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

[Loren Pechtel]

And some men really, really think they're sexually attracted to men when we all know they're mistaken, that Satan is deceiving them, that they are choosing to be perverts, and really, Alan Turing did the only decent thing when he killed himself.

Huh?

How do “we all know” that same sex attracted people are mistaken?

What criteria would you use to determine that?

Read it again. She is quite clearly speaking the opposite of truth to make a point.

 

[seanie]

Only if you accept sufficiently broad definitions of "male" and "female" pathways.

But as soon as you accept a broad definition you are admitting there are differences and thus your binary division doesn't work.

They aren’t broad definitions. Sex is determined at fertilisation as to whether a foetus develops down the Müllerian or Wolffian pathway.

There are only the two pathways.

 

[seanie]

1) To say it's not a mystery requires that it be determinable 100% of the time. Not 99.98% of the time.

You’re confusing “not straightforward” with “indeterminable”.

In 99.98% of cases the determination of sex is simple. In the remaining 00.02% of cases it’s still determinable.

 

[seanie]

2) We know there are edge cases. And if there are any edge cases why do you think we have identified all of the edge cases?

Even if a tribe is discovered in the forests of Borneo, where there are true sequential hermaphrodites, it won’t be relevant as to whether Bob from accounts should use the women’s restroom because he’s decided he’s now Brenda.

 

[seanie]

3) The surgical miscorrection of the intersexed shows that there's something in the mind separate from the anatomy. We have not identified it. And since an unknown factor clearly exists I'm left with the conclusion that it must be a mystery even if most cases are easy to resolve.

How on earth does it show that?

How does ethically dubious surgery on infants with ambiguous genitalia tell us anything about the mind?

 

[seanie]

attack by someone female-presenting but with male genitals in a women's room. Risk = zero. Yet a simple perusal of crime statistics should show you that the risk of a black woman is higher than the risk of a white woman. (Yeah, I know it's socioeconomic, not race. The woman in the restroom can't identify that so it's irrelevant.)

Risk=zero, does it?

Then why the extraordinarily high rate of sexual offending of trans women in prison?

 

[seanie]

That’s the kind of dopey thinking that lead the Scottish Prison Service to send a double rapist to a women’s prison.

 

[seanie]

and changing their ID and living as their gender of choice. We have zero evidence of this being abused anywhere, anywhen.

Barbie Kardashian?

 

[seanie]

Karen White?

 

[seanie]

Katie Dolatowski?

 

[Bomb#20]

How about instead of completely changing the question at hand you ask your wife if she experiences misery if a man hears her pee? Let me know if she laughs at you or just slaps your face.

Completely changing the question at hand? He's dragging it back to the point. Women's attitudes towards sharing the restroom with males.
You're the one who changed the subject to one particular person who had a problem with coed restrooms without knowing why.
Tom

You are absolutely right. That was the only aspect I addressed. And that's why I have not addressed any other aspect of the conversation. It's you others who want to drag me into the other aspects even though I never addressed any of those other aspects. You are the ones trying to drag me into a conversation I do not want to have. Check yourself.

Got it.
Back to the sarcasm and evasion. I'll presume it's because you don't want to discuss women's attitudes towards sharing public restrooms with strange men.
Tom

Bull... I have already specifically stated I supported women's rights to their own private spaces such as toilets and locker rooms. You have made huge assumptions about me because I made comments about one woman who litterally curtained off her car so a man could not hear her pee.

You have made huge assumptions about me because I made comments about one woman who litterally curtained off her car so a man could not hear her pee.

This, from the guy who wrote:

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.

So, a female woman who has been so traumatized by a male that she'd go out to her car to pee is a prude, by your standards?

What a patriarch.
Tom

I have seen no evidence she was traumatized by anyone. Do you have some? Her parents could have been prudes and taught it to her.

Can you explain why you think it's a problem for Tom to assume unevidenced extra details into the anecdote even though you have no problem at all with assuming unevidenced extra details yourself?

Apparently while I've been dismissing your insertions as mere rhetorical flourishes that didn't call for comment, you were serious about them and were building a narrative out of them in your imagination...

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.

I took "earshot" to be a rough distance measurement. Silly me.

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

I mistook that for belittling her artistically. Silly me.

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.)

How about instead of completely changing the question at hand you ask your wife if she experiences misery if a man hears her pee? Let me know if she laughs at you or just slaps your face.

It looks like when I focused my answer to the previous post on your arrogance instead of on your made-up narrative, you assumed it meant the narrative was literally correct. So let's try this again...

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...

You just can't what? You just can't help making up new details? Do you have some evidence that what makes her so upset about a man being in the restroom with her is he might hear her pee?!?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Little effect on me directly, though my lesbian daughter is much happier with the direction of travel.

Towards her eventual exile from public gyms and bathrooms under the guise of "protecting women" from lesbian advances, you mean?

Thinking of the consequences is forbidden in conservative circles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking as a gay male naturist,

Why am I required to wear pants in my own yard? It's a beautiful day, sunny and warm. The reason I do is the irrational people who passed laws about public nudity, and included my own yard! But apparently this is very important, so there's laws on the subject.

What makes it unreasonable for me to think that women have the right to choose?
Tom

You cite one bad law to support another??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Where did I say they didn’t?

But the issue is asymmetrical. Women do not pose the same threat to men, as men do to women. Men are not put at an unfair disadvantage having g to compete against women in sport.

Except the observed threat level is zero. Pretty hard for zero to be more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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, though relevant in its own way. 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.

While I was digging into whether my marriage was only made legal by the Loving decision (no, the state had already chucked the laws) I found a nice mess in the past: Biracial individuals could neither marry a white (because they were not white), nor marry a non-white (because they were white.) The state supreme court even noted it once, but took no action as the case in question could be resolved without addressing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So if I raise my kid to be terrified of blacks it's reasonable for them to be able to demand no blacks in the restroom?

Because the observed threat is zero.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Yardsticks!

You are confusing prominence with elevation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Strobel didn't use the women's room to follow the law but because the men's room sucked.

You missed the part where said individual's ID says "F".

This is exactly what we were warning about: male-presenting individuals in the women's room.

 

[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.

So if I raise my kid to be terrified of blacks it's reasonable for them to be able to demand no blacks in the restroom?

Because the observed threat is zero.

The observed threat of men in women’s intimate spaces is not zero..

 

[Politesse]

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.

So if I raise my kid to be terrified of blacks it's reasonable for them to be able to demand no blacks in the restroom?

Because the observed threat is zero.

The observed threat of men in women’s intimate spaces is not zero..

That's not who anti-trans laws are aimed at. In fact, as we have seen repeatedly, these types of regressive laws embolden certain men to enter women's restrooms specifically to assault trans women, supposedly under the guise of vigilante justice. But does it really make you feel safer? Having an armed man walk into your private spaces, to assault a woman he thinks might be a man? Or just says he thinks might be a mam, correctly assuming that even if he's wrong, the woman he's attacking will get arrested when the cops arrive, while he walks free? All he has to say are six words, "I thought she was a man", and suddenly he's Batman instead of an violent offender. So safe!

The purpose of anti-trans hysteria is to stoke violence against trans women, not to protect cis women, no matter what the propaganda may say.

Tell me. Have you actually seen the overall number of trans women at your gym decline since all this political scaremongering started? Be honest. At your local gym. Give me the numbers. How many transwomen did you see regularly using your facilities before the Trump era? How many now? How many assaults happened in your local gum before the Trump era? How many now? Numbers, please.