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

[seanie]

That is a nice magical solution. Almost as good as prayer. Seeing there are no third spaces and pushing out "third spaces" isn't viable in existing construction and only viable for future construction, it isn't a solution.

We were talking about prisons.

Put them in a segregated wing of a male prison.

Problem solved.

Exactly. This need to relabel people isn't a good sign. Oh... my bad... it is okay when you do it, because you don't mean anything against it

It’s not relabelling. “Men” and “male” are not being used as terms of insult. They’re an accurate description of reality.

When you say "identify as women" you make it sound like it is a choice. That it is arbitrary.

Would you prefer if I described them as men who consider themselves women? Would that help?

Dude, we can't even get to this point of the discussion, because you refuse to acknowledge that transgenders are legitimate.

What am I refusing to acknowledge?

People can consider themselves to be whatever they want. If a male considers himself to be female that’s fine.

But that doesn’t give them a right to access female only spaces. Because they’re male.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a nice magical solution. Almost as good as prayer. Seeing there are no third spaces and pushing out "third spaces" isn't viable in existing construction and only viable for future construction, it isn't a solution.

We were talking about prisons.

Put them in a segregated wing of a male prison.

Problem solved.

Well, now that we have solved the prison issue by having a separate space and infrastructure already apparently existing, what about... you know... all the other places you are saying they can't go?

Exactly. This need to relabel people isn't a good sign. Oh... my bad... it is okay when you do it, because you don't mean anything against it

It’s not relabelling. “Men” and “male” are not being used as terms of insult. They’re an accurate description of reality.

Yes, it is relabeling. You can self justify it all you want, you are spinning words to create your own narrative on someone else's personal identity.

Dude, we can't even get to this point of the discussion, because you refuse to acknowledge that transgenders are legitimate.

What am I refusing to acknowledge?

*looks below*

People can consider themselves to be whatever they want. If a male considers himself to be female that’s fine.

Yeah, shit like that.

 

[seanie]

Trans women are male. That is their sex. That is just reality.

And you can’t approach the issue of balancing different people’s right’s, without acknowledging that.

Because females have a right to spaces free from males in some circumstances.

All males.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You cought me mistyping. I obviously meant to write "than coal".

Yeah, I'm sure everyone understood. Doesn't mean people aren't going to have some fun with the error.

 

[laughing dog]

Should has nothing to do with it. For the most part, any trans or female impersonator who passes and behaves appropriately has no trouble using women’s facilities. That’s the way it has been working.

And what about all the trans women accessing women’s spaces who don’t pass?

And the vast majority of trans women who have not had surgery or hormone treatments?

How does it work in those instances?

How it works now. Those who pass and act appropriately cause no issue. That is true regardless of the transitional stage they are in.

Those who don’t pass, may or may not cause an issue depending on the reactions of any other users. In the instance(s) when there is no issue, then nothing happens.

Up to this point - no issue arising - is it clear to you? I ask because you seem to need to see the same answer repeated ad naseum.

In the cases where some issue arises, either it is peacefully and privately resolved or it isn’t. When it isn't, then either some authority is brought in to resolve the situation or nothing is resolved.

It seems to me, that you are focusing on the situation(s) where some arise arises and it is not peacefully resolved. Is that the case?

 

[laughing dog]

Trans women are male. That is their sex. That is just reality.

And you can’t approach the issue of balancing different people’s right’s, without acknowledging that.

Because females have a right to spaces free from males in some circumstances.

All males.

Really, so when mothers of young boys take them into the women's (oops, sorry, FEMALE) rest room or locker room, then they are somehow violated your preferred social standard? Just asking, because mothers have been doing this for over 60 years in the USA. And, from the my experience, my brothers, my friends and my wife, there has nary been an incident.

 

[seanie]

Young boys? Like little kids?

I’d be surprised if anyone objected.

So are you saying, that because nobody is likely to object to a young boy, accompanied by their mother, in a female changing room, then any adult male who considers themselves to a woman is fine in that space too?

