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

[laughing dog]

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.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

I mean women as opposed to females. That includes women who used to men but are no longer men. That includes anyone who seriously and truthfully considers themselves a woman. It does not include males pretending to be women for ulterior purposes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... 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. ... Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

...
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.

"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. So that's something that could well be a basic human right: a right of all humans. This is in contrast to getting treated under the law as though "at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. are positive attributes". When the law treats any person's gender, sex, race or religion as a positive attribute, it is necessarily treating someone else's gender, sex, race or religion as a negative attribute. So it cannot be a basic human right to be treated under the law as though your gender, sex, race, or religion is a positive attribute.

All that is fine as far as it goes. The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia, there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

Mind explaining how your response is in any way relevant to what he said?

 

[seanie]

In what way is the term “women”, opposed to the term “females”?

Can you explain exactly what you mean by the word “women”?

 

[laughing dog]

... 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. ... Human rights are by definition the rights of all humans.

...
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.

"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. So that's something that could well be a basic human right: a right of all humans. This is in contrast to getting treated under the law as though "at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. are positive attributes". When the law treats any person's gender, sex, race or religion as a positive attribute, it is necessarily treating someone else's gender, sex, race or religion as a negative attribute. So it cannot be a basic human right to be treated under the law as though your gender, sex, race, or religion is a positive attribute.

All that is fine as far as it goes. The problem is, although you say you think it is a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin, you do not act like you think it's a basic human right. You keep having conversations with other posters in which they argue in favor of the law treating every human without regard to race, sex and so forth, and you keep replying to their arguments with trumped-up ad hominem attacks in which you insist, without evidence, that they are insincere and actually want the law to treat some race or other as a positive attribute. I think I counted nine times in this thread you did it just to Loren. That is not the behavior of a person who takes seriously a basic human right to be treated under the law without regard to skin color, race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. That is the behavior of a person who uncritically believes the anti-infidel slanders her ideology supplies its believers with to delude them into not applying critical thought to the double-standards the ideology uses to try to justify advancing the interests of ingroup members by violating the human rights of outgroup members, all the while hypocritically insisting it cares about human rights and the infidel do not. Ideologies are destructive parasitic memes. They're religions. Free yourself from them.

Ignoring the hysterical irony of that patronizing tribal apologia, there is no necessary inconsistency between private discourse etiquette and standards under the law.

Mind explaining how your response is in any way relevant to what he said?

I don't know what you don't understand. The bold-faced is relevant to his argument. People can favor behavioral standards for the law that they do not adhere to in private matters. So a poster can certainly favor treatment in the legal system that is not expected outside of the legal spher.

 

[laughing dog]

In what way is the term “women”, opposed to the term “females”?

A female is not necessarily a woman. If you don't know the difference, you really have no business in this thread/

Can you explain exactly what you mean by the word “women”?

Yes.

 

[Politesse]

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.

What other issues do you see as key to women's rights in Britain?

 

[seanie]

In what way is the term “women”, opposed to the term “females”?

A female is not necessarily a woman. If you don't know the difference, you really have no business in this thread/

Can you explain exactly what you mean by the word “women”?

Yes.

So you're opposed to females of other species having access to women only spaces?

And girls?

Not sure where you're going with this.

Have you thought this through?

 

[seanie]

What other issues do you see as key to women's rights in Britain?

Reducing male violence against women. The appallingly low rate of rape convictions. Adding misogyny as an aggravating factor in crime?

Legally, the current framework is largely fine, the problem is still a cultural one.

The male perspective still dominates, it's still taken as the default.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My opposition to fracking is not based upon emotion but upon actual evidence (some seen with my own eyes) of the damage that the practice does to the environment. As mentioned before: in order to frack, one must obtain a certain type of sand that is mined via strip mines, which is damaging just like strip mining for coal is damaging. This is not emotion-based although I'm beginning to think that your love affair with fracking is emotion based. The pipelines you are so enamored with in fact endanger water supplies. I realize that this does not happen near where you live but it does happen to be an issue where I live. I honestly cannot remember a time in my life when I did not oppose coal mines, at least once I was aware of the fact that there were coal mines and the damage they did to the miners and to the environment. We agree there. I am not willing to embrace increasing nuclear energy because of the potential for serious environmental harm and the danger to humans and other living things in the event of an accident.

