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

[Toni]

Where did I say they didn’t?

If girls have more of a right to safety and dignity than boys, then boys have less of a right to safety and dignity than girls.

Everyone has a right to safety and dignity. Everyone.

Where it gets tricky is that girls and women are conditioned—for centuries! to fear or at least be suspicious of male appearing bodies, especially in intimate spaces. One of the biggest ways girls and women are/have been so conditioned is through rape, threat of rape, enforced virginity which, if lost, makes you fair game for rape, forced pregnancy and huge amounts of slut shaming. This is an ugly ugly ugly truth designed to cover up the fact that rape is an act of violence and not of lust. This is true no matter who the victim and who the perpetrator. Also to control women and to ensure they don’t ’get out of line.’

That conditioning is the reason that most of the women who object to ( pre-surgical) trans women in women’s restrooms and locker rooms. Of course some are just bigots but the absolute fact is that the unexpected appearance of a naked body in a space where you expect to see only persons whose bodies look like your sex/gender will provoke a fear and/or anger response especially if you have been the victim of sexual assault.

Of course that is unfair to trans individuals who are just trying to live their best lives. It is also unfair to victims of sexual assault who are just trying to live their best lives.

I was talking not that long ago with a young man who talked about how offensive it was that when he first invited a woman who later became his girlfriend to his home, she insisted on bringing a friend—as if he might harm her! Which, of course he would not! But imagine needing to live your life that way: never being quite certain if that nice guy is really a nice guy or is hiding some not very nice proclivities behind a ‘nice guy’ veneer. Much more common than we’d like to think.

I think it is wrong to label every woman who is not enthusiastically welcoming to naked pre-surgical trans women in the shower next to her as a bigot. It’s much more likely that she has been victimized.

BTW, that right to dignity and safety includes all people, of whatever gender or sex or sexual orientation or presentation. Men and boys deserve that as much as girls and women and so do trans or intersex individuals and anyone in the LGBTQIA community.

Ideally this would be of no concern. But ideally, sexual assault would never be a concern, either. And no: you cannot tell by looking who is ‘safe’ and who is not. Unfortunately. Men may not get this, but it’s more than just a little rich for men to tell women that they just have to put up with penises in the shower next to them. Because, it’s men that cause the fear in the first place.

So a bit of grace all around is called for as well as cool heads and creative minds to come up with solutions that ensure safety and dignity for all.

 

[Bomb#20]

It wasn't a political agenda that got Strobel hurt -- nobody required male-looking people to use the women's restroom. This could have gone down the same way ever since ladies' rooms became a thing around 1900. Asshole bar owners and asshole cops aren't a new thing.

Pop quiz: What legal decision is this thread about?

Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wrong,

Ask a rhetorical question, get a rhetorical answer. Pop quiz: How does which British legal decision the thread's about support your contention that an incident in America somebody posted to the thread about a creepy bar owner looking over the stall wall at a woman on the toilet in the women's room means Strobel got hurt because "You" require some male-looking people to use the women's restroom?

though relevant in its own way.

Yes -- it's the corresponding American Supreme Court case. They're both rulings that a local government doesn't have the authority to nullify the central government's laws for the purpose of watering down the central government's legal protections of people the central government cares more about than the local government does.

Forcing biracial children to "pick a race" and get savagely beaten by "citizen police" no matter which they chose was a common problem with race-segregated schools also.

That would be a better analogy if whites-only schools had been an institution established by the black patriarchy as a meager way to slightly ameliorate a fraction of the grief the blacks collectively put their white subjects through.

 

[laughing dog]

A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

What do you mean by “complete”?

Given we’ve been told anyone who considers themselves to be a woman is one?

Is “considering” sufficient to make a male female.

Specificity would help.

Your response and posts in this thread suggests nothing would help.

I leave it to you to make a definition of “complete physical transformation” in order to avoid confusion.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are some situations where a person’s sex does actually matter. Because other people have a right to dignity, privacy, safety, and fairness. And when I say other people, I mostly mean women and girls. ... Single sex spaces do not exist to validate the feelings of people who are not the sex they consider themselves to be.

Since you bring it up so forcefully, why do you believe that men do not also deserve dignity, privacy, safety, or fairness just as much as anyone else? I see no reason to deny any of those qualities to any citizen.

Where did I say they didn’t?

If girls have more of a right to safety and dignity than boys, then boys have less of a right to safety and dignity than girls.

