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

[seanie]

I mean women as opposed to females. Duh.

"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."

“Let’s send him to a segregation wing in the male prison, so that women don’t have to be locked up with a double rapist.”

You guys really do prioritise the feelings of rapists over the feelings of women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

99.98% isn't good enough. What are the several hundred thousand people who don't fit supposed to do?

And what of the guevedoces?

 

[Politesse]

Reducing male violence against women...

And do you feel that stoking a "gender war" and taking out trans people as the first targets is going to reduce femicide and misogyny? Anti-trans rhetoric is almost always misogynist in nature, except when it takes a brief break to be misandrist for a while. The very worst stereotypes of both men and women are attributed to trans people, as though there is nothing we can be but the very worst culture has imagined of either men or women. I wonder what you think the path forward will be when you and your alt-right allies have succeded in your seeming goals of making women hate men, and men women, with every fibre of their being? Will we have peace, then? Will violence decrease? When America is Great Again and Britain has Exited the 21st century, will our new old Leave-It-to-Beaver society have no rape? Or will we just sweep it under the rug like we did the first time the 1950s came around?

 

[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.

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

And girls?

You're the one demanding female only or woman only spaces, not me. Your definitional issue are your problem, not mine. You are dogmatic bigot against trans women, not me.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Have you thought this through?

Yes.

Interestingly, I really hadn't thought about it, and I initially leaned towards your interpretation, but the inhumanity and irrationality embedded in your arguments and Emily's paranoia induced me to rethink and change my mind.

 

[laughing dog]

I mean women as opposed to females. Duh.

"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."

“Let’s send him to a segregation wing in the male prison, so that women don’t have to be locked up with a double rapist.”

You guys really do prioritise the feelings of rapists over the feelings of women.

No more than you advocate double rapists getting raped in prison.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What, in brief, the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you want bathroom police at all?

Because conformity is mandatory! Vote Republican!

 

[seanie]

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.

99.98% isn't good enough. What are the several hundred thousand people who don't fit supposed to do?

And what of the guevedoces?

Everyone with a DSD is still male or female.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don't agree that those are our only options for power.

Your problem (I'm using a phrase you love to deploy) is that you do not care to know how fracking and the associated industries (mining silica sand) affect people up close and personal. It's all up close and personal. If coal did not cause black lung disease and a host of other diseases associated with its use, why would we oppose its use? Why would we oppose nuclear energy except for the risks if something goes wrong with a nuclear power plant and the dangers associated with mining and refining required elements? It's the same damn thing with fracking and silica sand mining. It's just happening far from where you or Derec live so it seems like no big deal. It's a big fucking deal and endangers the health of many, many people directly and indirectly. It causes serious and irreversible environmental damage, particularly to water supplies. It's just not YOUR water supply so to you NBD.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Think about the implications. This cuts both ways--you're going to get some very male-looking individuals in the women's room. Is that what you really want?

 

[seanie]

Reducing male violence against women...

And do you feel that stoking a "gender war" and taking out trans people as the first targets is going to reduce femicide and misogyny? Anti-trans rhetoric is almost always misogynist in nature, except when it takes a brief break to be misandrist for a while. The very worst stereotypes of both men and women are attributed to trans people, as though there is nothing we can be but the very worst culture has imagined of either men or women. I wonder what you think the path forward will be when you and your alt-right allies have succeded in your seeming goals of making women hate men, and men women, with every fibre of their being? Will we have peace, then? Will violence decrease? When America is Great Again and Britain has Exited the 21st century, will our new old Leave-It-to-Beaver society have no rape? Or will we just sweep it under the rug like we did the first time the 1950s came around?

It doesn't help women and girls, to allow males into their single sex spaces.

It's not that complicated.

 

[seanie]

No more than you advocate double rapists getting raped in prison.

I advocated for segregation for their protection.

That is not advocating for anyone to get raped.

You're getting a little testerical.

 

[seanie]

Think about the implications. This cuts both ways--you're going to get some very male-looking individuals in the women's room. Is that what you really want?

It's not primarily about looks.

It's about a person's sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Skip the dress, but I've seen multiple clearly female people come into the men's room, some of them asking if anyone objected (thus leaving no doubt about their biology). I've never seen anyone seem to care. (Admittedly, it's always been at tech events so the sample is biased.)

And once in the airport my wife was injured, walking was quite painful. I wheeled her into the men's room. Nobody seemed to care.

 

[seanie]

You're kind of missing the asymmetry.

The female and male experience is different. Spaces free from males is very, very important for many females.

Male spaces free from females, less important to most males, though there are circumstances.

 

[laughing dog]

No more than you advocate double rapists getting raped in prison.

I advocated for segregation for their protection.

That is not advocating for anyone to get raped.

You're getting a little testerical.

You advocate placing them in a position where they could be raped, and have mocked any concerns about their safety as feelings.

Meanwhile, you persist in the lie that people here
advocate prioritizing rapist’s feelings over women’s safety.

 

[laughing dog]

Think about the implications. This cuts both ways--you're going to get some very male-looking individuals in the women's room. Is that what you really want?

It's not primarily about looks.

It's about a person's sex.

And how does someone make an accurate inference about someone’s sex without some invasion of their privacy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Purely cultural upbringing. Let's go back a bit over 40 years ago. Nothing so formal as a shower, just water we could bathe in. And just about everybody stripped off in front of me. I was not expecting that, but neither did it do a bit of harm. Nor was I in any way harmed by deciding to strip off also. My parents saw the whole thing, they were not in the least outraged.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Think about the implications. This cuts both ways--you're going to get some very male-looking individuals in the women's room. Is that what you really want?

It's not primarily about looks.

It's about a person's sex.

Doesn't get rid of the problem.

 

[seanie]

You advocate placing them in a position where they could be raped, and have mocked any concerns about their safety as feelings.

Meanwhile, you persist in the lie that people here
advocate prioritizing rapist’s feelings over women’s safety.

By putting them in a segregated wing for trans women?

You're the one advocating for male rapists to be sent to women's prisons if they "seriously and truthfully" consider themselves to be women.

You're shilling for actual rapists, pal.

Own it.

 

[seanie]

And how does someone make an accurate inference about someone’s sex without some invasion of their privacy?

Looking is a good first step.

Imperfect, but a damn sight more reliable than trying to determine whether someone "seriously and truthfully" believes they're the sex they aren't.

How the fuck do you propose to apply that metric?