• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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


And I had really hoped we were beyond conversion therapy.
 
Of course. There's no other way for it to go. You whip everyone up about male-looking people in the women's bathroom, then require some male-looking people to use the women's restroom. This can only lead to the abuse, assault, rape, and legal or illegal arrest of trans people.

And it's all the work of people who will look you straight in the eye, and insist with perfect honesty that they bear no ill will to trans people and never meant for anyone to get hurt. As they go actively out of their way to support a political agenda that gets trans people hurt.

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

The fact is, I am also greatly concerned with their feelings and concerns on the matter because it is my very existence they are objecting to.

You put their feelings over the feelings of those they object to the existence of.

How are people supposed to treat that? How would you have me react to that? To just let you take their distaste, over the value of my existence?

The fact that people have pathologized my very existence is what gets me worked up over this, Tom. If their feelings are ANY concern of yours, I see an "ought" behind that concern and that is "to expend every bit of effort necessary from your position of personal care for them and influence with them of leading them away from that folly."

Empathy doesn't entitle someone to forego consideration and even judgement of the basis of feelings they discover, it just is there to discover that basis.

It is bias, not empathy, which causes someone to see those motivations and not question them where questions are due.
 
Do you think trans men should be allowed in women's spaces?
Depends on the space and the reason for them being single sex in the first place.

Sports? As long as doping requirements are adhered to, and it’s simply a matter of identity?

Of course?

Rape trauma counselling sessions? Maybe not, depending on how they present.
 
I mean, to be fair, if clownfish operated public restrooms things might be different.
 
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.
You’re using historical mistakes to overlook the point that a person’s sex is absolute obvious 99.98% of the time, and for the 00.02% their sex can still be determined.

What on earth has this to do with unambiguous males, being considered women, as long as they consider themselves to be women?

Are you on glue?
 
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.
Trying to pass?

What’s that got to do with it?

If any man who considers themselves a woman is one, according to you?

Are you now making a distinction between the trans women who make an effort, and those who don’t?
 
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?
Where is your evidence that it’s not binary for all mammals?

And don’t refer to the bullshit SCI-AM article.
 
Instead of meaningless distractions into light spectrums, you could just try to address biological reality.

It’s a thought.
 
Oh please. You've been haranguing him about his speculation for two weeks.
And?
And it's therefore silly for you to suggest you weren't criticizing him.

Haranguing? Misery? Trauma? You sure do like your hyperbole. You know this is a discussion board, right?
Trauma? You know Tom and I aren't the same person, right? If you think the other two are hyperbole, matter of opinion.

Does poor widdle Tom need big strong Bomb to come in like the white knight saving the princess from the dragon?
:picardfacepalm:
I was calling you on your double standard, dude; I wasn't defending Tom, who's fully qualified.

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?
:consternation2: I've told you and told you, and you quoted it back to me. Pay attention. You said ==> "so a man won't be able to hear her do so." <== You made that up! There is no evidence that the problem she has with a man being in the restroom is that the man can hear her. That's a completely fanciful hypothesis that doesn't pass the laugh test. If that were her real motivation then she wouldn't mind as long as the man was deaf, which is highly improbable psychology. I don't know why you made up such an implausible motivation for her, or why you then doubled down on it and then tripled down on it, but giving yourself an excuse to blame the woman for her emotions instead of blaming the man for not respecting female boundaries looks like a good bet.

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.
:consternation2: How much more specific can I be than quoting you doing it and asking if you have evidence for the precise detail you asserted? Pay attention. You said ==> " A man possibly hearing a woman pee is". <== You made that up!

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?
What detail? Not having a penis to direct her urine flow with? That kind of goes with the whole "a woman" thing I mentioned when I brought up the case. If you mean the jar, that is the traditional receptacle to use when your car doesn't come with a built-in toilet, but you're right, for all I know maybe she used Tupperware. Consider "jar" withdrawn.

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.
:consternation2: It's a safe assumption that he needs to hear her to know she's peeing; therefore it's a safe assumption that her goal is to stop him hearing her?!? Can you even hear yourself? Why would you think she's focused on whether he knows she's peeing rather than a dozen more obvious things for her to worry about, such as, say, whether he's going to hurt her?
 
I have a close relative who identifies as a trans man. At this point in their life nobody would clock them as anything other than female. They use the female toilets, which probably makes sense.

That might not always be the case however.
 
Back
Top Bottom