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

[seanie]

Of course, if you think “complete physical transformation” is clear and unambiguous in it’s meaning, you’ll be able to easily answer those questions.

So go ahead.

 

[Bomb#20]

No matter how much other people tell them that they are being irrational and mean.

From the start of this thread, I've deferred to the woman's point of view on this issue.

"Does she think men think women don't actually urinate? Was she 14 years old?"

Was that at the start of this thread?

ETA, actually you are quite right. I misspoke. It was a previous thread I sided with the women over their concerns about men in womens spaces.

Doesn't mean I cannot think that a woman who cannot pee within earshot of a man could quite easily be a prude.

You certainly can. But then, men can always blame a woman for not just taking it like a man.

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.

And if instead she'd asked you to wait a minute until she finished, you would have, right? You acknowledged her right to reserve the space, you asked permission, and you had a universally recognized good reason for going in -- restrooms need to be cleaned and insisting that only women clean women's rooms is impractical and everyone understands that. Being okay with a janitor just doing his job is of course psychologically easier than being okay with a male restroom user who perfectly well could have used the men's room twenty feet away, but instead chose to encroach on a female space for reasons of his own. And even the janitor is expected by custom to announce himself and ask permission, because everyone understands that different women's comfort level varies.

Yes. I would. Why wouldn't I?

Of course you would -- only a jerk wouldn't. I asked instead of asserted only to avoid presuming about you. But what point were you trying to make when you told that story? I took you to be arguing that the woman in your story was okay with you being there while she peed, and therefore women in general should be okay with men in general being right outside the stall. So I was making the point that that's not a good argument. A janitor who's there for a good reason and is asking permission is a whole different situation from a man who chooses to use it even though there's a men's room twenty feet away because he feels entitled to not respect female boundaries. Of course those are going to cause different reactions.

Does she think men think women don't actually urinate? Was she 14 years old?

Case in point. Any more insults you need to get out of your system to convince yourself your cause is just? She's fifty-something, by the way.

Are you familiar with how urination works, physiologically? In case you haven't given it any thought lately, we have muscles around our urethras that normally hold the urethra closed by means of continuously maintained muscle tension. Urination involves relaxing them. Men typically don't have much trouble relaxing in the presence of women, so it stands to reason that women should have little trouble relaxing in the presence of men, eh?

Yes, I do. Do you understand why they do?

Sorry, not seeing what "I do" refers to. You mean, yes you do have some more insults? Yes, you do think women should have little trouble relaxing in the presence of men? Yes, you do have trouble relaxing in the presence of women? I understand why women typically have more trouble relaxing in the presence of men than vice versa, yes. Lemur societies are matriarchal; I expect boy lemurs are always a little nervous about what a girl lemur might do to them; but when monkeys evolved from prosimians 40-odd million years ago the tables were turned.

Going to the extent of putting curtains in her car and making other unknown arrangements to urinate there without making a mess must have been quite an undertaking. That is what makes her a prude in my book.

Makes her look to me like a woman with above-average willingness to take matters into her own hands instead of just knuckling under to whatever misery men decide to impose on women, like men expect typical women to do. Of course when men need a word for such an atypical woman, it will be derogatory.

 

[Ahab]

We’ve been offered in this thread, that anyone who considers themselves a woman is a woman.

That’s insane.

Absolutely batshit crazy.

And it was a comment made with very little pushback.

The IIDB forum has always been predominantly male. And it’s unsurprising that they’ve not given much thought to/not given a shit, about an issue that overwhelming
affects females negatively.

Because most men are conditioned to be misogynistic without even realising it.

Completely agree. Am also quite amazed as an atheist that other atheists are so willing to believe that

 

[ZiprHead]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

But you've not explained what you are referring to by "obtuse"!

Like me and Bomb, seanie grasps how the vernacular language is not all that precise. People often flip between sex, a physical characteristic, and gender, an abstract mental characteristic. When we ask for precision we get dumbassery, like "you know what I mean..." and ad homs.

It gets old.
Tom

So does seanie's stupid questions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Makes her look to me like a woman with above-average willingness to take matters into her own hands instead of just knuckling under to whatever misery men decide to impose on women, like men expect typical women to do. Of course when men need a word for such an atypical woman, it will be derogatory.

Oh, good lord. A man possibly hearing a woman pee is now having misery imposed on her!!!

I can't...

I just can't...

 

[TomC]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

But you've not explained what you are referring to by "obtuse"!

Like me and Bomb, seanie grasps how the vernacular language is not all that precise. People often flip between sex, a physical characteristic, and gender, an abstract mental characteristic. When we ask for precision we get dumbassery, like "you know what I mean..." and ad homs.