Have you been kicked in the head by a horse?

 

[seanie]

In the cases where some issue arises, either it is peacefully and privately resolved or it isn’t. When it isn't, then either some authority is brought in to resolve the situation or nothing is resolved.

How is it to be resolved?

Who’s rights take precedence?

Women who want a female only spaces, or the men who want to be in the female only space?

 

[Toni]

That is a nice magical solution. Almost as good as prayer. Seeing there are no third spaces and pushing out "third spaces" isn't viable in existing construction and only viable for future construction, it isn't a solution.

We were talking about prisons.

Put them in a segregated wing of a male prison.

Problem solved.

Exactly. This need to relabel people isn't a good sign. Oh... my bad... it is okay when you do it, because you don't mean anything against it

It’s not relabelling. “Men” and “male” are not being used as terms of insult. They’re an accurate description of reality.

When you say "identify as women" you make it sound like it is a choice. That it is arbitrary.

Would you prefer if I described them as men who consider themselves women? Would that help?

Dude, we can't even get to this point of the discussion, because you refuse to acknowledge that transgenders are legitimate.

What am I refusing to acknowledge?

People can consider themselves to be whatever they want. If a male considers himself to be female that’s fine.

But that doesn’t give them a right to access female only spaces. Because they’re male.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is reality.

I understand that it can be difficult—used to be difficult for me, as well but I processed that reality more than 30 years ago—because I knew someone who was so obviously trans that there was no other explanation.

To tell the truth, in my own life, the situation had never arisen before. And up until then, it was rarely talked about or mentioned except as a crass joke, and even then almost entirely confined to the term transvestite. My first real life experience was second hand: My husband talked about a colleague who transitioned and that took some time to process, but only to remember to use the right name. They were the same person—only much happier. This is not someone I knew myself but my husband talked a bit about it and says once they came out, it made so much sense.

The truth is that western culture has forced people who do not adhere to a very binary expression of self to hide who they really are. Their existence until recently was reduced to a bad joke. Now it seems that their existence fir some has become a boogey man: some poorly defined threat.

Of course there are individuals who have bad intentions or who are prone to violence, including sexual violence.

People are people are people.

I think it is best to believe them when they tell you who they are.

Preferably the first time.

 

[Toni]

Young boys? Like little kids?

I’d be surprised if anyone objected.

So are you saying, that because nobody is likely to object to a young boy, accompanied by their mother, in a female changing room, then any adult male who considers themselves to a woman is fine in that space too?

Have you been kicked in the head by a horse?

You seem to have been.

 

[laughing dog]

Young boys? Like little kids?

I’d be surprised if anyone objected.

So are you saying, that because nobody is likely to object to a young boy, accompanied by their mother, in a female changing room, then any adult male who considers themselves to a woman is fine in that space too?

Have you been kicked in the head by a horse?

You are the one who wrote "
Because females have a right to spaces free from males in some circumstances.

All males. "

To a functionally literate person with reasonable reasoning ability, that means no males allowed. Young boys are males. Hence, they should not be allowed according to your words.

Your response indicates you don't even believe your own standards.

 

[laughing dog]

In the cases where some issue arises, either it is peacefully and privately resolved or it isn’t. When it isn't, then either some authority is brought in to resolve the situation or nothing is resolved.

How is it to be resolved?

Have you been kicked in the head? The same way it is done now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trans women are male.* That is their sex.** That is just reality.***

FIFY

And you can’t approach the issue of balancing different people’s right’s, without acknowledging that.

You refuse to acknowledge them.

Because females have a right to spaces free from males in some circumstances.

Will you please stop pretending like this about women's rights for you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would say coal MINING is much cleaner than fracking.

Dig a hole. Dig out the coal. Put it in a truck and haul it away. Leave an ugly looking hole.

Fracking is drill numerous holes. Pump dangerous toxic chemicals into those holes. Pump out the gas, haul it away. Leave the dangerous chemicals to contaminate the ground and water for decades.

