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

[Politesse]

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.

By an incredible margin. You will never, in your lifetime, see a trans person with an obvious penis in a women's restroom, any more than you are likely to see a knife-wielding Muslim terrorist on the streets of London, meet a communist in a university economics department, or stumble upon a Satanic child sacrifice ritual at your local D and D shop. They choose which minority populations to create panics over carefully. Because, not in spite of, how rare they actually are.

 

[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.

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

That's not how science works. You don't just ignore the data that contradicts your conclusions because there's "only a little bit of it".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That doesn't clarify what if anything it's got to do with being trans though. Which argument are you calling "the anti-trans argument" that you propose to kick a pillar out from under? Who are these people you're calling "The anti-trans"? Labeling dissidents "anti-trans" is a well-poisoning fallacy -- you might as well call everyone who doesn't believe God has a Chosen People "anti-Jew". "The anti-trans insist that everyone is clearly male or clearly female" is a sweeping generalization -- plenty of people whom trans-activists would no doubt label "anti-trans" do not insist any such thing. And the fact that some opponent made a weak argument doesn't show your opponents in general are wrong. For intersex conditions to have something to do with being trans, there would have to be some fact in dispute about being trans that turns on whether somebody somewhere has, for example, a fully functional left testicle and right ovary. I'm having trouble imagining what fact that might be.

There is a cluster of positions that generally travel together and can reasonably be considered anti-trans.

And it's not that some opponents made a weak argument, but that basically all of them use the same flawed argument. When everyone trying to establish X makes the same mistake in the process it's highly suggestive that X is false.

And you're still not getting it--it's not saying the trans exist, but that the argument of why they don't is invalid.

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.

So once again, which argument are you talking about knocking down? I don't think anyone here but maybe Tigers! believes in gendered souls. Of course people who think they're the other sex think it because something in the development of their brains didn't bring about the usual perception that they are the sex the rest of us observe them to be -- all thoughts are the result of brain wiring.

Once again, it's showing that a strict male/female division isn't a proper map of reality.

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.

You mean the reproductive anatomy, I take it. Brain wiring is anatomy.

Since we don't know how it manifests in the brain we can't establish that it's wiring and thus "anatomy" might not be relevant.

Thus it is unquestionable that there can be a gender to the mind.

No, it is unquestionable that there can be a gender identity to the mind. Gender and gender identity are not the same concept. An awful lot of trans ideology's arguments rely on equivocating them.

What is there to distinguish between them?

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.

Argumentum ad suicide? Whether a person who thinks he or she is the other sex would benefit from drafting the whole population into his or her care team, and getting them all to help the person self-perceive as the other sex, medicinally, by making an effort to conceal contrary data, has no implications one way or the other as to whether he or she is, in point of fact, the other sex.

Who is being drafted?

I'm simply saying that allowing them to live as the gender of their choice has a better outcome than not. And the claims of a burden on society don't show up in the data.

 

[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.

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.

Who are you talking about?
Seanie has done no such thing. If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.
Tom

 

[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

That's not how science works. You don't just ignore the data that contradicts your conclusions because there's "only a little bit of it".

Nobody is ignoring it.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.

And you accuse me of putting words in people's mouths! You need to wash yours out with soap, because that is an unashamed lie. I have never said anything remotely like that, and I never would.

 

[TomC]

If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.

And you accuse me of putting words in people's mouths! You need to wash yours out with soap, because that is an unashamed lie. I have never said anything remotely like that, and I never would.

You have consistently dismissed the concerns of real women who don't want a male in the restroom with them.
Tom

 

[thebeave]

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.

In the TV show Ally McBeal (late '90's, early 2000's) they had an "all gender" bathroom. The men and women lawyers would go in the same bathroom and an use adjacent stalls. It skeeved me out. I was trying to imagine my own former office workplace filled with young men and women who had secret crushes, and office rumor mills constantly churning out gossip. The idea of sitting in a stall next to the hot girl and listening to her tooting out a bunch of noisy, noxious sounds and smells (or me doing the same to her) was unbecoming. Not to mention all the subsequent office gossip about which chick (or guy) has the smelliest shit or the noisiest farts. Its a situation that I could see getting really disruptive and out of hand. It would definitely keep HR busy though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are many societies who recognise a third "gender".

With one single exception, all those societies have constructed a third category for males who don't conform to the societal stereotype of being masculine.

Not females, only males.

Because most societies don't really give women the freedom to choose.

Do you know who's absolutely fine with males participating in female sport?

Iran.

Where you can be executed for being homosexual, but if you're a "trans woman" you can play on the national soccer team.

Patriarchal, homophobic societies, have created a third category to deal with gay men short of executing them.

Trans away the gay.

Iran is not a reasonable example of anything.

 

[seanie]

I wasn’t suggesting they were.

 

[TomC]

The idea of sitting in a stall next to the hot girl and listening to her tooting out a bunch of noisy, noxious sounds and smells (or me doing the same to her) was unbecoming.

I'm totally with you.

I'm as careful as possible to never use public restrooms for anything but a quick whizz. I may find big burly daddy types hot, but I don't want to listen or smell them take a dump.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I can't even.

Why not?

