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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. The conditions I specified:

1) Someone living as female.

2) Rape or similar offense.

3) In a women's room.

Cases have been presented:

1) Rape in the women's room, but not by someone living as female.

2) Rape not in the women's room.

3) Unspecified crimes, the range included simply looking too much--something that's not realistically provable one way or the other.

Yes, my list is restrictive--because I'm counting only the crimes that could possibly be prevented by a change to how bathrooms are handled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

What fears am I expecting legal protection for??

 

[TomC]

What fears am I expecting legal protection for??

Being in a restroom that men are entitled to use with impunity.
Tom

 

[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.

That's their fucked up society.

You said "babies don't get choices", but then say it's society. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Toni]

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.

No. The conditions I specified:

1) Someone living as female.

2) Rape or similar offense.

3) In a women's room.

Cases have been presented:

1) Rape in the women's room, but not by someone living as female.

2) Rape not in the women's room.

3) Unspecified crimes, the range included simply looking too much--something that's not realistically provable one way or the other.

Yes, my list is restrictive--because I'm counting only the crimes that could possibly be prevented by a change to how bathrooms are handled.

Yes, those girls might not have been raised if the school had had a different policy with respect to how bathrooms were handheld.

Which, btw, is the whole fucking point.

Women and fir sure children abd teenagers are not able to immediately assess random persons with penises fir whether ir not they intend them harm, whether or not they are trans and therefore almost certainly harmless or a poser as this repeat teenaged rapist was.

That’s the whole damn point, Loren.

For the most part, teenagers don’t have a lot of access to gender affirming care, even with parental permission.

What I cited was a case where, almost certainly, a person feigned being trans in order to have better access to victims—in two separate schools.

This is exactly the scenario that Emily Lake has said might happen and in fact, she cited her own cases.

What I absolutely do not need and will not abide is some man or men telling me what women must put up with or what risks women must take or that women are ridiculous for fearing or being startled by unexpected persons with penises in the shower next to them.

I do not give a fuck if your parents did not care if you were skinny dipping in front of them and therefore that makes everything you don’t object to perfectly acceptable because it doesn’t bother you.

The only reason you are not in ignore by me is because I do not have the luxury of putting a mod on ignore.

 

[Toni]

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.

You said "babies don't get choices", but then say it's society. Can't have it both ways.

What you mean is that women don’t get choices, Loren. Not if they conflict with what the great Lord and Master Loren thinks is good for them.

 

[seanie]

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.

How about answering the question?

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.

If some are missed they are raised as females.

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.

Again, non-responsive. I'm presenting a case where it has historically been gotten wrong.

But what’s your point?

They’re male.

With an extremely rare DSD , 5 alpha reductase deficiency.

What on earth has this to do with males without that condition being allowed into female only spaces?

 

[seanie]

The problem here is you are so focused on the rules that you're completely ignoring how it will play out. What are you going to do, challenge that 2%? And if not, what's the point of the rule in the fir

Some spaces are closely managed, some are not.

Competitive sports?

A one off cheek swab as a screen, with follow up testing if required.

It’s easy to enforce.

 

[seanie]

Prisons?

You should know the sex of the person you’re incarcerating.

 

[seanie]

1) Someone living as female.

What does that mean?

How do females live?

Define your terms.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes. In Shakespeare, you have women dressing and (successfully) acting as men, taking on male names and accomplishing male roles. In short, "identifying as men". Which was your goal post. Do you need to shift it?

So now pretending to be the other sex for ulterior purposes counts as "identifying". Got it.

Viola called herself Cesario and passed as male because she needed freedom of movement and needed a job, not because she actually thought she was a man.

"Ulterior purpose"? That phrasing says more about how you see women than how Shakespeare did.

You really ought to steer clear of making inferences about other people's views and motivations, because you're really bad at it. That phrasing says not a damn thing about how I see women, but a great deal about how I see you. My phrasing was copied straight from this upthread post by one of your ideological allies.

And what do you mean by the word “women” when you say that?

What does that category include/exclude? ...

