• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

Loren Pechtel said:
seanie said:
I don’t know what you’re suggesting for sports. What standards need to be agreed?
Click to expand...
Exactly who qualifies as "female".

Those who never underwent male puberty are unquestionably equal to females in competition.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that? The sports record for prepubescent boys is better than the record for girls of the same age in almost every event.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Bomb#20 said:
Loren Pechtel said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
There is a cluster of positions that generally travel together and can reasonably be considered anti-trans.
Click to expand...
No doubt; but what does that have to do with the discussion here? Do you see anybody in the thread defending Trump's order to kick people with gender dysphoria out of the military? People are called anti-trans here for not agreeing that the progressive stack is the correct way to decide public policy and matters of fact. It is not anti-trans to say transwomen aren't women any more than it's anti-Muslim to say Mohammad wasn't God's Prophet; it's simply failing to pretend to believe and uncritically recite some subculture's intellectually vapid loyalty oath. Likewise, it is not anti-trans to say trans people have exactly the same rights as the rest of us but no extra rights on account of being trans, any more than it's anti-black to say black students have the right to be considered for college admission based on the same standard of qualification as everyone else, but no right to favoritism on account of being black.

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.
Click to expand...
Dude, I already asked you which argument you're calling "the anti-trans argument" that you propose to kick a pillar out from under. "X" is not an answer! What is this flawed argument that you claim basically all of them make? Emily at least has repeatedly made it very clear she thinks intersex conditions have no bearing on trans issues; as for me, I never claimed sex is a strict binary; and I'm guessing you classify both of us as "anti-trans".

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.
Click to expand...
Oh for the love of god! Stop getting your understanding of people's viewpoints at second-hand from the ad hominem propaganda of their opponents. You aren't willing to believe Ukrainians are Nazis on barbos's say-so, are you? So go to the source. Who the heck here has argued that the trans don't exist?!? Of course they exist! But their existence doesn't prove they are what they think they are, any more than a Hindu's undisputed existence proves she's the reincarnation of a sacred cow.

Bomb#20 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Once again, it's showing that a strict male/female division isn't a proper map of reality.
Click to expand...
You keep imputing some argument to the so-called "anti-trans", so tell me what argument you're talking about. "A strict male/female division is a proper map of reality." is not an argument! It's just a single statement. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition, remember? So what argument are you talking about? What other statements are connected in series with the one you're denying? What definite proposition are the so-called "anti-trans" intending to establish from the series?

I expect once you clarify what argument you're talking about -- once you explain that the "anti-trans" argue "P: A strict male/female division is a proper map of reality. Q: <some other connected statement>. Therefore R: <some definite proposition about trans issues>.", we're going to find that conclusion R doesn't actually depend on premise P.

Bomb#20 said:
You mean the reproductive anatomy, I take it. Brain wiring is anatomy.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I lost you. You don't believe in souls, do you? What else is there besides brain wiring to account for the physical phenomenon of a person thinking she is or isn't a member of some set? I'm not seeing a whole lot of metastable cross-coupled Nand-gates in there.

Bomb#20 said:
Thus it is unquestionable that there can be a gender to the mind.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What is there to distinguish between them?
Click to expand...
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
...
Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth".
- World Health Organization​

To oversimplify: your gender identity is the sex-linked category you think of yourself as being in; your gender is the sex-linked category other people typically think of you as being in. That's what "socially constructed" involves.

Bomb#20 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What does "allowing them to live as the gender of their choice" mean? What would "not allowing them to live as the gender of their choice" involve? Banning women from cutting their hair short and wearing traditionally male clothing and getting traditionally male jobs and changing their names to male-sounding names? Nobody does that! That sort of thing went out of style over fifty years ago. Women get to do everything men get to do and don't even get considered trans for it, just tomboys. So getting to live as they please can't be what you're talking about. Surely what you're talking about must be how other people live -- whether other people alter their own behavior to pretend they don't know perfectly well that the male-identifying woman is in point of fact female.

That's who's being drafted. If the point of all this society-wide lying the trans-activists are demanding from the rest of us is for a better mental health outcome for their favorite oppressed group, that means we're being drafted into their care team. Well, if we're going to be part of their care team, shouldn't we be getting paid for it?
 

The Resistance Toolbox​

·
Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville, US writes:
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology, you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX, and you’re female, XY, and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development, the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes, that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY), and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX), and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specific areas on the body and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...
...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...
Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes, those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course, you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor, I will tell you...
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY, and all manner of variation, which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people.
 
That’s horseshit.

Sex isn’t defined by chromosomes, so unusual chromosomal arrangements are irrelevant.

Sex is defined by the reproductive pathway a foetus goes down from the moment of fertilisation. And there are only two pathways: female and male.
 
Even if some lost tribe in Borneo was discovered, where there were true sequential hermaphrodites, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

It wouldn’t suddenly make it OK for Bob, a married father of two, who now want’s to be called Brenda, to go into the women’s changing room.
 
seanie said:
That’s horseshit.

Sex isn’t defined by chromosomes, so unusual chromosomal arrangements are irrelevant.

Sex is defined by the reproductive pathway a foetus goes down from the moment of fertilisation. And there are only two pathways: female and male.
Click to expand...
Definitions are determined through use by people. While one can disagree about the utility of a particular definition, you’ve made mo compelling case why your preferred definition is any less horseshit that others.
 
It’s objective fact about the material world.

As opposed to ‘males can be women if they sincerely and truthfully consider themselves women”.
 
Are you re-writing the definition of sex for all the other plant and animal species that reproduce through a binary?
 
A bull is a cow if they sincerely and truthfully consider themselves to be a cow.

😂
 
If society wans to redefine words in a way that are fundamentally silly, and have no basis in the material world, that’s up to society,

But it doesn’t affect reality.
 
Yes they are.

But chromosomes don’t define sex. And very rare chromosomal arrangements font’s make people with perfectly common chromosomes the opposite sex just because they “sincerely and truthfully” consider them to be so.

Or are you suggesting a chromosome test to identify the true trans people?
 
laughing dog said:
Interesting read. Retailers are under no legal obligation to enforce single sex bathrooms - only to offer them. So, according to the linked article, if I am reading it correctly, all the feared consequences of allowing males into female only places may still occur unabated.
Click to expand...
Read harder.

A failure to provide single sex spaces could also be considered unlawful discrimination.
 
seanie said:
laughing dog said:
Interesting read. Retailers are under no legal obligation to enforce single sex bathrooms - only to offer them. So, according to the linked article, if I am reading it correctly, all the feared consequences of allowing males into female only places may still occur unabated.
Click to expand...
Read harder.

A failure to provide single sex spaces could also be considered unlawful discrimination.
Click to expand...
I suggest you take your own advice and read the bold-raced portion.

Do you disagree that retailers are not legally required to enforce single sec bathrooms?
 
It’s not enough to have a legally compliant policy, if you ignore that policy in operation.

That’s not how the law works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom