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

[seanie]

Well that's not a sensible take.

There's a lot of evidence that boys have an advantage in sports pre-puberty.

In the sense that boys are encouraged to even forced to play sports, where as girls... they have to really want to do it, yes, boys are socially encouraged for this. Girls, likely especially the very good ones, can be castigated for daring to play sports well.

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

Well yes, socialisation is also a factor, especially moving into puberty.

But if you have support for the contention that there are no physical differential advantages between boys and girls in sport before puberty, feel free to provide it.

 

[seanie]

2) An individual wearing "a skirt". The article even said it didn't appear to be a case of being transgender. And how do you quickly resolve whether a garment is a skirt or a kilt? I own a kilt that I occasionally wear hiking. Look closely enough and you'll see it even identifies itself as being a kilt. I'm not remotely trying to pretend to be female, it's simply the best balance of keeping cool and keeping the sun off.

What has this to do with anything!

What possible relevance is what a person wears?

 

[seanie]

Pathways, not exactly the same in every case.

I didn’t claim they were.

Obviously they aren’t.

But they all cleave into two.

Müllerian or Wolffian: female or male.

 

[seanie]

It tells us the mind doesn't have to follow the anatomy. The best efforts of the doctors frequently got it wrong.

Well first off “frequently” is a massive stretch.

And the sad history of surgery on children born with DSD conditions, was that it was undertaken in infancy when those individuals hadn’t expressed any view on how they saw themselves.

And we know people can sincerely consider themselves the sex they are not. But however much their mind is convinced of that, we can objectively determine they are not.

That doesn’t matter much of the time, but sometimes a person’s actual sex does matter.

 

[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?

I'm referring to the risk of a trans person in the women's room. We have zero documented offenses.

Katie Dolatowski.

 

[seanie]

The notion that a “woman” is anyone who considers themselves “a women” is nonsense on stilts.

What is that supposed to mean?

Are they considering themselves a “woman”?

Or are the considering themselves someone who “considers themselves a woman?

In either case what does “woman” mean, without using the word “woman” in the definition?

 

[Toni]

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..

The observed threat of female-presenting "men" in women's spaces is zero.

It’s not. Unfortunately.

 

[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?

And gays/lesbians somehow manage to avoid being harmed by this??

????? LGBTQIA individuals have a higher than average risk of being sexually assaults. Usually by males.

 

[seanie]

There is a middle ground,

People can identify however they feel comfortable, present how they wish, and should be protected from unfair discrimination and harassment.

But trans women are biological males, and sometimes being a biological male matters to biological females, who have legitimate reasons to want spaces free from biological males in some circumstances.

This is not unreasonable.

 

[TomC]

It’s not. Unfortunately.

Exactly.
The risk to women is extremely low in most places. A department store restroom, in the afternoon, is undoubtedly an extremely low risk place.
But people's attitudes and feelings are not always governed by the immediate situation. They are not always rational responses to the exact situation. But they are real and they do matter.
Tom

 

[seanie]

Women sometimes want spaces free from men, not because of danger, but for reasons of privacy, safety, fairness, and comfort.

Men may want male only spaces too, and that may be fine, but it doesn’t have the same need as females wanting female only spaces.

Recognising the salience of sex as a matter of policy and law is essential.

 

[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".

No I didn't. Did you even read the whole article? The ID saying "F" doesn't change the fact that the article said Strobel didn't use the women's room to follow the law but because the men's room sucked. Only the misleading headline said it was to follow the law. Best guess is that the headline writer didn't read the article -- that's a common problem at low-budget publications.

You misunderstand. He was actually in the "wrong" when he tried to use the men's but since he was male-presenting nobody noticed. He was "correct" in using the women's despite being male-presenting.

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

No, it isn't exactly what you were warning about. A merely male-presenting woman such as your SIL wouldn't have asked an employee for permission to use a ladies' room. Strobel was de facto announcing that there was a man in the women's room.

So? Doesn't change the basic problem that it forces him into the women's, causing problems. (But causing the problems is the real intent. Keep people from functioning in society if they present as the other gender.)

 

[seanie]

Again, the obsession with public restrooms, when they’re possibly the least important situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So then your argument is in favour of no segregation at all between women and men. Unisex provision at all times.

How does that work in sports?

And how will trans women get validation?

I have previously said I consider the issue of sports to be a case where we don't have adequate information.

 

[seanie]

Katie Dolatowski.

Zero risk, eh?

 

[seanie]

I have previously said I consider the issue of sports to be a case where we don't have adequate information.

What information are you lacking?

Since you consider anyone who thinks themselves as a woman is a woman, what information are you requiring?

 

[seanie]

If trans women are women, because anyone who considers themselves a woman is a woman, then why does sports require “more information”?

 

[seanie]

You’re not making sense.

 

[TomC]

You misunderstand. He was actually in the "wrong" when he tried to use the men's but since he was male-presenting nobody noticed. He was "correct" in using the women's despite being male-presenting.

So why was he arrested?
My guess is drunken belligerence. He was angry at being forced to use the women's restroom. His presenting as male got the women upset.
Just a guess.
But it made a good click-baity story for the target audience, and voila, it's on IIDB.
Tom

 

[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..

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.

Actually, I don’t go to a gym, although I should. And it’s a small town. Lowers chances of assaults by trans individuals ( not that I think that’s an actual risk) to as copper to zero as one can imagine.

Absolutely trans individuals visuals are far far more likely to be victims of assaults than cis individuals.

Almost always by cis males.

Which is who, by far, is the greatest threat to women ( cis, trans, straight or not).

My only issue with trans women in women only spaces is that, depending on the individual, she might appear to be a cis male and if she appears male, she could very well cause other women to be fearful or even traumatized. I don’t think anyone, other than some sick bastard who gets his kicks out of terrifying or traumatizing other people wants that. I don’t want that for any woman, trans or cis.

I’m just posting in this thread to remind the mostly male posters that women have reasons to be afraid and the reasons are mostly males. Men need to get their shit together and quit endangering other people, including women and children by their violent behaviors.

And men sure as shit need to stfu about telling women what they must tolerate.