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

[Emily Lake]

What do you mean by “complete transformation”?

Physically, psychologically and emotionally .

I'm going to challenge every one of your assertions here, LD.

Physically.

Do you think that removing a penis transforms a male into a female? Or are you assuming that "completely physical transformation" includes removing prostate, seminal vesicles, vas deferens, implanting a different pelvis, changing the angle of the femur, implanting ovaries, changing the connective tissues on the abdominal organs, and all of the other ways in which females are physically different from males?

Psychologically.

First off, how are females psychologically different from males? What process is used in transition to change a person's psychology? Is this process universally successful?

Emotionally.

Are you under the impression that females are hysterical and overly-emotional? Do you believe that males are strong-willed, logical, and rational?

Seriously, LD. Do you think that an emotional man who cries a lot must be part woman somehow? Or that a man who likes cooking and caring for children is a nancy? Do you think that painting an apple orange turns it into an actual tangerine?

 

[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?

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.

What you didn't establish is the relevance.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm envious of this world you live in where there are no bad people and nobody would ever lie about anything.

Oh, I definitely don't think that.

You don't think that... but you do think that women should be required to unquestioningly believe any man who says they feel like a woman, and then let that man into areas where we're naked or vulnerable?

It seems like even though you understand that people will lie in order to do bad things, you just don't give a fuck as long as it's just women who get hurt by it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Physically, psychologically and emotionally

Be more specific.

What physical, psychological and emotional changes are required for a male to become a woman?

We need metrics.

Why? You cannot understand sex is not binary.

What do you think sex is? How is it defined? How is it determined? What role does sex play in evolutionary development? What role does it play in reproduction?

What part of those is not binary, and what makes it something other than binary?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Yes.

It does.

Do some reading.

Lasting, yes.

Meaningful, I find the research looks an awful lot like someone trying to prove something rather than someone trying to find out the truth. I have that feeling about the answers in both directions, thus I consider this one still an unknown.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. Just because it's rare doesn't mean the law gets to ignore it. If compliance with a law is impossible then it's a bad law. Period. Doesn't matter that it's only a tiny subset of the population.

 

[laughing dog]

Why exactly is it the male person’s problem and not your?

Misogyny and male entitlement perfectly captured.

A perfectly captured deeply reasoned impaired response.

 

[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?

Everyone with a DSD is still male or female.

The question was which bin to put them in. It's often not detected at birth, they are raised as females until they change. What are they??

 

[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.

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

Barring major breakthroughs in storage renewables are a pipe dream. Coal/oil/gas/nuclear is it, and there is a lot of shift from oil to gas.

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.

We aren't saying it isn't nasty. We are saying all available options are nasty. You can't just refuse to choose.

 

[laughing dog]

Human sex is not binary. No matter how much you wish human sex to be binary, it isn'

So saying that sex in humans is binary, and that in some circumstances female humans are entitled to spaces free from male humans, is the equivalent of being a Nazi?

That seems a little unhinged.

Not as unhinged as stomping one's foot and claiming a falsehood is a fact.

Please demonstrate the third gamete and third type of reproductive system that has evolved in humans.

Read up on What is intersex.

When you demonsta

Physically, psychologically and emotionally

Be more specific.

What physical, psychological and emotional changes are required for a male to become a woman?

We need metrics.

Why? You cannot understand sex is not binary.

You’ve yet to explain why it isn’t.

Assertion is not explanation.

An interesting response coming from the master of assertion. It has been explained many times in this thread. You are either incapable or unwilling to accept that simple reality. Frankly, that inability suggests an incapacity to handle even slightly more complex reasoning.

 

[Jarhyn]

Human sex is not binary. No matter how much you wish human sex to be binary, it isn'

So saying that sex in humans is binary, and that in some circumstances female humans are entitled to spaces free from male humans, is the equivalent of being a Nazi?

That seems a little unhinged.

Not as unhinged as stomping one's foot and claiming a falsehood is a fact.

Please demonstrate the third gamete and third type of reproductive system that has evolved in humans.

