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

[seanie]

A piece by Naomi Cunningham KC.

“Finally, Norrie claims that Court’s decision exacerbates bad relations between the trans community and those who insist that gender and sex are biological matters. Bearing in mind that this is chiefly a conflict between men and women — on the one hand, men who want access to women’s spaces, to bully or shame women into accepting opposite-sex intimate care, to elbow women aside in their own sports categories; and on the other, the women who say “no” to those men — the complaint that restoring women’s rights to them exacerbates bad relations is dismaying. If women would only be good and obedient, men wouldn’t have to get angry with them.“

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is that the protection required is from (and to) everyone. Protecting girls from boys is all very well, but who protects them from the other girls, and how? And who protects the boys from other boys?

The best solution is privacy. A single user facility doesn't need to specify the sex or gender of its users, just "only one user at a time".

But that would just be about bullying. Gotta toughen them up, bullying should not be dealt with! Pay no attention to the suicides.

 

[laughing dog]

I view all posters here as intelligent t human beings capable of reading and reasoning and observation and of understanding points of view other than their own.

Quite so. The problem is not capability but willingness. Several of the pro-AA posters here appear to be quite determinedly unwilling to exercise their capability to understand the points of view of anti-AA posters. Either that, or they do understand those points of view, which is worse, because that would mean they are deliberately strawmanning them.

I believe this comes back to my point about faith. I have repeatedly seen many individuals who appear to simply not be able to comprehend arguments that go against their fundamental faith. I do not believe it is malicious, but rather an inability to process them adequately. We see it to a lesser degree simply between languages. Every language leaves things hanging somewhere, we rarely have a problem with the hanging things we learned as children. Consider: "It is in the box on the back right of the second shelf of the refrigerator." This builds up from the item to the location, while you are parsing it you have no idea of how it fits into the world--but I doubt anyone on here has a problem understanding that because it's normal for us. But my wife will have a hard time of it because she's from a language that would say it's in the refrigerator, on the second shelf, in the back, on the right, in a box. Note how much more awkward this is for us, but understandable because nothing is left hanging. I'm sure there are examples that go the other way but it is not something I have done any careful study of, just been smacked in the face by it enough that I saw the pattern (and have since learned it is a standard problem between languages.)

Since the AA position is based on faith there's no base to attach to and your whole argument inherently is hanging. Too many hanging things that you aren't used to, comprehension becomes difficult. It comes down to we are arguing for something that is more favorable to white males than what they consider fair, thus we must be for discrimination.

All arguments about policy are based on faith to some degree. It is delusional to think otherwise.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since the AA position is based on faith there's no base to attach to and your whole argument inherently is hanging. Too many hanging things that you aren't used to, comprehension becomes difficult. It comes down to we are arguing for something that is more favorable to white males than what they consider fair, thus we must be for discrimination.

All arguments about policy are based on faith to some degree. It is delusional to think otherwise.

All arguments about anything are based on faith to some degree. If nothing else, on faith that one is not a Boltzmann brain.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't have a principled objection to mixed-sex spaces. I have an objection to false advertising. Label it as mixed sex, so everyone knows what they're walking into.

I'm also a bit pragmatic, and I realize that if mixed-sex spaces were to overtake separate-sex facilities... a whole lot of women (actual females) would end up self-excluding from those spaces. Because no matter how much I think it would be awesome if everyone just got along, it turns out that males are more aggressive and more prone to sexual misbehavior than females are. Given the opportunity, a lot of them will peep, a lot of them will expose themselves, and a lot of them won't care that doing so makes women feel threatened or uncomfortable.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I know a woman who installed curtains in her car windows so she could go out to the parking lot to pee in privacy, because her workplace in its infinite wisdom decided to make the women's restroom "gender neutral".

 

[Bomb#20]

Giving males the right to access female spaces, removes the rights of women to have single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness.

There are legitimate reasons to segregate some spaces on the basis of sex,” particularly for females.

Yes, but there are also legitimate reasons not to. One side has legitimate reasons for wanting women-only spaces; the other side has legitimate reasons for wanting spaces restricted to women and female-identifying men. There really needs to be federal legislation to settle the question of which sides' reasons take priority in public policy, because leaving the dispute in the realm of competing rights claims will only lead to the general adoption of so-called "gender-neutral" spaces -- a solution that will satisfy neither side's legitimate concerns, but only the concerns of business-owners who don't give a rat's ass about either sides' rights and are just looking to avoid being held monetarily liable for upsetting someone.

When it comes to the conflict between females and men with gender identity issues, one of them is objectively verifiable and the other is an article of faith. Sex can be verified - even if it can be difficult in extremely rare situations. The feelings inside someone's head cannot be verified, and there's no way to determine who is genuine about how they feel versus who is exploiting a gigantic loophole the size of the great wall.

