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

[Toni]

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

In other words, male looking males that appear to be a threat. I don't think anyone is denying they exist and I think you would have had every right to have them thrown out and banned.

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.

And I've spooked more than one woman by simply walking quickly down the same route they were on. It's simply not something the law should protect you from.

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.

The problem is you are focusing on a non-threat. It has not been established that there is any overlap between the creeps you talk about and the ones trying to pass. There are zero reported rapes by the ones trying to pass. Just because they share a bit of anatomy with the actual problems doesn't make them a problem. Discrimination.

No, I’m focusing on what YOU assume to be a non-threat basically because it is not a threat to YOU.

Non-threat to anyone. Zero documented cases.

You are expecting women to in an instant evaluate a male appearing body in their locker room as a non-threat even though women all know —mostly from experience—that it is impossible to tell by looking which male is a threat what which is not.

You are expecting this to work. What do people like my SIL do? She's one of those that doesn't pass--except she really is female. What do the transmen do? You're going to have them in the women's room, you just made your problem much worse.

It may be the case that you use a public street as a urinal but likely that’s frowned upon if not actually illegal. Just like walking around without your pants on may be totally fine in your own home but generally not in public.

Who said anything about urinal?? I was simply saying that I have spooked women by walking quickly on the same path they are on. Clearly a legal activity, therefore spooking a woman isn't sufficient to make something illegal. And all you're actually complaining about is being spooked.

Also if women frequently cross the street when they see you, you need to do some serious self-evaluation and maybe enlist the help of a mental health professional.

Complete strangers, mental health is utterly irrelevant. They were simply spooking about a male moving quickly in their general direction. Always in environments with many other people around, no possible threat.

See post #935

If it is a frequent occurrence that women are spooked by you then you ARE doing something wrong, particularly if it is in a well traveled area. YOU may know that you are NOT a threat but something about YOU is triggering those women. Maybe find a friend or two and ask for brutal honesty. I don't know you at all. I'm just saying that I've known plenty of guys who swore they were no threat yet spooked the heck out of multiple women in public spaces. The guy that spooked me the most spooked me enough that I was willing to routinely climb stairs to the 11th floor, even carrying laundry. Was I right about him? Well, I did spend a night keeping him from lighting on fire my friend who had too much to drink and who had fallen asleep in a room on the men's floor. I'm sure that wasn't you, Loren and I'm sure you'd never do such a thing but if women are commonly reacting that way to you, you need to figure out why and stop it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We don't often agree but I think you're spot on here.

Look at how this actually resolves these days: we don't look at black, we look at whether the person appears to be a thug or an upstanding citizen. That's a far more useful assessment of the potential threat.

 

[Emily Lake]

Read up on What is intersex.

I guarantee I know more about DSDs than you do. For instance, I know that the vast majority of people who have a DSD have absolutely no genital ambiguity at all - most DSDs present with fertility issues, followed by inconsistent or incomplete pubertal development. I also know that the vast majority of people who have a DSD are NOT transgender, and they fucking hate having their medical conditions used like pawns in this ideological game. And the majority of them despise being referred to as "intersex" and prefer being addressed as a person with a DSD (disorder of sexual development).

 

[Emily Lake]

Like, how hard is it? They've been directed to read the topic several times now, and that the answers they want are here

You know, christians insist that they've directed me to read the bible several times, as all the answers are there. Their faith-based assertions of belief are just as unconvincing as yours.

 

[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.

What is acceptable to you or your paren ts(!) 40 years ago has zero bearing on anything whatsoever. Really? Citing mommy and daddy’s academic qualifications for you refusing to understand someone else’s POV? What makes it especially rich is that you say they earned PhDs in psychology. Too bad the only benefit you seem to have gained is an unearned smugness and a total lack of empathy or social reasoning. What would mommy and daddy have to say about that?

You were saying about what some parents permit, I was pointing out why I consider their evaluation accurate.

 

[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.

5-ard is a male disorder of sexual development; only males can have the condition. At birth, they can sometimes appear with ambiguous genitalia - but in developed nations, it's something that doctors are aware of, and it can be accurately diagnosed in infants. For those in undeveloped countries they're often FORCED to be treated as females in childhood, because they're viewed as "failed males" or "not completely male" and they're relegated to a second class status along with all the women. Which sucks when puberty rolls around and they develop along a pretty normal male body form, even if they have a smaller than normal penis.

You're not establishing that they are forced to be raised as females. If it's not diagnosed what else would they do??

So you are saying there are people who were considered female at birth but which are truly males. There goes the notion of gender being known at birth.

Yes, she DID establish that they are raised female. Babies don’t get choices, Loren.

Claim: "FORCED to be treated as females in childhood". That's the parents, not the children.

 

[laughing dog]

Read up on What is intersex.

I guarantee I know more about DSDs than you do. For instance, I know that the vast majority of people who have a DSD have absolutely no genital ambiguity at all - most DSDs present with fertility issues, followed by inconsistent or incomplete pubertal development. I also know that the vast majority of people who have a DSD are NOT transgender, and they fucking hate having their medical conditions used like pawns in this ideological game. And the majority of them despise being referred to as "intersex" and prefer being addressed as a person with a DSD (disorder of sexual development).