Coal: Leave the stuff you dug out all over the place, turning the area into pretty much wasteland.

 

[seanie]

Have you been kicked in the head? The same way it is done now.

You seem to have missed the rest of the post.

I’ll help you.

Who’s rights take precedence?

Women who want a female only spaces, or the men who want to be in the female only space?

When I asked about how it was to be resolved, I was asking what you thought the outcome should be.

Which side would you tend to favour?

The women who want a female only space, or the men who consider themselves women who want to access it?

 

[Toni]

Trans women are male.* That is their sex.** That is just reality.***

FIFY

And you can’t approach the issue of balancing different people’s right’s, without acknowledging that.

You refuse to acknowledge them.

Because females have a right to spaces free from males in some circumstances.

Will you please stop pretending like this about women's rights for you?

But I don’t think it is about pretending.

What I think exactly zero men in this thread understand or acknowledge is that for cis women, it genuinely is at least partly about women’s rights.

Men have always had male only spaces. Largely, the world has been a male only space, with the rest of us allowed to exist on the margins, in certain niches, in certain utilitarian spaces. There are still places in the world where girls and women are not allowed to be outside their own homes unless accompanied by a male member of their family—even if it is a mother or grandmother accompanied by a three year old son or grandson.

Women’s gyms and spas and locker rooms are a pretty recent phenomenon. The right to have our own spaces outside the home ( or church) has been a hard fought battle.

Then consider that women have been expected to exist primarily in service to others. Our bodies are used in service to men for sex, to provide heirs, to make and keep a home, to feed—cooking and raising food and providing food with our own bodies. There’s a lot of emotional labor involved—we create and manage relationships and connections so that men don’t have to. Because it is hard work to try to keep everyone happy.

And pretty often it means suppressing our selves: our wishes, hopes, dreams—needs. We are taught that these are all secondary, but reality: tertiary, is the best we can expect. Not that we should expect ….anything.

We are taught that one of the worst things we can be is selfish.

And now, we are being expected to just accept when someone who has a male appearance wants to be in intimate spaces with us.

We’re bigots if we don’t embrace this. If we feel concerns over physical safety or modesty are at risk.

You know why we are afraid, don’t you?

Men. You guys. Who are the biggest dangers to our existence. Who beat and rape and murder us, kidnap us, keep us as sex slaves or incubators or maids or cooks and mommies.

Who make the rules that the rest of us ( but not you) must follow. Someone acknowledged that a person with a female appearing body would likely not fare well in a men’s locker room. I’m guessing lot of gay guys don’t feel comfortable—with good reason! in a lot of male restrooms or locker rooms/showers.

I’ve talked with more than one man who is affronted, horrified, offended that some woman or another seems to not feel safe around them or at least to consider the possibility that they might not be safe so they bring along a friend.

I totally get why that’s upsetting.

Now: Try to imagine being a person who must constantly evaluate whether or not they are physically safe, whether the person they just met and think they like might beat them or rape them. Kill them. Imagine being married to someone who might beat, rape or kill you.

And of course if you are beaten or raped, you are blamed for not knowing better. For wearing that skirt or blouse or those jeans that show your ass or shoes you can’t run in. For provoking lust or anger or both. If you were better behaved, he would not have done that.

The threat of physical violence, of rape, is still very casually, very subtly used to keep women in line.

That’s a bit more upsetting, I think.

Now obviously, not all men and of course men can be and are victims of all sorts of violence including rape and women commit all sorts of violence against men and other women and too often, children.

But men are not raised to be afraid of being raped. I’m well aware that men have a lot of structures and constraints placed upon/against them and that those are often enforced by physical and sexual violence. And emotional violence as well. But mostly committed by men.

From my woman perch it seems to be very very rich for all you dudes to wave away a woman’s fears or concerns or mild reluctance to accept a male appearing person in the shower next to us.