I don't disagree; I'd like to see federal legislation prioritizing women's rights. But my point is that even federal legislation prioritizing trans rights would be better than nothing, because doing nothing abandons the issue to the states and the courts, who will frog-march us down the road to the worst outcome of all for women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once in a while, a transsexual would come in. And despite the narrative, most do not pass at anything more than a glancing look. We could usually tell they were males... but as long as they were minding their own business, keeping their eyes to themselves, and were clearly trying to not make anyone uncomfortable, we would leave them their dignity. But it was at our discretion, on a case by case basis. And we had the comfort of knowing that if he got out of line, it was our prerogative to ask them to leave.

It was never "everyone decides for themselves".

As you say, it worked. There wasn't a problem until the Republicans needed a bogeyman.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For myself, being in a bathroom or dressing room with a trans woman would not be much of a big deal but I won’t lie and say that I would not be startled to see an unexpected exposed penis or testicles. I’d be more concerned if I felt that I or someone else might be the target of a predatory person, whatever genitalia was present. So yeah, a cis male or female attacking a trans person would definitely be concerning to me. I’ve been pretty fortunate to be able to defend myself and occasionally another person against physical and sexual assault. Not that those experiences don’t leave some trauma/PTSD. But not one of those individuals who attacked me or other girls or women was in a women’s locker room or dressing room or rest room. None of them were trans. I’d put good money down betting that they most likely be dangerous to trans individuals as well as to women. More so, in fact.

Startled, yes. The law shouldn't be expected to protect you from being startled, though. Harmed? The number of such rapes is zero. But if you get your way there will be some very male looking individuals legally in the women's room. Now how do you detect rapists simply walking into the women's room? You can't. You have actually created risk, not removed it.

I don’t understand what makes some people feel the need to or the entitlement to assault others, sexually or otherwise. I do get that some might employ various types of assault in the commission of a robbery or if intoxicated, I suppose. I understand self defense and have engaged in such myself. But otherwise? I honestly do not get it. Particularly with regards to sex.

I've never understood it, either. Sex that my partner isn't enjoying is a big turn-off to me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once in a while, a transsexual would come in. And despite the narrative, most do not pass at anything more than a glancing look. We could usually tell they were males... but as long as they were minding their own business, keeping their eyes to themselves, and were clearly trying to not make anyone uncomfortable, we would leave them their dignity. But it was at our discretion, on a case by case basis. And we had the comfort of knowing that if he got out of line, it was our prerogative to ask them to leave.

It was never "everyone decides for themselves".

As you say, it worked. There wasn't a problem until the Republicans needed a bogeyman.

Indeed.



There are several fronts in the transgender wars.

1) Support transgender full inclusion with identified gender
2) Support transgender inclusion to some extent, where possible
3) Don't support transgender inclusion and want a third option available
4) The people that get hard over the ad up above and bullshit about being for "women's rights".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For myself, being in a bathroom or dressing room with a trans woman would not be much of a big deal but I won’t lie and say that I would not be startled to see an unexpected exposed penis or testicles. I’d be more concerned if I felt that I or someone else might be the target of a predatory person, whatever genitalia was present. So yeah, a cis male or female attacking a trans person would definitely be concerning to me. I’ve been pretty fortunate to be able to defend myself and occasionally another person against physical and sexual assault. Not that those experiences don’t leave some trauma/PTSD. But not one of those individuals who attacked me or other girls or women was in a women’s locker room or dressing room or rest room. None of them were trans. I’d put good money down betting that they most likely be dangerous to trans individuals as well as to women. More so, in fact.

Startled, yes. The law shouldn't be expected to protect you from being startled, though. Harmed? The number of such rapes is zero. But if you get your way there will be some very male looking individuals legally in the women's room. Now how do you detect rapists simply walking into the women's room? You can't. You have actually created risk, not removed it.

In a perfect world, absolutely. We aren't in that world. We are in a world where something like 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 women have experienced some form of sexual violation.

I want transgender women to be able to enter all of these spaces, freely and without judgement. But the women that inhabitant these spaces are raising their hands. This isn't like desegregation. Men carry a lot of baggage when it comes to sexual assault. A LOT more than we want to accept or are willing to recognize.

Is this fair for transgender women? No. But are we really going to tell women to shut up, this is how things are going to be? We aren't there yet with transgenderism. Heck, we've got people at this board who think it isn't even real.

We need to accommodate as best we can. And that takes a bunch of people acting like adults to manage. And we don't have that at the moment.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In what way are men with gender identity issues not men?

More specifically, exactly what observable and verifiable characteristic to men with gender identity issues have in common with women in general, that they do NOT also have in common with men?