Totally nonresponsive.

 

[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?

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.

Great - it should be trivially easy for you to explain exactly what aspects of physical, psychological, and emotional transition is in place and required then. It should be a cake-walk for you to address AT LEAST ONE of the questions I asked.

You say "complete transformation" and expand by saying physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Specifically WHAT physical transformations do you think turns a male into a female? WHAT psychological transformation turns a male into a female? WHAT emotional transformation turns a male into a female?

And just to be clear, LD... to be able to address any of those, you have to be able to elaborate on what physical, psychological, and emotional differences exist between males and females such that altering them is sufficient for everyone to accept that they've been transformed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Took me under 30 seconds:

Virginia family sues school system for $30 million over student's sexual assault in bathroom

A teenager and her parents have filed a $30 million lawsuit against a Virginia school system after she was sexually assaulted in a women’s restroom by a male student.

apnews.com

The details of the 2021 assault — the attacker was wearing a skirt in a women’s bathroom — made it a flashpoint in the national debate over allowing transgender students to use bathrooms, play sports and go by names and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity.

Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker’s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family’s lawsuit. Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to a report by a law firm that investigated the assault.

The sexual assault in May was one of two committed by the same student in the school system. The second occurred at another high school in October 2021. The attacker, who was 15 at the time, has been convicted as a juvenile for both crimes.

The individual who is accused of rape may/may not be transgender--they may be only wearing a skirt to pass as transgender or just because they like it but it seems they are definitely using the rules to access victims in the girl's restroom.

Your own quote is enough. "the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker's gender identity". In other words, not trans. And I can think of a simple, practical reason to wear a skirt when committing rape: there's no issue of removing your pants, nor any issue of being hobbled by pants around the ankles.

 

[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.

Your position seems to be that because some very few non-transgender people have medical conditions that affect their sexual development... males with gendery feels should be given right-of-access to female single-sex spaces.

No. I'm saying that because such cases exist the premise that everyone is clearly male or female is invalid. And any argument based on a false premise is likewise invalid.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Is there a well established history of black teenages abusing and assaulting white people like you?
Are there widespread parts of the globe where white people like you are legally treated as property and denied basic rights, and cannot go out in public without an attendant black teenager?
Are there parts of the world where you can be publicly beaten, stoned, or executed for the crime of having been attacked by a black teenager?
Is there a well documented history of under-reporting of white people being victimized by black teenagers because the victim gets treated as having caused their own victimization for having "provoked" the black teenager?
Are there religions where if your uncovered hair is seen by a black teenager, you've committed a sin and could be killed for it?
Are one in six white people raped by black teenagers throughout their life?
Are one in three white people sexually assaulted by black teenagers throughout their life?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

The victims you target are all women...

I haven't victimized anyone at all.

And transgender identified males aren't women.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

5-ard is a male disorder of sexual development; only males can have the condition. At birth, they can sometimes appear with ambiguous genitalia - but in developed nations, it's something that doctors are aware of, and it can be accurately diagnosed in infants. For those in undeveloped countries they're often FORCED to be treated as females in childhood, because they're viewed as "failed males" or "not completely male" and they're relegated to a second class status along with all the women. Which sucks when puberty rolls around and they develop along a pretty normal male body form, even if they have a smaller than normal penis.

You're not establishing that they are forced to be raised as females. If it's not diagnosed what else would they do??

How about not treating girls as if they're second-class citizens in the first place? Not forcing regressive social roles on either girls or boys? That seems like a reasonable starting point.

So you are saying there are people who were considered female at birth but which are truly males.

You seem to be laboring under the notion that all infant males with 5-ard have external genitals that look completely female at birth. Some very, very, very few have divided scrotal sacs, and extremely small penises that are mistaken for clitorises. Most, however, have smaller than average penisis with a misplaced urethral opening and incompletely fused scrotal sacs. They're labeled as "female" in backwards ass, sexist countries because they don't meet the standard of a "real boy". But they remain 100% male.

There goes the notion of gender being known at birth.

Sex is not gender. Gender is entirely a social imposed construct, with no material reality independent of that social conditioning.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

With about 98% accuracy, based on clustering a whole host of sex-correlated characteristics:

98% is useless in this case. I've seen restrooms where that would cause an error every minute.

Oh goodness, we're only 98% accurate! Better just toss the whole thing and entitle completely male looking men with entirely normal male bodies and faces for whom there is no doubt about their sex use the ladies showers then! I mean, those men really, really want to use the women's showers, and it would make them unhappy to let women say no.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, just keep males out of female only spaces, and provide third spaces if necessary.

It’s a manageable issue.

Retrofit third spaces how?

