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

[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.

That’s pretty rich coming from you who is childless and who seems to have some very interesting views about people of color ( except, of course, the genetically superior Asians).

Women are not raising children to be afraid of men. Men teach women to be afraid of men.

As always, #NotAllMen. Of course.

 

[ZiprHead]

Zipr asserted that she is a prude. I pointed out that there are other explanations.

No, you said she was traumatized. Own it.

 

[TomC]

Zipr asserted that she is a prude. I pointed out that there are other explanations.

No, you said she was traumatized. Own it.

You said she was a prude.
I pointed out that there are other possibilities.
Own it.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

You were the one who actually brought the story to the thread. Were you expecting no one to comment on it, to not speculate about the reasons someone would take such drastic measures? Have I ever said Tom should not have speculated therefore I too should not have speculated?

There most certainly is a reason a woman would go to all that trouble. Which do you believe is the more likely reason why a grown woman would go to the trouble to install curtains and some sort of contraption to allow her to urinate in an automobile so a man won't be able to hear her do so. I believe it to be far more likely prudishness, especially since I have known women who were sexually assaulted, including full on rape, who do not carry this hang up.

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?!?

I'm making up details???

Who was it that said the words "trauma" and "misery"? Sheesh!

 

[ZiprHead]

Zipr asserted that she is a prude. I pointed out that there are other explanations.

No, you said she was traumatized. Own it.

You said she was a prude.

Yes, I did, and I still believe it to be true.

I pointed out that there are other possibilities.

No, you only said one explanation, trauma. The word "explanationS literally means "More than one."

I will forgive you if English is not your first language.

Own it.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

They were wearing a "skirt" and in the women's room assaulting women. I'm saying it's not relevant because wearing such a garment is not remotely enough to be trying to pass as female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The ability to divide a space into two subcategories does not prove it's not a range. Consider the claim: any visible light with a wavelength longer than 600nm is "red". Does that actually make a clear dividing line between "red" and "not red"? And our eyes lack any receptor for "orange". Do we conclude that it doesn't exist?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Frequently in terms of those they operated on, not frequently in terms of the whole population.

But you're missing the point. The reality is the best medical science has to offer can't reliably determine it in some cases. You can say there are two pathways but the history of how things went wrong makes it very clear that the mind has gender that is not always apparent in the anatomy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The reference was the bathroom. You were talking about the discomfort from your date being in the next stall.

 

[TomC]

No, you only said one explanation, trauma. The word "explanationS literally means "More than one."

I will forgive you if English is not your first language.

Bullshit.
I only described one of the possibilities, but even that one is a large and important category of reasons why women don't have the same attitudes on the subject as you do.

I even described someone I knew who fell into the category.

As I've pointed out multiple times on this thread, I don't really get it. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, personally. But I value people who are different from me and respect their concerns. Including women that you deem "prudes".
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yet you want a policy that will put male-presenting individuals in the women's room.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

It's your side that obsesses about them.

 

[TomC]

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

It's your side that obsesses about them.

Which side are you referring to?
Seanie and I are both on the side of women who want a male free place for personal business, under certain circumstances.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

No, you only said one explanation, trauma. The word "explanationS literally means "More than one."

I will forgive you if English is not your first language.

Bullshit.
I only described one of the possibilities, but even that one is a large and important category of reasons why women don't have the same attitudes on the subject as you do.

I even described someone I knew who fell into the category.

As I've pointed out multiple times on this thread, I don't really get it. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, personally. But I value people who are different from me and respect their concerns. Including women that you deem "prudes".
Tom

Sorry. I'm just going on what you said. If you meant something differant that's your problem, not mine.

 

[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.

The reference was the bathroom. You were talking about the discomfort from your date being in the next stall.

Then your response really is nonsensical.

 

[TomC]

Sorry. I'm just going on what you said. If you meant something differant that's your problem, not mine.

You mean what I said in post 1396?
Or when I described Kit?

Seriously, I am so far from objecting to any sex or orientation it's hard for me to see that far. But I know people who do and their feelings and concerns matter to me.
Tom

 

[bigfield]

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

Do you think trans men should be allowed in women's spaces?

 

[bigfield]

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.

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.

"All intersex people are either male or female."

Your pseudo-intellectual language doesn't make your claim any less silly.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

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?

You were the one who actually brought the story to the thread. Were you expecting no one to comment on it,

No, obviously. Were you expecting no one to comment on your comments?

to not speculate about the reasons someone would take such drastic measures? Have I ever said Tom should not have speculated therefore I too should not have speculated?

Oh please. You've been haranguing him about his speculation for two weeks.

There most certainly is a reason a woman would go to all that trouble. Which do you believe is the more likely reason why a grown woman would go to the trouble to install curtains and some sort of contraption to allow her to urinate in an automobile so a man won't be able to hear her do so.

