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

[seanie]

And I’m still waiting an explanation as to why convicted men who consider themselves to be women should “obviously” go to the women’s prison.

Because, to me, that seems obviously batshit crazy.

 

[seanie]

People are people are people.

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

“Dear Toni,

I am a prince from Nigeria. Your help would be very much appreciated…”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the fundamental disconnect in this discussion is that Bomb#20 is somehow convinced that the racism in America is a thing only found in the past. We need to put affirmative weight on the scale because of the current unjust and oppressive weight on scales all over this country TODAY.

The problem is we keep finding the "evidence" for current discrimination to be seriously lacking. It's consistently taking evidence of an unequal outcome as proof of discrimination, virtually never applying the obvious control of socioeconomic status. And when it is applied the evidence fails to support the notion that it's race that's relevant. When you find something supported by a pile of flawed evidence but a lack of good evidence the reasonable conclusion is that the something is false.

 

[Toni]

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.

Yes it IS because of skin color and a not fully midwestern American accent—although impeccable English. Nor European names, although ones family name is very Greek. That’s just unusual around here. In all cases, the persons I’m referring to have spoken English their entire lives. They studied at English speaking universities, did their research, wrote their dissertations in English. Their English is at least as good as mine.

One was asked —this past academic year—if they were sure they belonged here. Multiple individuals have had students report them as being too difficult to understand , which is so absolutely ridiculous that I’m spluttering again/still as I write those words. Admin was supportive but still, it happens.

And all of that would disappear if they were blonde and blue eyed.

Your last paragraph is simply inconsistent nonsense. I won’t bother even trying.

 

[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?

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.

And I get that for Emily Lake and yourself, and myself and other, yeah. There is a component to this discussion that needs to address the rights of women. This isn't an either/or thing, though the infrastructure does complicate matters. Which makes this a very complicated problem because the path to the solution doesn't exist.

My specific problem are the people who are pretending their personal position has to do with women's rights. They are just using it as a cover for their anti-transgender bigotry which I find terribly disingenuous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You refuse to acknowledge them.

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

*rolls eyes*

And that’s mostly fine.

*rolls eyes into knots*

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

Your position is founded on nothing that has anything to do with women, their privacy, their dignity, their rights. It has to do with your ignorance and distaste of transgenders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Am I misunderstanding the word previously here? (emphasis mine)

(snip)
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.
(snip)

There are demonstrable harms that are done against people who aren't white cis het able males and DEIA is an attempt to redress those harms.

I think the fundamental disconnect in this discussion is that Bomb#20 is somehow convinced that the racism in America is a thing only found in the past. We need to put affirmative weight on the scale because of the current unjust and oppressive weight on scales all over this country TODAY.

Why did you write that? You didn't see anything in any of my posts implying I think racism in America is a thing only found in the past. That's a figment of your imagination. You appear to be assigning opinions to me based on what a religion teaches its believers to assume about infidels.

Note: "redress". Without a time machine you can't redress them. In practice you end up discriminating against completely innocent individuals, not against those who did wrong.

Rights are something individuals possess. Not groups. Clearly employers are rampantly discriminating because they pay more to those tho work 60hr/wk than those who work 20hr/wk!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you see it...

View attachment 50342

No, it’s not photoshop.

While Eric Schmitt complains about DEI, his staff created a graphic with the word “miltary” written for all to see…

I don’t see any women or Black folks represented…a little DEI may have avoided this blunder.

1) The person in the back right seems female to me, although not enough is visible to be sure.

2) We elected Nazis. Showing that they discriminate says nothing about the past.

 

[seanie]

Your position is founded on nothing that has anything to do with women, their privacy, their dignity, their rights. It has to do with your ignorance and distaste of transgenders.

What evidence supports this contention?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

and DEIA is an attempt to redress those harms.

That doesn't follow.

It follows. It's just it's not a correct attempt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actual equality of opportunity does not mean second-class citizenship for white males,

True. But so-called "affirmative action" and "DEI" policies are antithetical to "actual equality of opportunity". That's the whole point of the criticism of them.

View attachment 50350

Let's look at that more carefully.

You're advocating for simply handing the kids what the guy on the left spent years on. Why should he see that as remotely fair?

And, they're all pirates anyway!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

by 1886 in American English in reference to a type of hound bred in the South, with a red or red and tan coat, used especially to hunt raccoons and fugitives. The name probably has some connection to the term Redbone as used in 19c. southern U.S. to denote a mulatto or mixed-race culture.

