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

[seanie]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex.

 

[Toni]

... 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.

But it’s not the literal truth. Genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY or female XX body to feel differently. For almost all people, what is between their legs matches their genetics and how they and the world perceives them. But not for everybody. For a small percentage of people, a shift of a gene makes the difference in how they perceive themselves.

Y’all are acting as those this is very trivial or pretend. It is not. It is rooted in biology. It’s time to accept that.

 

[Toni]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

Elaboration:

• 
  
• Monoecious:
  Trees like oak, maple, and hickory have both male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers on the same tree.
  The same maples outside my house litter my yard with both pollen and with seeds, making them annoying and messy but they are also very beautiful.
  
  
• https://www.google.com/search?clien...CPezUOgwzI362HAIt1TSMDtrBG60n2J4wwr--Q&csui=3
• Dioecious:
  Trees like holly, persimmon, and gingko have separate male and female trees. Male trees produce pollen, and female trees produce fruits and seeds.
  Hermaphroditic:
  Trees like apple and pear have both male and female parts in each flower, allowing them to self-pollinate.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Nothing. Just like there is nothing mysterious about the concept of "complete physical transformation".

 

[seanie]

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

How do we know they have both male and female parts?

What are the terms male and female referring to?

 

[seanie]

Nothing. Just like there is nothing mysterious about the concept of "complete physical transformation".

Well it remains mysterious as long as you refuse to explain what you mean by it.

 

[Toni]

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

How do we know they have both male and female parts?

What are the terms male and female referring to?

Omfg: By examining them! Example: My maple trees drop millions of seeds every year—some of which sprout and grow and would become other maple trees if I did not pull them up! And those same trees drop pollen all over my yard and porch and it blows into my window screens!

I can tell that biology and nature is not your long suite but honestly, this has been known for centuries!

 

[seanie]

Examining them for what? What does “male” and “female “ mean in reference to trees?

And please note, that you yourself keep using those two terms.

Two terms: a binary.

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing. Just like there is nothing mysterious about the concept of "complete physical transformation".

Well it remains mysterious as long as you refuse to explain what you mean by it.

Define mysterious. Be specific.

 

[seanie]

You refuse to describe what “complete physical transformation” entails, so what you mean by the phrase is hopelessly vague.

 

[seanie]

For instance, are you claiming that a trans woman who has undergone as “complete physical transformation” is biologically indistinguishable from women who are not trans?

Because that would be a remarkable claim.

 

[seanie]

Or by “complete physical transformation” do you actually mean “sufficient physical transformation” to convincingly pass?

 

[Toni]

Examining them for what? What does “male” and “female “ mean in reference to trees?

And please note, that you yourself keep using those two terms.

Two terms: a binary.

Gross physical observation served well before DNA and DNA analysis allowed us to visualize genetic material.

 

[seanie]

What were people observing?

How did they determine the difference between male trees, female trees, and trees that were both?

What were they looking at?

 

[seanie]

(Hint: 7 letters, begins with “g”.)

 

[TomC]

Examining them for what? What does “male” and “female “ mean in reference to trees?

And please note, that you yourself keep using those two terms.

Two terms: a binary.

Gross physical observation served well before DNA and DNA analysis allowed us to visualize genetic material.

Served well for what?

What y'all don't seem to get is that it's not about looks. It's about attitudes and behaviors.
A zillion generations have resulted in a rather different set of instincts as well as different physiology. Like it or not, males tend to be more predatory than females. We are the pervy and rapey sex.

Most of us guys get the worst of those instincts socialized out of us. Most of us are an asset to women's security. But not all, and I believe it's safe to assert that there are far more male rapists than male women. As a result, women are socialized to be very careful around male strangers.

And physical appearance is the obvious marker for a person's sex. A male physique signals danger to a woman in a way that us guys can't understand fully. Add to that the number of women who have been viciously traumatized by people of penage, and you start to understand why there are women who absolutely, positively, do not want a male in the restroom with them, much less a shower.