I.e., you're committing a double non sequitur. That seanie mostly means women and girls doesn't mean he believes boys have less of a right to it than girls; and even if he does, boys having less of a right to it than girls doesn't mean boys deserve it less. The point that seems to escape you is that reality matters and reality is not constrained by human moral judgments of who deserves what or whose rights are what. Due to toxic masculinity and testosterone poisoning, women deserve a man-free space to take refuge in. And yes, we all have an equal right to dignity, privacy, safety, and fairness -- due to toxic masculinity and testosterone poisoning, men deserve a man-free space to take refuge in every bit as much as women do. The problem is, we cannot provide a man-free space to men -- any space we provide men with is necessarily not man-free. That's a matter of reality, not a matter of rights and deservingness. It's unfair that people who fall off cliffs plunge to their deaths; likewise it's unfair that a person cannot be simultaneously in a space and outside it; but those are facts of physics, not facts of public policy.

So let's all make like Judith in The Life of Brian, and agree that a man can't actually have a man-free space, not having Schrodinger's-Cat-style superposition powers, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have a man-free space, to go along with his undisputed right to have babies.

 

[seanie]

Your response and posts in this thread suggests nothing would help.

I leave it to you to make a definition of “complete physical transformation” in order to avoid confusion

No, they’re your words not mine.

Define your terms.

What do you mean by that?

 

[seanie]

You’re not making a coherent argument.

Define your terms, and explain what it means by “complete physical transformation”.

 

[laughing dog]

Your response and posts in this thread suggests nothing would help.

I leave it to you to make a definition of “complete physical transformation” in order to avoid confusion

No, they’re your words not mine.

Define your terms.

What do you mean by that?

I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in your endless questioning in the name of “understanding “. If you cannot grasp the concept of “complete physical transformation”, then they must remain an untenable mystery, like determining the sex if trees.

 

[seanie]

So you won’t explain what you mean by “complete physical transformation”?

Why is that difficult for you?

They’re your words, explain them.

 

[seanie]

The problem you have, is that however righteous you feel, and how certain you are that everyone who disagrees with you are Nazi bigots, you have no coherent argument as to why males should be allowed into female spaces on the basis that they consider themselves female.

It’s obviously nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

So you won’t explain what you mean by “complete physical transformation”?

Why is that difficult for you?

They’re your words, explain them.

Explanation is not difficult. I explained why. Apparently that explanation was too difficult for you to understand. Which confirms my rationale.

I’m sorry if it bothers you, but you’ll survive.

 

[seanie]

No, you made an assertion, and you’ve refused to explain it.

What does “complete physical transformation” mean?

What is your scale or checklist to determine which male who considers themselves female is “genuinely “ a woman?

Show your workings.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you made an assertion, and you’ve refused to explain it.

No, I asked a question of a poster about his allegation about my views.

 

[seanie]

What do you mean by “complete physical transformation”?

What about the trans people who haven’t undergone “complete physical transformation “?

 

[Bomb#20]

Hysterical?

In what way?

Go ask the trees while you determining their sex.

That's the kind of ideological nonsense that makes you look like an idiot to me.

I'm a dude. I've watered a lot of trees. You want to know the sex of the trees I was taking a whiz on.
Makes you look like an ideological idiot to me. A trans activist who doesn't care about the human situation overall, only your ideology.
Tom

Bless your heart. The irony in that response overwhelms its cluelessness and willful ignorance. I’m not the one with multiple posts asking about determining the sex of trees.

A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

No, I'm pretty sure that's not why he classifies you as a trans activist.

Have you been kicked in the head? The same way it is done now.

You seem to have missed the rest of the post.

I’ll help you.

I missed nothing. Apparently you have no clue what "The same way it is done now" means.

Who’s rights take precedence?

Women who want a female only spaces, or the men who want to be in the female only space?

When I asked about how it was to be resolved, I was asking what you thought the outcome should be.

Which side would you tend to favour?

The women who want a female only space, or the men who consider themselves women who want to access it?

I favor the side of women.

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

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

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.

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

 

[Toni]

Hysterical?

In what way?

Go ask the trees while you determining their sex.

That's the kind of ideological nonsense that makes you look like an idiot to me.

I'm a dude. I've watered a lot of trees. You want to know the sex of the trees I was taking a whiz on.
Makes you look like an ideological idiot to me. A trans activist who doesn't care about the human situation overall, only your ideology.
Tom

Bless your heart. The irony in that response overwhelms its cluelessness and willful ignorance. I’m not the one with multiple posts asking about determining the sex of trees.

A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

No, I'm pretty sure that's not why he classifies you as a trans activist.

Have you been kicked in the head? The same way it is done now.

You seem to have missed the rest of the post.

I’ll help you.

I missed nothing. Apparently you have no clue what "The same way it is done now" means.

Who’s rights take precedence?

Women who want a female only spaces, or the men who want to be in the female only space?

When I asked about how it was to be resolved, I was asking what you thought the outcome should be.

Which side would you tend to favour?

The women who want a female only space, or the men who consider themselves women who want to access it?

I favor the side of women.

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

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

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.

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

But here you are refusing to acknowledge the truth: that sometimes, women have make appearing bodies and sometimes men have female appearing bodies. This is not pretend —this is fact. The package dies not always reflect the inside.