The problem here is that some choice must be made. Coal/fracking/nuclear. Pick one. And since people won't pick nuclear that leaves coal vs fracking.

You can't make a sane choice in this by looking at the damage from one of them. You have to compare the dangers and that's not something that can be done from the see it with your own eyes distance.

 

[seanie]

I mean women as opposed to females. That includes women who used to men but are no longer men. That includes anyone who seriously and truthfully considers themselves a woman. It does not include males pretending to be women for ulterior purposes.

And they changed from being men to no longer being men, by seriously and truthfully considering themselves to be women?

Pinkie promise?

 

[seanie]

Thank fuck someone has finally found a clear and well delineated definition for the purposes of policy and law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we need to accept that 'intersex' is a biological reality and stop clinging to outdated concepts of strict duality in nature.

By the time you are at human scale I very much doubt there are any strict dualities. Rather, it's a matter of how many outliers there are and how they should be handled.

Personally, I think it's a political wedge issue, not a real problem. We simply have no evidence of anyone who is living as the other gender using that for sexual exploitation. And use the bathroom that matches how you look works a lot better than use the bathroom that matches your genetics. And are you going to make it illegal to make oneself look like the other sex? What about those who naturally look unlike their sex? You end up with a whole bunch of headaches if you try to play bathroom police.

The only case I consider problematic is sports. Does male puberty produce meaningful lasting changes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

And how is that not a 100% correspondence with the issue?

 

[seanie]

"Sir, we've a double rapist."

"And?"

"Well, the thing is, he wants to go to the women's prison."

"The women's prison? A double rapist? Are you mad?"

"Well, he says he's a woman, Sir?"

"Have you asked him if he seriously and truthfully considers himself a woman?"

" Yes, Sir. He said yes."

"Good god man! Have you no respect? Of course she should go to the women's prison!"

 

[seanie]

The only case I consider problematic is sports. Does male puberty produce meaningful lasting changes?

Yes.

It does.

Do some reading.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is real darned patriarchal. And it completely ignores the fact that men are a much bigger security threat to women than vice versa. It's giving special rights to men, as usual.
Tom

Zero is a mighty big number.

Because zero is the number of sexual assaults committed by individuals in restrooms with penises but living as women.

Or perhaps the number should be -1 as there has been one trans rape in the bathroom, but it went the other way.

 

[seanie]

 

[Arctish]

"Sir, we've a double rapist."

"And?"

"Well, the thing is, he wants to go to the women's prison."

"The women's prison? A double rapist? Are you mad?"

"Well, he says he's a woman, Sir?"

"Have you asked him if he seriously and truthfully considers himself a woman?"

" Yes, Sir. He said yes."

"Good god man! Have you no respect? Of course she should go to the women's prison!"

"Should we put her in a two-bunk cell with another inmate?"

"If we can ensure her cellmate's safety, perhaps, but it would be better to assign her a single bunk cell. We don't want violent offenders locked in with potential victims. And we will, of course, continue to monitor public spaces carefully and eliminate any blind spots."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The legal position isn't that sex is "assigned at birth" . It's that sex is a material fact that can be established. For the vast majority of people that will simply be their sex recorded at birth, but even if that isn't the case, and a person has a DSD, their sex can still be established, because sex is binary and immutable.

And since the law has long recognised there are situations where single sex spaces or services are required, for reasons of privacy, safety, dignity, or fairness, then sex in the Equality Act 2010 has to be understood as biological sex.

Otherwise the Act would be produce unworkable and perverse results.

And what do you do when faced with a guevedoce? While it can be detected at birth that is by no means guaranteed to happen.

 

[seanie]

Extremely rare DSD conditions have no relevance at all as to whether obvious biological men should be allowed into to women’s spaces if they “seriously and truthfully” believe they should be.