Let's go back several years. My wife got hurt while we were visiting her family. While she could walk it was only with considerable pain. She was taking absolutely as few steps as she could and only with assistance. Time to fly home. PVG is a modern airport, built this century when there was a recognition of the need for family restrooms. No problem. Connection, LAX. That airport has been there quite a while, no family restrooms, no place to put family restrooms--I walked the entire terminal in case there were just a few. I had to wheel her into the men's room.

I asked you this previously, and you declined to answer. So I'll ask it again:

WHY did you wheel her into the men's room? Why did you NOT wheel her into the women's room?

Because our fucked up society would object. And because I knew she wouldn't have a problem with the situation.

Why would our society object, and why do you think it's fucked up?
Why do you think it's fucked up that our society gives women the authority to say no to males forcing their way into our presence when we're naked or vulnerable?

BTW - I would bet that if you'd poked your head in and said "Hey, my wife's in a wheelchair and needs to go, is it okay if I bring her in?" all of the women in there would have said okay. There are some situations where reasonable accommodation is going to be made, especially when the person asking for the accommodation does it in a respectful way.

 

[Emily Lake]

Took me under 30 seconds:

Loren has been shown several different instances of the thing he insists hasn't ever happened not even once. I'm pretty sure he thinks that if he just ignores it and keeps repeating himself, it will magically become true.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Women in some cultures. Why do you believe your fears deserve legal protection?

Why do you insist that the fears of some males deserve legal protection?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

5-ard is a male disorder of sexual development; only males can have the condition. At birth, they can sometimes appear with ambiguous genitalia - but in developed nations, it's something that doctors are aware of, and it can be accurately diagnosed in infants. For those in undeveloped countries they're often FORCED to be treated as females in childhood, because they're viewed as "failed males" or "not completely male" and they're relegated to a second class status along with all the women. Which sucks when puberty rolls around and they develop along a pretty normal male body form, even if they have a smaller than normal penis.

You're not establishing that they are forced to be raised as females. If it's not diagnosed what else would they do??

So you are saying there are people who were considered female at birth but which are truly males. There goes the notion of gender being known at birth.

Yes, she DID establish that they are raised female. Babies don’t get choices, Loren.

Claim: "FORCED to be treated as females in childhood". That's the parents, not the children.

That's their fucked up society.

 

[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.

Great - it should be trivially easy for you to explain exactly what aspects of physical, psychological, and emotional transition is in place and required then. It should be a cake-walk for you to address AT LEAST ONE of the questions I asked.

You say "complete transformation" and expand by saying physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Specifically WHAT physical transformations do you think turns a male into a female? WHAT psychological transformation turns a male into a female? WHAT emotional transformation turns a male into a female?

And just to be clear, LD... to be able to address any of those, you have to be able to elaborate on what physical, psychological, and emotional differences exist between males and females such that altering them is sufficient for everyone to accept that they've been transformed.

No, I don’t, because social change does not require unanimous approval.

You still don’t get it. Each one of your “specific” questions presumes independence from the other changes.

Frankly, if you don’t grasp the fundamental issue that as a general rule, men and women are different in many ways (otherwise why bother trying to change one’s gender), then discussion is futile. But I think you do get there are differences beyond gametes and body parts.

The fact you routinely dismiss the dilemma for the sincere trangender people as “feelings” but use fear (which is a feeling) to justify a unsympathetic social policy suggest to me that it is some trans revulsion that drives these responses.

A person walks into a restroom designated for women. One user feels the person doesn’t belong but the person in question behaves appropriately. What response and outcome do you envision? I think no response is the best because nothing will happen.

Suppose the individual acts inappropriately, what response and outcome do you envision?
Depending on the behavior in question, I envision either polite inquiries or a call to the authorities.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Your position seems to be that because some very few non-transgender people have medical conditions that affect their sexual development... males with gendery feels should be given right-of-access to female single-sex spaces.

No. I'm saying that because such cases exist the premise that everyone is clearly male or female is invalid. And any argument based on a false premise is likewise invalid.

You're misrepresenting the situation.

Neither I nor seanie nor anyone else has said that everyone is clearly male or female. In this context "clearly" means "easy to discern". In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged that some cases are difficult to tell.

What I have said, however, is that sex is strictly binary in humans. There is only male and female, nothing else.

There is no third sex. For there to be a third sex, there would need to be a third type of gamete and a third type of reproductive system that evolved to produce that gamete.
There is no mixed sex. For there to be a mixed sex, there would need to be a "sperg" and a reproductive system that evolved to produce "spergs"
There is no non-sex. This one is even more fundamental - having a reproductive system is a required step in fetal development. If a reproductive system is entirely absent, the fetus will miscarry. It's as fundamentally necessary as lungs or heart or brain - without it the fetus absolutely dies.

And all of this is a bit irrelevant - the fact that some very few people are difficult to classify without further investigation does NOT justify granting the special privilege of overriding women's boundaries in spaces where we're naked or vulnerable for males who developed an entirely normal male reproductive system. The fact that 0.02% of people have ambiguous genitals at birth does not support the assertion that transgender identified males without ambiguous genitals should be given carte blanche to trample all over women's rights to privacy and consent.