From here.

Bold by me.

And here, in the 21st century, we have Derec using the word to describe … the woman who ran for president.

How pathetic. And how utterly unsurprising.

I know nothing of the history of the word, never having run into it before.

But: here we have Derec using the word to describe someone who is of mixed race. Exactly as your quote defines it. Your quote does not say it's a derogatory term.

 

[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.

And I get that for Emily Lake and yourself, and myself and other, yeah. There is a component to this discussion that needs to address the rights of women. This isn't an either/or thing, though the infrastructure does complicate matters. Which makes this a very complicated problem because the path to the solution doesn't exist.

My specific problem are the people who are pretending their personal position has to do with women's rights. They are just using it as a cover for their anti-transgender bigotry which I find terribly disingenuous.

I sometimes think the same: it’s just anti-trans bigotry. But we never know what other people have experienced, what trauma has been inflicted. It would be very difficult for a rape victim to suddenly be confronted by someone with an exposed penis in a place where they do not expect to see any male body.

There are a lot of rape victims out there.

Victims of sexual assault constantly evaluate and reevaluate what they missed, what mistake they made, how could they not have known? As if perfect behavior and perfect intuition would be 100% effective.

It’s not.

And some people just struggle more with change, with ambiguity, with shades of gray, never mind a whole exploding rainbow.

There is a definite clash between needs/perceived needs here. I think we can all agree that everyone deserves to feel safe and accepted. But some subset of cis women will feel unsafe with male appearing bodies in intimate spaces. And at least some if not most or all trans people really need to feel accepted as they are.

Of course there is some bigotry involved from some people. But given that I hear crickets from cis makes about what THEY can do to help trans men and trans women and cis women feel safe and accepted, I don’t think men are in the best position to throw stones here.

Of course #NotAllMen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

M

Your position is founded on nothing that has anything to do with women, their privacy, their dignity, their rights. It has to do with your ignorance and distaste of transgenders.

What evidence supports this contention?

Most of your posts and the passive-aggressiveness oozing out of them when it comes to transgender women.

 

[Toni]

by 1886 in American English in reference to a type of hound bred in the South, with a red or red and tan coat, used especially to hunt raccoons and fugitives. The name probably has some connection to the term Redbone as used in 19c. southern U.S. to denote a mulatto or mixed-race culture.

From here.

Bold by me.

And here, in the 21st century, we have Derec using the word to describe … the woman who ran for president.

How pathetic. And how utterly unsurprising.

I know nothing of the history of the word, never having run into it before.

But: here we have Derec using the word to describe someone who is of mixed race. Exactly as your quote defines it. Your quote does not say it's a derogatory term.

Of course equating a human being with an animal, particularly one in service to human masters is derogatory. You do not think all if the various terms used to relegate persons of color as being only important as it relates to what portion of a person’s ancestry is white and what portion is not white is anything other than derogatory. You are not stupid even if you play the part sometimes.

We’re not playing along so knock it off.

 

[Playball40]

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.

And I get that for Emily Lake and yourself, and myself and other, yeah. There is a component to this discussion that needs to address the rights of women. This isn't an either/or thing, though the infrastructure does complicate matters. Which makes this a very complicated problem because the path to the solution doesn't exist.

My specific problem are the people who are pretending their personal position has to do with women's rights. They are just using it as a cover for their anti-transgender bigotry which I find terribly disingenuous.

I sometimes think the sane: it’s just anti-trans bigotry. But we never know what other people have experienced, what trauma has been inflicted. It would be very difficult for a rape victim to suddenly be confronted by someone with an exposed penis in a place where they do not expect to see any male body.

There are a lot of rape victims out there.

Victims of sexual assault constantly evaluate and reevaluate what they missed, what mistake they made, how could they not have known? As if perfect behavior and perfect intuition would be 100% effective.

It’s not.

And some people just struggle more with change, with ambiguity, with shades of gray, never mind a whole exploding rainbow.

There is a definite clash between needs/perceived needs here. I think we can all agree that everyone deserves to feel safe and accepted. But some subset of cis women will feel unsafe with male appearing bodies in intimate spaces. And at least some if not most or all trans people really need to feel accepted as they are.

Of course there is some bigotry involved from some people. But given that I hear crickets from cis makes about what THEY can do to help trans men and trans women and cis women feel safe and accepted, I don’t think men are in the best position to throw stones here.

Of course #NotAllMen.

