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

[Playball40]

Imagine believing mg on a first date with a woman you find highly attractive. During the course of dinner, you realize you really need to take a dump—office taco Tuesday strikes hard! And when you excuse yourself for the restroom, she says she needs to powder her nose, too!

How comfortable will you be if she checks herself into the stall next to you?

Why would she go into a stall to 'powder her nose'?

 

[Playball40]

Not at all.

They are kinda relevant to the thread though.

Your thread, at this point, OP has vanished.

About your unwarranted and unwanted obsession with other people's genitals and other people's business.

Sex is real, binary, immutable, and in some circumstances matters.

But people can identify how they wish, and should be protected from unfair discrimination and harassment. It’s just that sometimes their biological sex is still more important than their gender identity.

You're ridiculous JK.

 

[Toni]

Imagine believing mg on a first date with a woman you find highly attractive. During the course of dinner, you realize you really need to take a dump—office taco Tuesday strikes hard! And when you excuse yourself for the restroom, she says she needs to powder her nose, too!

How comfortable will you be if she checks herself into the stall next to you?

Why would she go into a stall to 'powder her nose'?

Ah, I’m old. In the olden days, women never said they needed to go to the bathroom to urinate or defecate or heaven forbid, to make use of a menstrual product. A woman said she needed to powder her nose which covered any/all of the aforementioned, the need to check her make up or fix her bra strap or to just get a break from the guy or occasionally to express displeasure with the conversation. When accompanied by another woman it could also be to vent, gossip or to arrange how the rest of the evening was going to go.

I’ve never seen a woman powder her nose in a public bathroom. I’m not certain I’ve ever powdered my nose. Anywhere.

 

[Playball40]

Imagine believing mg on a first date with a woman you find highly attractive. During the course of dinner, you realize you really need to take a dump—office taco Tuesday strikes hard! And when you excuse yourself for the restroom, she says she needs to powder her nose, too!

How comfortable will you be if she checks herself into the stall next to you?

Why would she go into a stall to 'powder her nose'?

Ah, I’m old. In the olden days, women never said they needed to go to the bathroom to urinate or defecate or heaven forbid, to make use of a menstrual product. A woman said she needed to powder her nose which covered any/all of the aforementioned, the need to check her make up or fix her bra strap or to just get a break from the guy or occasionally to express displeasure with the conversation. When accompanied by another woman it could also be to vent, gossip or to arrange how the rest of the evening was going to go.

I’ve never seen a woman powder her nose in a public bathroom. I’m not certain I’ve ever powdered my nose. Anywhere.

Ah ok. That makes sense!

 

[TomC]

And that's a good reason to replace two urinals with one normal toilet stall, is it?

YES for a unisex restroom.
And that 2:1 replacement ratio is an assumption not a physical constant.

Why?
Urinals are much smaller, more sanitary, faster, and less expensive. They are better for at least 40% of restroom stops.
Tom

 

[seanie]

You're ridiculous JK.

Well that’s pretty much the legal position in the UK given the Supreme Court ruling.

Gender Reassignment is still a protected characteristic, but when it comes to single sex spaces, the Equality Act means biological sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

And that's a good reason to replace two urinals with one normal toilet stall, is it?

YES for a unisex restroom.

It's bad enough that you're simply repeating your contention without ever explaining why, but this time you even went to the effort of quoting the question but snipping out the counterargument. So tell us, do you think the fact that regular-sized toilet stalls take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more disabled people who can't use a regular stall is a good reason to replace two regular stalls with one additional "executive stall"? Is the answer "YES for a uniabledness restroom"? In this day and age public restrooms are mostly uniabledness.

In case you think some fixture being unusable by some of the clientele is a good reason to get rid of it when we're talking urinals but not when we're talking standard toilet stalls, why? Do you have any principled reason for not applying the same logic to both situations, or are you just committing a special-pleading fallacy?

And that 2:1 replacement ratio is an assumption not a physical constant.

True. If you think it's unrealistic, tell us what ratio you think is more realistic and we can see if that affects the reasoning.

 

[Bomb#20]

Y’all do t need to worry: I understand male privilege and the motivations to keep it very well.

Yup. The all-gender restroom is a microcosm of the entire standardized progressive take on trans issues in general: policy takes for granted that logic dictates the needs of the men outweigh the needs of the fem.

 

[seanie]

All-gender sports? All-gender prisons? All-gender refuges?

In many ways public restrooms may be the least of the issues.

 

[TomC]

Y’all do t need to worry: I understand male privilege and the motivations to keep it very well.

Yup. The all-gender restroom is a microcosm of the entire standardized progressive take on trans issues in general: policy takes for granted that logic dictates the needs of the men outweigh the needs of the fem.

That's the problem.
On the one hand, if everyone were like me we'd hardly need doors on our unsexed restrooms. But not everyone is a gay male naturist with a fundamental respect for others person. (I get mean sometimes concerning opinions and behavior)

For some people, particularly women, the sex of other people in the restroom is very important. They are more easily threatened, sometimes hugely more. I cannot dismiss their feelings.
Tom

 

[Playball40]

You're ridiculous JK.

Well that’s pretty much the legal position in the UK given the Supreme Court ruling.

Gender Reassignment is still a protected characteristic, but when it comes to single sex spaces, the Equality Act means biological sex.

A UK ruling doesn't make it fact

 

[laughing dog]

And that's a good reason to replace two urinals with one normal toilet stall, is it?

YES for a unisex restroom.