It gets old.
Tom

So does seanie's stupid questions.

Bullshit.
He questions your assertions. You don't have much of a response so you resort to ad homs.
It's a regular pattern in this thread.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

But you've not explained what you are referring to by "obtuse"!

Like me and Bomb, seanie grasps how the vernacular language is not all that precise. People often flip between sex, a physical characteristic, and gender, an abstract mental characteristic. When we ask for precision we get dumbassery, like "you know what I mean..." and ad homs.

It gets old.
Tom

So does seanie's stupid questions.

Bullshit.
He questions your assertions. You don't have much of a response so you resort to ad homs.
It's a regular pattern in this thread.
Tom

Actually I responded with the same statement seanie used, "I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning." *

 

[seanie]

So does seanie's stupid questions.

In what way are they stupid?

Can you explain?

 

[seanie]

Again, if what is meant by "complete physical transformation" is clear and obvious, describe what that entails.

It shouldn't be difficult.

If it's clear and obvious.

So go ahead, enlighten us.

 

[seanie]

What's the difference between a complete physical transformation, and one that isn't complete?

My bad for missing what's clear and obvious, but I'm sure you will easily clarify.

Won't you?

 

[seanie]

I assume, at this point, nobody's willing to defend the "a woman is anyone who considers themselves a woman"?

Or are some still backing this idiocy?

 

[laughing dog]

Pretending not to undestined what is meant to be conveyed by the term “serious person”, is just performative stupidity.

”Serious person” is a nebulous description. What does serious mean jn the context of a person? Are the degrees of seriousness or is binary? If there are degrees, at what point does a person become serious?

Your inability or unwillingness to live up to your demands of others is just performative hypocrisy.

 

[seanie]

A person who shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject in hand, because they are not engaging meaningfully.

Do you have difficulty with any of those words?

 

[seanie]

So, tell us, what does "complete physical transformation" mean?

We could start with just focusing on "complete".

What do you mean by that?

 

[laughing dog]

A person who shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject in hand, because they are not engaging meaningfully.

Do you have difficulty with any of those words?

Not with the words individully, just like I suspect you have no problem with the words “complete”, “physical” and “transformation”.

If you are saying a serious person is someone who is not engaging meaningfully, then you are begging the question because who decides what “engaging meaningfully” means?

For example, I suspect you feel you are a serious person who is engaging meaningfully, but I believe there are at least 2 participants who think your incessant nitpicking questions represent meaningless engagement. Which would mean you are not a serious person in their view.

 

[Bomb#20]

Makes her look to me like a woman with above-average willingness to take matters into her own hands instead of just knuckling under to whatever misery men decide to impose on women, like men expect typical women to do. Of course when men need a word for such an atypical woman, it will be derogatory.

Oh, good lord. A man possibly hearing a woman pee is now having misery imposed on her!!!

I can't...

I just can't...

Have you considered the merits of deciding what imposes misery on women by getting input from some female brains instead of just from your male brain?

My wife informs me that all her female friends hate co-ed public restrooms. IIRC you're married; you might try asking your wife whether her female friends like them. (You could ask them yourself, but a lot of women will say things to other women that they wouldn't say to a man.)

 

[Bomb#20]

How come when public places decide they have to have a gender-neutral restroom but they don't want to spring for the cost of building a third restroom, so they instead just relabel one of the existing two, it's invariably the women's room that gets redesignated? I've seen any number of places with a men's room and an all-gender room but no women's room; I don't recall ever seeing a women's room next to an all-gender room with no men's room. It's not just my imagination; I googled and found other people have noticed this too.

ETA some explanations I saw on reddit...

I guess men need safe spaces but women don't /s

Because of the the two genders: men and non-men. You are either a big strong man or a mystery creature. /s

"Are you a man or one of those political genders?" /s​

 

[seanie]

Not with the words individully, just like I suspect you have no problem with the words “complete”, “physical” and “transformation”.

If you are saying a serious person is someone who is not engaging meaningfully, then you are begging the question because who decides what “engaging meaningfully” means?

For example, I suspect you feel you are a serious person who is engaging meaningfully, but I believe there are at least 2 participants who think your incessant nitpicking questions represent meaningless engagement. Which would mean you are not a serious person in their view.

You could just explain, in detail, what exactly you mean by “complete physical transformation”?

Instead of avoiding it.

 

[seanie]

What is required, in terms of a “complete physical transformation”, for a male to be a female?

Give us details.

 

[ZiprHead]

So does seanie's stupid questions.

In what way are they stupid?

Can you explain?

For example...