It takes tremendous strength and courage and a lot of introspection to really understand who you are as a person. Times about a million if you are trans.

To be, that’s not even a question. Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and the perceptions of privacy and safety which are roots in large part to the history of violence and sexual violence most commonly —but not exclusively— inflicted on girls and females by men and boys.

 

[laughing dog]

Hysterical?

In what way?

Go ask the trees while you determining their sex.

That's the kind of ideological nonsense that makes you look like an idiot to me.

I'm a dude. I've watered a lot of trees. You want to know the sex of the trees I was taking a whiz on.
Makes you look like an ideological idiot to me. A trans activist who doesn't care about the human situation overall, only your ideology.
Tom

Bless your heart. The irony in that response overwhelms its cluelessness and willful ignorance. I’m not the one with multiple posts asking about determining the sex of trees.

A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

No, I'm pretty sure that's not why he classifies you as a trans activist.

Have you been kicked in the head? The same way it is done now.

You seem to have missed the rest of the post.

I’ll help you.

I missed nothing. Apparently you have no clue what "The same way it is done now" means.

Who’s rights take precedence?

Women who want a female only spaces, or the men who want to be in the female only space?

When I asked about how it was to be resolved, I was asking what you thought the outcome should be.

Which side would you tend to favour?

The women who want a female only space, or the men who consider themselves women who want to access it?

I favor the side of women.

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

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

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.

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

And you feel any of this pertinent because….?

 

[Bomb#20]

... Makes you look like an ideological idiot to me. A trans activist who doesn't care about the human situation overall, only your ideology.
Tom

...
A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

No, I'm pretty sure that's not why he classifies you as a trans activist.

...
Which side would you tend to favour?

The women who want a female only space, or the men who consider themselves women who want to access it?

I favor the side of women.

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

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

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.

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

And you feel any of this pertinent because….?

Oh, I freely stipulate I'm being impertinent. Impertinent commentary on other people's religions is pretty much what IIDB is for.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Makes you look like an ideological idiot to me. A trans activist who doesn't care about the human situation overall, only your ideology.
Tom

Bless your heart. The irony in that response overwhelms its cluelessness and willful ignorance. I’m not the one with multiple posts asking about determining the sex of trees.

A “trans activist” because I think transwomen who have a complete physical transformation should be viewed and treated ad a woman in public institutions in order to protect them from abuse?

No, I'm pretty sure that's not why he classifies you as a trans activist.

I favor the side of women.

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

What does that category include/exclude?

Are you meaning “adult human females”, or “anyone who considers themselves a woman”?

Because those are different things.

Yes, they are, even though you seem to use them interchangeably.

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.

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

But here you are refusing to acknowledge the truth: that sometimes, women have make appearing bodies and sometimes men have female appearing bodies. This is not pretend —this is fact. The package dies not always reflect the inside.

But here you are refusing to acknowledge the truth: that Mauna Loa is a bigger mountain than Mt. Everest. This is not pretend -- this is fact. Sometimes, big things appear smaller than they are because most of their bulk is underwater. Funny story about that -- turns out the conventions of discourse do not require constant anticipation and constant acknowledgement of every random fact some other participant might wish you were talking about instead of what you are talking about. It's okay for you not to bring up Maua Loa; likewise, it's okay for me not to bring up body appearance. Why the heck should I have to mention that some people appear to be the other sex in order for it to be acceptable for me to point out that ld was misrepresenting Tom?

It takes tremendous strength and courage and a lot of introspection to really understand who you are as a person. Times about a million if you are trans.

To be, that’s not even a question.

Certainly.

Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and the perceptions of privacy and safety which are roots in large part to the history of violence and sexual violence most commonly —but not exclusively— inflicted on girls and females by men and boys.

Of course it isn't. What's your point? Calling so-called "trans women" "men" is a good faith attempt -- a successful attempt -- to speak the literal truth. Are you proposing that literal truth is the wrong thing to be making a good faith attempt at? Are you proposing that speakers have a duty to instead commit pious fraud? A duty to refrain from using plain English and instead speak some Humpty Dumpty language progressives invented to promote their social goals? A duty to join you in calling them "women", not because they are, but in order to help a lie go half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on because a culture of universal lying about them would be helpful in resolving the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and the perceptions of privacy and safety?

If you want me to say transwomen are women, explain why they're women; don't explain the social benefits of pretending they're women. Did you think the lesson of the fable was that the child who says the emperor has no clothes should have kept his mouth shut? Letting an ideology bully unbelievers into lying for the sake of its view of the greater good does not have a track record of achieving the greater good.

 

[seanie]

If you cannot grasp the concept of “complete physical transformation”, then they must remain an untenable mystery, like determining the sex if trees.

What’s mysterious about determining the sex of a tree? You know trees are sexed, right?

 

[seanie]

Even the Guardian understands sex when it comes to trees.