are the best candidates??

I'm not saying they are the best candidates. I'm saying they are the ones being discriminated against. When you give a preference to a non-white that means a white near the cutoff gets excluded in exchange for an inferior candidate. It's the inevitable result of preferences. Except in some very narrow situations skin color should not be involved in the decision in any way. No preferences in either direction. Anonymize those college applications.

 

[seanie]

Could you take this discussion elsewhere?

It’s not directly relevant to the OP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The objective should be equality. Not inflicting past harms on the innocent as a form of redress.

It IS equality now (that is the point). ALL persons are considered for positions. Not just white, cis-gen males. How do you NOT see this? That in many instances the best choice is NOT A WHITE MALE. NO ONE is excluding white men - they are just considering ALL options and choosing the best one. In Biden's case, that was a black woman. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

No. In Biden's case he said he was specifically selecting a black woman before naming her. That clearly means "black" and "woman" come ahead of "best". It does not say that she wasn't best, but that we simply don't know because others weren't evaluated. I want all options considered, no thumb on the scale over race, gender, sexuality or any other irrelevant attribute.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The objective should be equality. Not inflicting past harms on the innocent as a form of redress.

It IS equality now (that is the point). ALL persons are considered for positions. Not just white, cis-gen males. How do you NOT see this? That in many instances the best choice is NOT A WHITE MALE. NO ONE is excluding white men - they are just considering ALL options and choosing the best one. In Biden's case, that was a black woman. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

And Harris was the best possible candidate? She was the ONLY candidate. She didn't even make it a full year in her 2020 campaign, and she polling in the single digits by that point. The Democratic Party didn't take a look around to see who had the best chance at winning; they chose someone based on their ideology.

P.S. Don't refer to me as "cis" anything. It's an insult. I didn't ask for that moniker and neither did anyone else. It's a petty shot at 90% of the population and all the "It's a scientific term!" disingenuous bullshit is just that: bullshit.

No, it doesn't, if they are the most qualified to teach the student population. And where were you when the vast majority of college professors were white and male only? Did that not cause the same outrage?

If it had been the other way around you would have been complaining about clear discrimination. But when it's non-white over white you say "if they are the most qualified".

And how is "cis" an insult?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2. I don't want empathy. You're willfully mischaracterizing what I said. What I want is to not be told that I'm an oppressor when I'm not. I tried to intellectualize it for the past 20+ years before finally throwing up my hands and saying fuck it because it resulted in Trump becoming POTUS. How out of fucking touch must a party be to lose to Trump twice? How did the Dems lose the union vote? How did any of this happen???

FFS. who is pointing to you and showing that your actions are oppressive. Generalizations are about PREDOMINANT things.

Or are you disagreeing that historically, that white men have been oppressive in Western Civilization>

Historically, yes. But you continue to treat white males as if they are the oppressors of old. ....

No, I don't.

You keep comparing evidence of modern discrimination against white males by referring to when white males were the ones doing the discriminating.

Not only do you keep accusing the innocent of oppression but you treat them as so stupid they can't comprehend they are oppressing.

Having one's feelings bruised is not oppression.

You're doing it again. Pretending that there's nothing there to see.

One explanation is backlash. People are driven away, angered into spite voting, or they just lose interest. The other is that the Democratic party is run by incompetent, iron-bubble asshats who would rather double down on losing social issues than win elections that would allow at least some measure of progress.

The backlash is real even if it mostly snowflake behavior. Which means that the Democrats have to figure out a way to somehow deal with that backlash and move forward.

It's not snowflake. And what they need to do is stop standing on the side of oppression.

I have heard enough from like Colonel Saunders, they are snowflakes. Just like Trump - imagining themselves as victims when they are not.

And you're doing it again, saying they aren't victims.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, so now it's just peeping that's the crime we're trying to prevent. Which is weird, because you have gone on and on about how much time you spend looking at other women's genitals in bathrooms.

It's fairly transparent, of course, that one end goal of this line of thinking is the banning of gays from the same spaces. Once you've gotten what you want with regard to trans people but still need something to campaign about, the next group to be accused of future crimes will be obvious.

 

[Politesse]

Every individual just decides for themself?

That is how things have worked for centuries, before the alt-right got everyone up in a froth.