Which do you believe is the more likely reason you haven't stopped beating your wife yet? You can't stop yourself from assuming facts not in evidence even after it's been pointed out to you.

I believe it to be far more likely prudishness, especially since I have known women who were sexually assaulted, including full on rape, who do not carry this hang up.

Dude, speculate to your heart's content; but have you considered the merits of speculating about how to explain stuff you have reason to think happened instead of speculating about how to explain stuff you just made up?

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...

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.

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?!?

I'm making up details???

Yes. Obviously.

Who was it that said the words "trauma" and "misery"? Sheesh!

Tom said trauma; I said misery. You got a problem with trauma, take it up with Tom; oh wait, you already did. You got a problem with misery, do you seriously think peeing in a jar in your car without even the benefit of a directional nozzle is a happy-making experience? Sounds pretty miserable to me -- and for her it's evidently ==> the lesser <== misery. Yes, I'm the one who actually brought the story to the thread, and this was the whole bloody point of bringing it. It's evidence of how much women loathe having to use co-ed public restrooms. If you have a better way to measure misery than by the lengths people will go to to avoid it, I'm all ears. (And yes, I'm aware "data" isn't the plural of "anecdote". The woman is evidently high on the bell curve of loathing strange men in the bathroom with her, or low on the bell curve of willingness to bend over for male impositions, or both. Whoop de do -- circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I bet every woman who read the story sympathized. Belittling her as a "prude" instead of sympathizing is male privilege in action.)

Your turn. Who was it who said "earshot", and "A man possibly hearing a woman pee" and "so a man could not hear her pee" and "so a man won't be able to hear her do so"? That's all on you. You made that part up out of whole cloth. Seriously, dude, do you really think a woman who "carries a hang up" as you put it, about having a strange man with no respect for female boundaries in the restroom with her. would go all "Oh, that's okay then" if the guy were deaf?!?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

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?

You were the one who actually brought the story to the thread. Were you expecting no one to comment on it,

No, obviously. Were you expecting no one to comment on your comments?

No.

to not speculate about the reasons someone would take such drastic measures? Have I ever said Tom should not have speculated therefore I too should not have speculated?

Oh please. You've been haranguing him about his speculation for two weeks.

And?

Haranguing? Misery? Trauma? You sure do like your hyperbole. You know this is a discussion board, right?

Does poor widdle Tom need big strong Bomb to come in like the white knight saving the princess from the dragon?

There most certainly is a reason a woman would go to all that trouble. Which do you believe is the more likely reason why a grown woman would go to the trouble to install curtains and some sort of contraption to allow her to urinate in an automobile so a man won't be able to hear her do so.

Which do you believe is the more likely reason you haven't stopped beating your wife yet? You can't stop yourself from assuming facts not in evidence even after it's been pointed out to you.

What facts have I assumed but are not in evidence?

I believe it to be far more likely prudishness, especially since I have known women who were sexually assaulted, including full on rape, who do not carry this hang up.

Dude, speculate to your heart's content; but have you considered the merits of speculating about how to explain stuff you have reason to think happened instead of speculating about how to explain stuff you just made up?

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...

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.

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?!?

I'm making up details???

Yes. Obviously.

What details did I make up? Please be specific.

Who was it that said the words "trauma" and "misery"? Sheesh!

Tom said trauma; I said misery. You got a problem with trauma, take it up with Tom; oh wait, you already did. You got a problem with misery, do you seriously think peeing in a jar in your car without even the benefit of a directional nozzle is a happy-making experience?

Now who's adding details?

Sounds pretty miserable to me -- and for her it's evidently ==> the lesser <== misery. Yes, I'm the one who actually brought the story to the thread, and this was the whole bloody point of bringing it. It's evidence of how much women loathe having to use co-ed public restrooms. If you have a better way to measure misery than by the lengths people will go to to avoid it, I'm all ears. (And yes, I'm aware "data" isn't the plural of "anecdote". The woman is evidently high on the bell curve of loathing strange men in the bathroom with her, or low on the bell curve of willingness to bend over for male impositions, or both. Whoop de do -- circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I bet every woman who read the story sympathized. Belittling her as a "prude" instead of sympathizing is male privilege in action.)

Your turn. Who was it who said "earshot", and "A man possibly hearing a woman pee" and "so a man could not hear her pee" and "so a man won't be able to hear her do so"? That's all on you. You made that part up out of whole cloth. Seriously, dude, do you really think a woman who "carries a hang up" as you put it, about having a strange man with no respect for female boundaries in the restroom with her. would go all "Oh, that's okay then" if the guy were deaf?!?

When you first posted the story, I specifically asked if there were no doors on the stalls. If there were, how would someone know she was peeing if not by the sound? It seemed a pretty safe assumption.