Believing that they are being weak and irrational is pretty damn demeaning to women.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

He knows. He linked a Guardian article that said that.

How do we know they have both male and female parts?

What are the terms male and female referring to?

Omfg: By examining them! Example: My maple trees drop millions of seeds every year—some of which sprout and grow and would become other maple trees if I did not pull them up! And those same trees drop pollen all over my yard and porch and it blows into my window screens!

I can tell that biology and nature is not your long suite but honestly, this has been known for centuries!

He knows. You've heard the advice given to all lawyers? "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to." He's cross-examining you -- asking you questions designed to draw you into admitting some point he thinks will be damaging to your case.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nothing. Just like there is nothing mysterious about the concept of "complete physical transformation".

Well it remains mysterious as long as you refuse to explain what you mean by it.

I don't think continuing to press him is going anywhere -- ld has an unlimited capacity for bickering. I suggest we just all presume that by "complete physical transformation" he means the obvious: full-blown sex-change operation, breast implants, electrolysis, and ongoing estrogen treatments. If that's wrong he can correct us if he feels like it; until then, silence means consent.

 

[Toni]

Examining them for what? What does “male” and “female “ mean in reference to trees?

And please note, that you yourself keep using those two terms.

Two terms: a binary.

Gross physical observation served well before DNA and DNA analysis allowed us to visualize genetic material.

Served well for what?

What y'all don't seem to get is that it's not about looks. It's about attitudes and behaviors.
A zillion generations have resulted in a rather different set of instincts as well as different physiology. Like it or not, males tend to be more predatory than females. We are the pervy and rapey sex.

Most of us guys get the worst of those instincts socialized out of us. Most of us are an asset to women's security. But not all, and I believe it's safe to assert that there are far more male rapists than male women. As a result, women are socialized to be very careful around male strangers.

And physical appearance is the obvious marker for a person's sex. A male physique signals danger to a woman in a way that us guys can't understand fully. Add to that the number of women who have been viciously traumatized by people of penage, and you start to understand why there are women who absolutely, positively, do not want a male in the restroom with them, much less a shower.

Believing that they are being weak and irrational is pretty damn demeaning to women.
Tom

Do t think you were following the conversation. Gross physical examination of various parts of trees allowed farmers, botanists and horticulturists to observe that some varieties of trees came in male or female specimens and some did not.

Examining them for what? What does “male” and “female “ mean in reference to trees?

And please note, that you yourself keep using those two terms.

Two terms: a binary.

Gross physical observation served well before DNA and DNA analysis allowed us to visualize genetic material.

Served well for what?

What y'all don't seem to get is that it's not about looks. It's about attitudes and behaviors.
A zillion generations have resulted in a rather different set of instincts as well as different physiology. Like it or not, males tend to be more predatory than females. We are the pervy and rapey sex.

Most of us guys get the worst of those instincts socialized out of us. Most of us are an asset to women's security. But not all, and I believe it's safe to assert that there are far more male rapists than male women. As a result, women are socialized to be very careful around male strangers.

And physical appearance is the obvious marker for a person's sex. A male physique signals danger to a woman in a way that us guys can't understand fully. Add to that the number of women who have been viciously traumatized by people of penage, and you start to understand why there are women who absolutely, positively, do not want a male in the restroom with them, much less a shower.

Believing that they are being weak and irrational is pretty damn demeaning to women.
Tom

Women are well socialized and need to be better trained to know that the biggest threat to their safety is men they know. Most murders, assaults, raids and sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Regardless of gender of victim or perpetrator.

I realize it makes some men feel all manly by proclaiming that they are staunch defenders of women’s safety and virtue but it would be much more meaningful and effective if y’all quit being a threat to women’s physical safety.

Especially if you all quit trying to control women and learned to control yourselves and each other.
#NotAllMen of course.

 

[seanie]

You’re almost certainly right.

But by “complete physical transformation” he might mean tapping your heels together three times and saying “I consider myself a woman, I consider myself a woman, I consider myself a woman…”