Why did you ask "There were no doors on the stalls?"? Was that a serious question? Do you genuinely think "The stall doors were missing." is a more likely explanation for why a woman would pee in a jar in the parking lot than that it's psychologically less awful for her than having to pee with a man she doesn't know right outside the stall? Or was it a rhetorical question, intended to convey a sentiment to the effect of "Why can't a woman be more like a man?"? Either way, for you to write something that tone-deaf makes me wonder if you even know any women.

I already told the story of working at a concert venue and announcing my self before entering the women's restroom/shower area and a woman on the toilet in a stall told me to come on in.

Frankly, the woman in your story sounds like a prude. Does she think men think women don't actually urinate? Was she 14 years old?

Exactly. I see this whole thing as providing legal support for being a prude. And I do not believe prudery deserves legal protection.

The attempts to show harm don't stand up to scrutiny--tangentially related events are being presented as evidence of harm even when what's being considered would do nothing about the events. We see the same thing across many areas related to sexuality.

If you want me to support a law against X you need to show harm that would actually be prevented by the law that exceeds the imposition created by the law. And I consider just about all laws about adult realms to fail this test. (Not to say that there should be no laws in any case, but that current laws go too far. For example, local law prohibits an establishment from having both full nudity and alcohol. Either is legal, not both. Huh? One place is grandfathered in with both and doesn't seem to be a cause of problems beyond those normally associated with a bar.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well actually they had men, pretending to be women, pretending to be men.

Biological sex came with some restrictions in Shakespearian times.

Women weren’t allowed to be actors.

Regardless of how they identified.

I wouldn't consider women pretending to be men to gain access to male only jobs to be trans. It's a disguise, not a desire.

That being said, I recall reading about one. Person is accused of rape. "Officer, I can't be guilty as I lack the requisite anatomy."

 

[Politesse]

If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.

And you accuse me of putting words in people's mouths! You need to wash yours out with soap, because that is an unashamed lie. I have never said anything remotely like that, and I never would.

You have consistently dismissed the concerns of real women who don't want a male in the restroom with them.
Tom

When did I do that?

 

[TomC]

If you want me to support a law against X you need to show harm that would actually be prevented by the law that exceeds the imposition created by the law.

This is where we vehemently disagree.

I think causing people discomfort, sometimes extreme discomfort, qualifies as "harm". You might find her reaction irrational, but I have enough empathy and consideration get really judgemental about males who feel entitled to use the women's restroom.
Tom

 

[TomC]

If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.

And you accuse me of putting words in people's mouths! You need to wash yours out with soap, because that is an unashamed lie. I have never said anything remotely like that, and I never would.

You have consistently dismissed the concerns of real women who don't want a male in the restroom with them.
Tom

When did I do that?

You do it consistently. Despite women telling you flat out "Many of us just don't want a man in the public restroom with us!" You feel that your opinions on the subject trump the rights and concerns of women in public restrooms.

How very male of you.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Exactly. I see this whole thing as providing legal support for being a prude. And I do not believe prudery deserves legal protection.

Yeah, I don't think male privilege deserves legal protection either.
That's what this is. A male wants the right to use a restroom labeled "women". Women don't want him in their room. You're insisting on his entitlements.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So we should model society around the prudes? We already have assholes that want to ban pornography.

And here I thought we were keeping the romance alive.

It's your choice whether to share a restroom with family.

It’s not prudery to wish to have some privacy or some modesty.

It's prudery that says to have it from the other sex.

Is it prudery that has caused men to have men’s only clubs? Locker rooms?

Yes.

Is it prudery that makes men’s locker rooms unsafe for non-gender confirming males or females?

It's vestiges of it.

Is it prudery that drives women to be fearful of unfamiliar —or uninvited male bodies in the shower next to them?

Yes, because you're basing it on the wrong thing.

I’ve said up threat at least once and I believe multiple times that I think there should be private shower stalls, private dressing rooms, private bathroom stalls. I believe that should afford sufficient privacy for most people.

And I have no problem with a business offering such. The problem comes from when it's mandated.

I have zero interest in keeping any person, trans or otherwise from enjoying full rights, including rights to bathroom or locker room facilities that match their gender.

But that's the effect. Bathroom bills are about making transwomen unable to function in society.

I have zero interest in expecting victims of sexual assault—including LGBTQIA people—to be fearful or reluctant to use public facilities. Or just those who fear it.

And I really really really have no interest in being called a prude for having enough empathy to recognize and accept that there are a lot of people who are more comfortable not sharing absolutely everything with random strangers.

And once again, you make an unsupported jump. "Strangers" != "men".

 

[Politesse]

If anyone, it's folks like you who think that those dumb broads need to get over their feelings and concerns.

And you accuse me of putting words in people's mouths! You need to wash yours out with soap, because that is an unashamed lie. I have never said anything remotely like that, and I never would.

You have consistently dismissed the concerns of real women who don't want a male in the restroom with them.
Tom

When did I do that?

You do it consistently. Despite women telling you flat out "Many of us just don't want a man in the public restroom with us!" You feel that your opinions on the subject trump the rights and concerns of women in public restrooms.

How very male of you.
Tom

So what are my options here? EITHER I give in to every demand someone makes without condition, OR I am calling them slurs (that have never passed my lips!) and "dismissing" them? Those are the only two options?

Stop lying about what I have said.

 

[TomC]

So what are my options here?

Let the management and clientele of any given venue decide who is entitled to use the room labeled "women".

Tom