My answer was in the context of men who went through a complete transformation. When finished, they had no gender issues: they were women. So your first question is moot given the context.

For transwomen who have completed the transition, no penis is the obvious answer.

You might consider this a technicality, but I do not: They are not women, they look like women. Those are not the same things. When someone with brown hair bleaches it to platinum blonde, they look like a blonde, but the do not actually become blonde. When someone puts in colored contacts, they look like they have blue eyes, they do not become blue-eyed.

In some contexts, looking like a thing is sufficient; in other contexts it is not. The high quality plastic apples in the bowl on my mom's kitchen counter is perfectly sufficient as an aesthetic display, but it is not sufficient for baking an apple pie.

It might be the case that the person you personally know passes so well that he causes nobody any discomfort and is never challenged - in many cases that's going to be fine. If nobody knows, then nobody knows. But it's not generalizable. If for example, Jason Momoa has a penectomy... he's not going to pass at all even without a penis. He's still going to look and be perceived as 100% male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For myself, being in a bathroom or dressing room with a trans woman would not be much of a big deal but I won’t lie and say that I would not be startled to see an unexpected exposed penis or testicles.

I have used male facilities all my life, and I too would be startled to see an exposed penis or testicles. It's not something you routinely see in a men's room, inless you are actively trying to catch a glimpse, in which case you are likely to get your lights punched out.

Testicles, agreed, but penises? In large enough facilities you very well might have a line of urinals against in interior wall with more of the restroom behind said wall. You come around that corner nobody's nearby but someone is well down the wall. You'll see them unless there are partitions. I'm picturing the local convention centers. (Yes, plural. We have multiple facilities designed for tens of thousands of people.)

 

[Toni]

For myself, being in a bathroom or dressing room with a trans woman would not be much of a big deal but I won’t lie and say that I would not be startled to see an unexpected exposed penis or testicles. I’d be more concerned if I felt that I or someone else might be the target of a predatory person, whatever genitalia was present. So yeah, a cis male or female attacking a trans person would definitely be concerning to me. I’ve been pretty fortunate to be able to defend myself and occasionally another person against physical and sexual assault. Not that those experiences don’t leave some trauma/PTSD. But not one of those individuals who attacked me or other girls or women was in a women’s locker room or dressing room or rest room. None of them were trans. I’d put good money down betting that they most likely be dangerous to trans individuals as well as to women. More so, in fact.

Startled, yes. The law shouldn't be expected to protect you from being startled, though. Harmed? The number of such rapes is zero. But if you get your way there will be some very male looking individuals legally in the women's room. Now how do you detect rapists simply walking into the women's room? You can't. You have actually created risk, not removed it.

I don’t understand what makes some people feel the need to or the entitlement to assault others, sexually or otherwise. I do get that some might employ various types of assault in the commission of a robbery or if intoxicated, I suppose. I understand self defense and have engaged in such myself. But otherwise? I honestly do not get it. Particularly with regards to sex.

I've never understood it, either. Sex that my partner isn't enjoying is a big turn-off to me.

My way? What are you on about?

My way is empathy all around, something you seem to think is beyond you. Not my fault, your short comings.

Startled men, now they do things like e beat the shit out of someone. Easier to inflict pain than deal with an emotion.

Just f all the way off Loren until you learn to give a fuck about anyone who has t had your exact same experiences.

 

[Toni]

For myself, being in a bathroom or dressing room with a trans woman would not be much of a big deal but I won’t lie and say that I would not be startled to see an unexpected exposed penis or testicles. I’d be more concerned if I felt that I or someone else might be the target of a predatory person, whatever genitalia was present. So yeah, a cis male or female attacking a trans person would definitely be concerning to me. I’ve been pretty fortunate to be able to defend myself and occasionally another person against physical and sexual assault. Not that those experiences don’t leave some trauma/PTSD. But not one of those individuals who attacked me or other girls or women was in a women’s locker room or dressing room or rest room. None of them were trans. I’d put good money down betting that they most likely be dangerous to trans individuals as well as to women. More so, in fact.

Startled, yes. The law shouldn't be expected to protect you from being startled, though. Harmed? The number of such rapes is zero. But if you get your way there will be some very male looking individuals legally in the women's room. Now how do you detect rapists simply walking into the women's room? You can't. You have actually created risk, not removed it.

In a perfect world, absolutely. We aren't in that world. We are in a world where something like 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 women have experienced some form of sexual violation.

I want transgender women to be able to enter all of these spaces, freely and without judgement. But the women that inhabitant these spaces are raising their hands. This isn't like desegregation. Men carry a lot of baggage when it comes to sexual assault. A LOT more than we want to accept or are willing to recognize.

Is this fair for transgender women? No. But are we really going to tell women to shut up, this is how things are going to be? We aren't there yet with transgenderism. Heck, we've got people at this board who think it isn't even real.