Read up on What is intersex.

When you demonsta

Physically, psychologically and emotionally

Be more specific.

What physical, psychological and emotional changes are required for a male to become a woman?

We need metrics.

Why? You cannot understand sex is not binary.

You’ve yet to explain why it isn’t.

Assertion is not explanation.

An interesting response coming from the master of assertion. It has been explained many times in this thread. You are either incapable or unwilling to accept that simple reality. Frankly, that inability suggests an incapacity to handle even slightly more complex reasoning.

Like, how hard is it? They've been directed to read the topic several times now, and that the answers they want are here... At what point does it become JAQing?

 

[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.

Cool. Skinny dipping is not the same thing as having a male in the shower with a bunch of middle school or high school girls.

How is it different? This was far more about getting clean than about recreation. To stay out was not a realistic option, the only question was how much to wear.

Unless I am very much mistaken, you are not female and were never female and your parents were present. The fact that your parents did not object does not mean that this is universally an OK situation. Shit my parents didn't object to all kinds of things I would not find acceptable for my own or anyone else's children.

Since both of them had PhDs in psychology (not the coincidence it seems--they met in grad school) I think they were a lot more competent than average at judging what's acceptable. It's only because our society is so stuck up about nudity that it's even an issue.

 

[Toni]

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

A sexually mature female human being is literally a woman.

A sexually mature female human being might not be figuratively a woman.

A sexually immature female is literally not a woman.

So, making spaces “women only” is false advertising if girls are allowed.

Context being abused by wankers is going to be the downfall of civilization.

You’re the one with rigid definitions, not me. You’re the one railing against false advertising, not me.

At this point in time in our society, we are struggling to treat cis and trans with as much dignity and safety as possible. It means struggling with strongly held false beliefs, and balancing legitimate concerns with safety vs personal issues.

There is no way at this time to insure on whatever rule on who gets to use what space is 100% enforced with no errors. It seems to me your fears are overblown because bad actors don’t need to pretend anything in order to misbehave. You disagree.

Establishing female only spaces requires some enforcement, because general social acceptance only goes so far. How is this to be enforced?

Sometimes bad actors do pretend in order to have access to space/people/property/power.

Look at the current political scene.

It seems to be vanishingly rare but in other thread(s), emily has posted examples of people who claim to be trans women ( I’m not judging whether or not they claims are valid) and gain access to women’s prisons when this person has raped women in the past and seems intent on doing so again. Again, vanishingly rare but not non-zero.

I am very much less concerned that someone will falsely claim to be trans in order to gain access to women’s dressing rooms than I am that women will be traumatized or even just frightened enough to report to or provoke physical violence by the apparent intrusion of a nefarious man in the women’s dressing room/shower. No one deserves to be so traumatized and yes, I am including the trans individuals.

It’s like being told that the box of rattlers has been let loose in your bathroom but it’s ok because they’ve all been defanged. Most of us would still be somewhere between very wary and scared shitless. Some of us might throw stones and hurt the snakes. And it is possible that one of the snakes has not been defanged.

 

[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.

Barring major breakthroughs in storage renewables are a pipe dream. Coal/oil/gas/nuclear is it, and there is a lot of shift from oil to gas.

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.

We aren't saying it isn't nasty. We are saying all available options are nasty. You can't just refuse to choose.

I’m choosing: no fracking!

Work harder in renewables/storage of energy/greater efficiency.

 

[Toni]

Why exactly is it the male person’s problem and not your?

Misogyny and male entitlement perfectly captured.

A perfectly captured deeply reasoned impaired response.

No, she has a point.

Women have been conditioned for millennia to fear or at least avoid unclothed men/exposed penises except under very strict circumstances.

It is not reasonable to expect women to set all that aside on some men’s say so. It does absolutely reek of entitlement for men to refuse to recognize this, particularly when men are the reason women are afraid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fine.

What’s it go to do with being trans though?