It's bad enough that you're simply repeating your contention without ever explaining why, but this time you even went to the effort of quoting the question but snipping out the counterargument. So tell us, do you think the fact that regular-sized toilet stalls take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more disabled people who can't use a regular stall is a good reason to replace two regular stalls with one additional "executive stall"? Is the answer "YES for a uniabledness restroom"? In this day and age public restrooms are mostly uniabledness.

I omitted your counter argument because it I could not take it seriously. You argue to keep urinals even though people in wheelchairs cannot use them.

Really, urinals are unusable for 2 categories of unisex restroom clientele - women and the unabled. It seems an application of common sense to replace urinals with stalls to increase the availability to all.

Given the comparatively low (to able- body people) portion of wheel chair bound patrons seems impractical to reduce overall capacity, but it doesn’t bother me to satisfy your virtue signaling.

In case you think some fixture being unusable by some of the clientele is a good reason to get rid of it when we're talking urinals but not when we're talking standard toilet stalls, why? Do you have any principled reason for not applying the same logic to both situations, or are you just committing a special-pleading fallacy?

Common sense trumps your silly argument.

And that 2:1 replacement ratio is an assumption not a physical constant.

True. If you think it's unrealistic, tell us what ratio you think is more realistic and we can see if that affects the reasoning.

The ratio is logically irrelevant and impractical because restrooms are different sizes and shapes.

 

[seanie]

A UK ruling doesn't make it fact

True, but what’s not factual about anything I said in that post?

 

[TomC]

You're ridiculous JK.

Well that’s pretty much the legal position in the UK given the Supreme Court ruling.

Gender Reassignment is still a protected characteristic, but when it comes to single sex spaces, the Equality Act means biological sex.

A UK ruling doesn't make it fact

What does"it" mean in that assertion?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

It's bad enough that you're simply repeating your contention without ever explaining why, but this time you even went to the effort of quoting the question but snipping out the counterargument. So tell us, do you think the fact that regular-sized toilet stalls take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more disabled people who can't use a regular stall is a good reason to replace two regular stalls with one additional "executive stall"? Is the answer "YES for a uniabledness restroom"? In this day and age public restrooms are mostly uniabledness.

I omitted your counter argument because it I could not take it seriously. You argue to keep urinals even though people in wheelchairs cannot use them.

Perhaps you couldn't take it seriously because you omitted it -- and therefore you didn't have it to read any more, so you decided what I must have argued by consulting your broken reading comprehension, your faulty memory, your wild imagination, and your disdain for infidels. No, I bloody well did not "argue to keep urinals even though people in wheelchairs cannot use them." I invited readers to consider whether we should keep normal-sized toilet stalls even though people in wheelchairs cannot use them. I didn't argue for it; I broached the question in anticipation that readers would be able to tell for themselves that normal-sized stalls are a good thing to have in a restroom even though people in wheelchairs are allowed to enter. This shows the apparently popular notion that if we let women into the men's room we have to get rid of the urinals is based on a special-pleading fallacy.

Really, urinals are unusable for 2 categories of unisex restroom clientele - women and the unabled. It seems an application of common sense to replace urinals with stalls to increase the availability to all.

Your math is as faulty as your memory. It will increase the availability to some, not to all. Stalls are bigger than urinals; replacing urinals with stalls will decrease the total number of fixtures and thus decrease the availability to men.

Given the comparatively low (to able- body people) portion of wheel chair bound patrons seems impractical to reduce overall capacity,

And finally, we get to the crux of the matter. It's impractical to reduce overall capacity for the great majority just to marginally increase capacity for a small minority. Bingo! Thank you!

So tell us, what comparative portion of the patrons of an all-gender restroom do you anticipate will be unable to use urinals, if there's no men's room but there is an actual honest-to-god women's restroom right next door?

 

[laughing dog]

It's bad enough that you're simply repeating your contention without ever explaining why, but this time you even went to the effort of quoting the question but snipping out the counterargument. So tell us, do you think the fact that regular-sized toilet stalls take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more disabled people who can't use a regular stall is a good reason to replace two regular stalls with one additional "executive stall"? Is the answer "YES for a uniabledness restroom"? In this day and age public restrooms are mostly uniabledness.

I omitted your counter argument because it I could not take it seriously. You argue to keep urinals even though people in wheelchairs cannot use them.

Perhaps you couldn't take it seriously because you omitted it

Nope.

Really, urinals are unusable for 2 categories of unisex restroom clientele - women and the unabled. It seems an application of common sense to replace urinals with stalls to increase the availability to all.

Your math is as faulty as your memory. It will increase the availability to some, not to all. Stalls are bigger than urinals; replacing urinals with stalls will decrease the total number of fixtures and thus decrease the availability to men.

Read with comprehension. My response is about categories of users, not number of fixtures.

There is no reason to believe that such a replacement necessarily reduces the number of fixtures.

 

[seanie]

A UK ruling doesn't make it fact

Already answered.

Now try adding reasons.

 

[TomC]

There is no reason to believe that such a replacement necessarily reduces the number of fixtures.

Sure there is. It not only reduces the number of fixtures, but also the utility of each individual one.

The question is why do that?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pre-Puberty, Children Show Marked Differences in Sport Performance​

No.

I followed the first link. Does it link to a study that says that? No. It links to a page in a book that references other studies. A book that's almost 50 years old. When I see "evidence" like this I figure the position is most likely false.

 

[seanie]

Well that's not a sensible take.

There's a lot of evidence that boys have an advantage in sports pre-puberty. A confounding factor has been that studies were often done around the transition to secondary school, around the time when the typically earlier puberty in females, masked the difference.

Instead of dismissing something because it doesn't accord with your preconceived notions, you could try doing some proper research.

And by that I mean not just Googling for things that agree with your preconceived notions.