We need to accommodate as best we can. And that takes a bunch of people acting like adults to manage. And we don't have that at the moment.

Men have never had much of a problem telling women to just shut up and take it.

#NotAllMenBitDefinitelyLorenWhoGuvss es ZeroShitsAboutAnoneElse

 

[Toni]

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.

In what way are men with gender identity issues not men?

More specifically, exactly what observable and verifiable characteristic to men with gender identity issues have in common with women in general, that they do NOT also have in common with men?

My answer was in the context of men who went through a complete transformation. When finished, they had no gender issues: they were women. So your first question is moot given the context.

For transwomen who have completed the transition, no penis is the obvious answer.

You might consider this a technicality, but I do not: They are not women, they look like women. Those are not the same things. When someone with brown hair bleaches it to platinum blonde, they look like a blonde, but the do not actually become blonde. When someone puts in colored contacts, they look like they have blue eyes, they do not become blue-eyed.

In some contexts, looking like a thing is sufficient; in other contexts it is not. The high quality plastic apples in the bowl on my mom's kitchen counter is perfectly sufficient as an aesthetic display, but it is not sufficient for baking an apple pie.

It might be the case that the person you personally know passes so well that he causes nobody any discomfort and is never challenged - in many cases that's going to be fine. If nobody knows, then nobody knows. But it's not generalizable. If for example, Jason Momoa has a penectomy... he's not going to pass at all even without a penis. He's still going to look and be perceived as 100% male.

They are women.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't have a principled objection to mixed-sex spaces. I have an objection to false advertising. Label it as mixed sex, so everyone knows what they're walking into.

I'm also a bit pragmatic, and I realize that if mixed-sex spaces were to overtake separate-sex facilities... a whole lot of women (actual females) would end up self-excluding from those spaces. Because no matter how much I think it would be awesome if everyone just got along, it turns out that males are more aggressive and more prone to sexual misbehavior than females are. Given the opportunity, a lot of them will peep, a lot of them will expose themselves, and a lot of them won't care that doing so makes women feel threatened or uncomfortable.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I know a woman who installed curtains in her car windows so she could go out to the parking lot to pee in privacy, because her workplace in its infinite wisdom decided to make the women's restroom "gender neutral".

There were no doors on the stalls?

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

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.

That's the way it WAS working. That's not how it's working NOW. NOW any dude who says they're trans, regardless of whether they even remotely come close to passing, and regardless of whether they behave reasonably or not, feels entitled to use women's facilities.

Seriously, do you think Darren Merager with his tumescent dick "passed" and "behaved appropriately" when he invaded WiSpa?

Darren Merager is a predicate career criminal, sex offender, and poseur. Using him as a typical example is silly.

Why is it silly? He is also transgender and had changed the sex marker on his ID prior to that event. By every modern definition, Merager is 100% transgender. He identified as a woman, and used the women's side of the nude spa.

Just to be clear, I have no oroblem with the UK ruling. It is clear.

I appreciate that very much.

I do have a problem with the hysteria snd mean-spirited views used to make honest well-meaning people’s lives unnecessarily difficult and sad.

I have a problem with acknowledgement of genuine risks being couched as "hysteria" and reasonable concerns being being framed as "mean-spirited views".

The actual heart of the problem is that none of us are psychic. We cannot tell which male is an honest well-meaning person who just wants to be in female sex-specific intimate spaces, and which male is a dishonest ill-intentioned person who just wants to be in female sex-specific intimate spaces. All we can tell is that it's a male who is in a space where women are disrobed, performing intimate activities, or is particularly vulnerable.

At its core, the issue has nothing at all to do with whether or not the person is transgender, or how genuinely transgender they are... it has to do with the objective fact that they are male.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every individual just decides for themself?

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

For centuries, any dude that tosses on a dress has been allowed to invade female-only nude spas with their dick out? For centuries, any bearded bro with lipstick on has been allowed to go into the ladies changing rooms and strip down?

"Female-only nude spas" have not existed for that long. But no, we got by just fine without an authoritarian government rigidly defining our gender for us based on pseudoscience.

I don't care about your gender, you can define that however you want. I care about sex in spaces where we're naked or vulnerable.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I don't care whether they're legitimately transgender or not - it's irrelevant. Males with transgender identities are objectively and permanently male.

At no point whatsoever is a male with gender identity issues a female, no matter how much surgery they've had - and 80% of them have NO SURGERIES AT ALL.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

QFT.

At this point, I'm less willing to "be kind" and gracious than you, perhaps. And I do recognize that sex is absolutely binary in humans, even if it's sometimes difficult to discern. But on the whole, you've laid out the issue very well, and I appreciate it very much.