Well, you should really ask the people who bring intersex conditions up; I probably won't do their reasons justice. But the arguments for why it's relevant I've seen appear to pretty much amount to one or the other of these.

1) Transphobes say sex is objectively binary. But even one intersexed person proves it isn't binary, so they're wrong, so it's not objective, so it's subjective, so it must be whatever the subject feels it is. Therefore transmen are men and transwomen are women.

This is not remotely doing it justice. This isn't about proving trans, but rather kicking a pillar out from underneath the anti-trans argument. The anti-trans insist that everyone is clearly male or clearly female--but if that were true there would be no intersexed. The existence of the intersexed proves this premise false, and any argument based on a false premise collapses.

2) Intersex conditions are real -- some people have anatomy normally found in the other sex, and that makes them partly male and partly female. People with gender dysphoria are the way they are because of anomalous brain anatomy. A transman feels he's male for the same reason a cisman feels he's male -- because they both have male brains. Therefore transgenderism is a bona fide intersex condition -- when a person is intersexed going by brain anatomy but not going by reproductive anatomy, well, don't we all care more about our brains than our genitals? Arguing a transman is in fact a woman is therefore wrong for the same reason arguing a person with intersexed reproductive anatomy is in fact a woman -- because intersexed people are really in fact neither men nor women, but something in between, hence the name "inter"sexed.

Once again, it's not a proof, but rather knocking down an argument. The intersexed show that it's possible for the body to not fully apply the male pattern to the embryo. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to figure that there might be cases of the mental aspects not being fully applied, also. This doesn't prove they exist, it simply says that it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

Furthermore, we have seen how badly it tends to go when doctors try to resolve intersex conditions in infants. Surgically "correcting" the condition and raising them as that gender has a very high rate of gender dysphoria. That makes it quite clear that there is something mental that's separate from the anatomy.

Thus it is unquestionable that there can be a gender to the mind. It says nothing about how that should actually be handled in society.

For how to handle it, observe what happens. The suicide rate amongst those allowed to live as their preferred gender is lower than amongst those who aren't.

 

[laughing dog]

What do you mean by “complete transformation”?

Physically, psychologically and emotionally .

I'm going to challenge every one of your assertions here, LD.

Physically.

Do you think that removing a penis transforms a male into a female? Or are you assuming that "completely physical transformation" includes removing prostate, seminal vesicles, vas deferens, implanting a different pelvis, changing the angle of the femur, implanting ovaries, changing the connective tissues on the abdominal organs, and all of the other ways in which females are physically different from males?

Psychologically.

First off, how are females psychologically different from males? What process is used in transition to change a person's psychology? Is this process universally successful?

Emotionally.

Are you under the impression that females are hysterical and overly-emotional? Do you believe that males are strong-willed, logical, and rational?

Seriously, LD. Do you think that an emotional man who cries a lot must be part woman somehow? Or that a man who likes cooking and caring for children is a nancy? Do you think that painting an apple orange turns it into an actual tangerine?

WTF? I listed 3 standards to be met. Breaking them up as if only one was to met is the basis of those incredibly idiotic straw men to which the answer is NO.

 

[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.

But not a toxic wasteland.

A toxic wasteland.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Once again, completely non-responsive to the point.

 

[laughing dog]

Why exactly is it the male person’s problem and not your?

Misogyny and male entitlement perfectly captured.

A perfectly captured deeply reasoned impaired response.

No, she has a point.

Women have been conditioned for millennia to fear or at least avoid unclothed men/exposed penises except under very strict circumstances.

It is not reasonable to expect women to set all that aside on some men’s say so. It does absolutely reek of entitlement for men to refuse to recognize this, particularly when men are the reason women are afraid.

I asked a specific question of a specific poster. A woman may have good reasons to be intimidated by males in general in an intimate space or not. I did not make a generalization.

But if I wrote "I get uncomfortable and feel intimidated when I run into a black teenager in an intimate space" as a reason to deny black teenagers into intimate spaces, would that be reasonable and understandable? I don't think so. But it is the same underlying reasoning.