It feels like some of you are saying: You want to be equal? You want to have the same rights as men? Hah: now YOU deal with the weirdo that creeps us out. Take your medicine! And I hope you choke on it!

Now, obviously not all men and not all male posters on this it similar threads.

But I get a whiff of that.

So yes, I totally believe that sex is not only binary and gender is a broad range and that everyone deserves love and acceptance. Full stop.

I might be a bit taken aback if I encountered a masculine looking individual in the ladies room or in the shower next to me. I hope that I would have the presence of mind and grace to accept that person without fear and without making them feel uncomfortable.

But that might not happen 100% of the time.

So who am I to judge other people for feeling uncomfortable or even frightened?

And who are any of us?

I’m sorry if I wrote some things that make you uncomfortable or angry or hurt your feelings.

But that’s not as bad as having to worry about being raped.

Abd blamed for it.

And maybe being forced to carry a resulting pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not what's been going on here, though. That's a self-congratulatory myth progressivism trains its believers to tell themselves about their interactions with the infidel. What you and other progressives here have been posting in support of, and what others have posted in opposition to, are not basic human rights. Where do you think you are, a same-sex-marriage thread? This is a thread about Affirmative Action. I.e., it's a squabble over the merits of progressives' prevailing practice of putting their thumb on the scale when individuals are being compared for purposes of selecting candidates for jobs, slots in colleges, contracts and so forth, in order to make up for the disadvantages candidates in selected groups face as a result of the lingering effects of other thumb-on-the-scale actions that had been previously taken against those groups. Progressives classify groups as oppressed or oppressor, privileged or underrepresented, advantaged or disadvantaged, call it what you will, and are here advocating that decision-makers apply quotas or points or extra consideration or what have you, on behalf of candidates in the selected groups -- the oppressed/underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Having such extra considerations applied on ones behalf is not a basic human right. Mathematically, it doesn't work if all groups are selected. You can't put your thumb on the scale in favor of everybody. When you apply a preference for one race/sex/caste, that means you're applying a preference against some other race/sex/caste. So that means if Affirmative Action is a right at all, whatever kind of right it is is not a human right. Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

Completely unacceptable, there's no way to wiggle out of this reality. Not only have you proclaimed the King's attire but you have demonstrated the lack thereof.

 

[seanie]

You refuse to acknowledge them.

I absolutely acknowledge there are men with a very deep conviction that they are women.

And that’s mostly fine.

But they shouldn’t be given access to female only spaces, because they’re not female.

You’d have to have a real disregard for the rights of females to suggest otherwise.

 

[seanie]

Will you please stop pretending like this about women's rights for you?

It’s entirely about women’s rights for me.

In some situations women are entitled to spaces free from men.

All men.

Including the men who consider themselves to be women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not live in India and I do not believe in a caste system which even India is in theory attempting to abolish. But bigotry is difficult to root out wherever one is.

He was using "caste" in a more general sense, not in regard to the Indian system.

I think it IS a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin. This includes access to education, health care, employment, housing, and marriage and marital status.

And we agree on this.

A lot of people believe that affirmative action or DEI policies need to be eliminated as no longer being necessary or as counter productive. I think there can be an argument made for this but my observations IRL do not agree. And I live in a somewhat blue state in a university town. I hear too much from friends who are professors at public universities about being targeted and their fitness questioned by students based in the way they look: that is, not white. Not things that happened 20 years ago but this that happened this academic year.

Sure it's because of skin color? What specifically are they saying about the professors?

One obvious bit of evidence ( not my observation,) is the current administration’s scrubbing of mentions of the history of non-white males from mention in various institutions and, for example, the nomination and confirmation of people such as Pete Hegseth who sports white nationalist tattoos and expresses the opinion that women and non-straight, non-cis individuals do not belong in the military while scrubbing their mention from military academies.

And this is supposed to be evidence?! Yeah, we elected a bunch of Nazis--I'm sure discrimination is going to return and in a big way. Once again, though, it comes down to time. You are using events from other times as evidence for the current situation.