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

I replied to you with an allusion to ld's definition in order to juxtapose his obvious sincere attempt to be reasonable with your obvious failure to make any such attempt.

Viola is the unquestionably the heroine and main protagonist of the play, and everyone understands by the end of it why she did as she did. There was no crime, nor is there any punishment unless you count marriage to Orsino as one.

Ah, I see what the problem is -- you're under the impression "ulterior" means criminal in some way. It means "existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden" - OED. ld used it correctly.

Her needs were practical, yes. But she most certainly identified as a man, for several months.

So you most certainly also misidentified the meaning of "identify".

I choose freedom, and always will. To that ideology, I am very really loyal,

Thank you, Mr. "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class.". Thank you, Mr. "You cannot teach those beliefs as facts.".

I will be damned before I let the government define how I am "allowed" to identify or on what terms.

So where the hell do you see anyone advocating the government not "allow" you to identify any way you damn well please?

 

[Politesse]

Thank you, Mr. "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class.". Thank you, Mr. "You cannot teach those beliefs as facts.".

Also true. You want to start a private school that teaches your wacky religion, you're free to do so, but public schools are the purview of the public, and the responsibility of scholars.

 

[Politesse]

So where the hell do you see anyone advocating the government not "allow" you to identify any way you damn well please?

You've not read the ruling the rest of us are discussing, I take it? It makes the basis on which the law is executed the government's opinion as to a person's biological sex.

 

[seanie]

No it doesn’t.

The legal position is that a person’s sex is a material fact that can be determined. It’s not like someone’s sex is an ineffable mystery.

It’s obvious 99.98% of the time.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry. If a woman can't pee with a man in earshot, that's prudery.

That is the only part of the story I'm addressing. Nothing else.

 

[Politesse]

No it doesn’t.

The legal position is that a person’s sex is a material fact that can be determined. It’s not like someone’s sex is an ineffable mystery.

It’s obvious 99.98% of the time.

You keep saying that over and over like I'm going to suddenly agree that .02% of the population simply doesn't matter. I do not. Legally, they are citizens like anyone else. Scientifically, they prove your hypothesis incorrect. Morally, targeting a minority for persecution with no justification except that they are a minority is abominable.

And it's a bullshit made-up number anyway. The error rate for such a question would be difficult to rigorously test, and given the arbitrary nature of sex categorizations, different experiments would net you very different numbers depending the criteria you used to define the "correct" categorization.

If there's a "real" number for the error rate of incorrect or inappropriate sex assignments at birth, that number is not posskble to know unless we were to agree on what constitutes a correct assignment in the first place.

 

[seanie]

Nobody said the .02% don’t matter. I’m just pointing out that ambiguity about a baby’s biological sex is very rare. It’s usually correctly observed at the 12 week scan.

 

[TomC]

What I absolutely do not need and will not abide is some man or men telling me what women must put up with or what risks women must take or that women are ridiculous for fearing or being startled by unexpected persons with penises in the shower next to them.

This is why I don't see the risk of overt sexual assault in the restroom or the existence of people with extremely rare congenital problems as the crux of the matter.

In a group as large as girls/women, attitudes will vary hugely. Ranging from "Meh. Who cares?" to shrieking fits at the sight of a male shaped person in the restroom. It would be great if there weren't so many women who've been so severely traumatized by a person of penage that they react badly, but they exist. Their feelings and reactions may not strike some people as rational but they are real. And I would bet a fair amount that people like that out number all the intersex and trans people put together.

It's just an unfortunate fact of life.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Nobody said the .02% don’t matter. I’m just pointing out that ambiguity about a baby’s biological sex is very rare. It’s usually correctly observed at the 12 week scan.

If they matter, then drawing "scientific conclusions" that ignore their data, legal "solutions" that disenfranchise them of rights, and conceving moral stances that degrade their very existence is inexcusable.

 

[TomC]

Nobody said the .02% don’t matter. I’m just pointing out that ambiguity about a baby’s biological sex is very rare. It’s usually correctly observed at the 12 week scan.

And frankly, it could be twice that much and it would still be a small fraction of a percent.
Tom