In what women's restroom would you see an "exposed penis" from a TG woman? There are no OPEN urinals in women's restrooms. And 'fear' of rape is not, in my opinion, a reasonable argument against TG women using the women's restroom. If a MAN wanted to enter the restroom for nefarious reasons, they would have done so already. The number of 'rapes' by men pretending to be women in bathrooms is effectively nill and not significant enough to deny rights to TG men and women.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a definite clash between needs/perceived needs here. I think we can all agree that everyone deserves to feel safe and accepted. But some subset of cis women will feel unsafe with male appearing bodies in intimate spaces. And at least some if not most or all trans people really need to feel accepted as they are.

Indeed. As I noted earlier, transgenders are effectively homeless. There is no real place for them. Women need their spots and trying accommodate transgender women in many of those locations isn't very feasible.

And that is the "easy" part to solve. But we can't cross that bridge that is in pieces until there is an acceptance of transgender folk, which is probably a few decades down the road.

Of course there is some bigotry involved from some people. But given that I hear crickets from cis makes about what THEY can do to help trans men and trans women and cis women feel safe and accepted, I don’t think men are in the best position to throw stones here.

Screw that, I'm throwing stones! We've got at least a few here that are full of shit about their bogus 'won't someone think of the women' bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I missed nothing. Apparently you have no clue what "The same way it is done now" means.

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?

I favor the side of women.

 

[seanie]

And what do you mean by the word “women” when you say that?

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

 

[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.

And I get that for Emily Lake and yourself, and myself and other, yeah. There is a component to this discussion that needs to address the rights of women. This isn't an either/or thing, though the infrastructure does complicate matters. Which makes this a very complicated problem because the path to the solution doesn't exist.

My specific problem are the people who are pretending their personal position has to do with women's rights. They are just using it as a cover for their anti-transgender bigotry which I find terribly disingenuous.

I sometimes think the sane: it’s just anti-trans bigotry. But we never know what other people have experienced, what trauma has been inflicted. It would be very difficult for a rape victim to suddenly be confronted by someone with an exposed penis in a place where they do not expect to see any male body.

There are a lot of rape victims out there.

Victims of sexual assault constantly evaluate and reevaluate what they missed, what mistake they made, how could they not have known? As if perfect behavior and perfect intuition would be 100% effective.

It’s not.

And some people just struggle more with change, with ambiguity, with shades of gray, never mind a whole exploding rainbow.

There is a definite clash between needs/perceived needs here. I think we can all agree that everyone deserves to feel safe and accepted. But some subset of cis women will feel unsafe with male appearing bodies in intimate spaces. And at least some if not most or all trans people really need to feel accepted as they are.

Of course there is some bigotry involved from some people. But given that I hear crickets from cis makes about what THEY can do to help trans men and trans women and cis women feel safe and accepted, I don’t think men are in the best position to throw stones here.

Of course #NotAllMen.

In what women's restroom would you see an "exposed penis" from a TG woman? There are no OPEN urinals in women's restrooms. And 'fear' of rape is not, in my opinion, a reasonable argument against TG women using the women's restroom. If a MAN wanted to enter the restroom for nefarious reasons, they would have done so already. The number of 'rapes' by men pretending to be women in bathrooms is effectively nill and not significant enough to deny rights to TG men and women.

I absolutely agree that the treating rape by a trans woman is vanishingly small. It’s not non-zero if we believe some of he links provided in various threads.

I wasn’t necessarily talking about restrooms —sorry if I was unclear or typed wrong. But there are women’s dressing rooms and showers without 100% enclosed stalls. So definitely possibility of seeing an unexpected penis.

In my dormitory, the women’s restrooms had urinals. Previously that area had been designated for men.

And yeah, sometimes there were men in the women’s restroom, usually showering with their girlfriend. Generally not a problem but I can think of one or two guys who lived in my dorm whose presence in the women’s restroom would definitely have been very very threatening. Not trans at all. Just wears af in a very rapey way. As in these were guys I went way out of my way to try to keep them from knowing which was my room, to the extent that I sometimes walked the whole way up the stairs to the 11th floor to avoid being in the elevator with them

But given that we are talking about an instant reaction—not everyone will immediately think: trans woman. Many if not most might immediately see threat, even if there is no actual threat. And will have to, in the moment, suppress that reaction and be concerned more about making the other person feel comfortable than about their own feelings.

Yep, sounds like exactly what is always expected of women.

I don’t mean to be glib. I genuinely think that everybody should be able to feel safe and accepted and to be safe and accepted.