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

[ZiprHead]

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.

That's all this whole brouhaha is. You are both using hyperbole.

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

I was calling you on your double standard, dude; I wasn't defending Tom, who's fully qualified.

What double standard is that?

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'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.

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!

How is a man to know the woman is peeing other than by the sound? That's why I asked if there were doors on the stalls.

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.

Yeah, that makes it all better. You do the same thing you claim I'm doing and try to claim a crown for doing it.

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.

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?

So when you said "I know a woman who installed curtains in her car windows so she could go out to the parking lot to pee in privacy, because her workplace in its infinite wisdom decided to make the women's restroom "gender neutral"." peeing had nothing to do with her reasoning? You brought the peeing part into the situation, not me, yet you been "haranguing" me all this time for doing so??? Holy fuck! The stupidity you have put on display is simply astounding.

I'll not be dealing with your idiocy any further.

 

[Politesse]

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.

What should be done in "not that case", when your regressive laws force him to go to the women's restroom, and then, after he gets assaulted and raped there by a local protective male, can only seek group therapy in a women's group for female survivors of assault, because the law says that's what he is?

 

[seanie]

That’s not what the law says. In fact the Supreme Court explicitly pointed out a situation where that would be an illegitimate thing to do.

You haven’t read the judgement, have you?

 

[seanie]

You have to consider the proportionate and legitimate aim you have in providing a separate single sex space in the first place.

In many situations the likely resolution will be a female single sex space, alongside a gender neutral/unisex space, along with individual spaces.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

How does that conflict with what I said? What are you saying I misunderstand?

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.)

"it forces him"? What does "it" refer to?
"the real intent"? Whose real intent?
"Keep people from functioning"? That's phrased as an instruction. An instruction to whom, from whom?

You're sounding like you mean "it" is the law, "whose" is the legislature's, and the instruction is from the government to the public. Did you read the article? It says "South Carolina doesn’t have a law restricting trans bathroom use in businesses".

 

[TomC]

Since I don't care enough about the Strobel thing to investigate, did it happen in a bar?

A lot of stupid behavior, especially in the USA, becomes a lot more understandable when you realize that alcohol was involved.
Tom

 

[bigfield]

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.

How about a case where people clock the trans man as a man?

The question again, for reference:

Do you think trans men should be allowed to use women's restrooms?

 

[seanie]

Allow as in law? No. Allow as a practical compromise sometime? Yes.

The law needs to be clear, and can’t be based on passing.

 

[bigfield]

Allow as in law? No.

Just to be clear: you're saying that when people clock a trans man as a man, they should not be allowed to use women's restrooms, even though they are biologically female?

Allow as a practical compromise sometime? Yes.

What would warrant a practical compromise?

And given you've said that it shouldn't be allowed in law, how would this work without getting anyone in legal trouble?

 

[Politesse]

Allow as a practical compromise sometime? Yes.

You can't make "practical compromises" in a state that has outlawed recognition of ambiguity.

 

[seanie]

Restrooms aren’t managed spaces. Nobody is controlling entry.

So in practical terms they’re possibly the least relevant example of single sex spaces.

 

[bigfield]

Restrooms aren’t managed spaces. Nobody is controlling entry.

So in practical terms they’re possibly the least relevant example of single sex spaces.

I think they're relevant, since people have to use restrooms all the time, and a person can get in trouble if other restroom users, the restroom owner, onlookers, or the law decides that a person does not belong in the restroom they've entered.

I'm looking to understand how you expect those parties to act such that everyone can use the restrooms and no-one gets in trouble.

 

[seanie]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

 

[bigfield]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Is this a reply to someone else, because it's not relevant to what I've asked you in the previous few posts.

Please learn how to use the Reply function, which adds a linked quote to your post.

 

[seanie]

Restrooms aren’t managed spaces. Nobody is controlling entry.

So in practical terms they’re possibly the least relevant example of single sex spaces.

I think they're relevant, since people have to use restrooms all the time, and a person can get in trouble if other restroom users, the restroom owner, onlookers, or the law decides that a person does not belong in the restroom they've entered.

I'm looking to understand how you expect those parties to act such that everyone can use the restrooms and no-one gets in trouble.

Restrooms rely on a social contract. You should use the restroom of your sex, or a gender neutral alternative. People should be accepting of gender non-conforming people in their single sex space. They aren’t required to be accepting of people of the opposite sex in their single sex space. But this issue pertains more to female single sex spaces, than it does to male single sex spaces.

A trans man in a male space is unlikely to be perceived as a threat to males, or an affront to their dignity and privacy.

The reverse is not the same.

 

[seanie]

Please learn how to use the Reply function, which adds a linked quote to your post.

I find posts containing huge quotes quite tedious.

 

[seanie]

I kinda hoped people could follow the general gist of what was being discussed and replied to.

Maybe my expectations are too high.

 

[seanie]

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.

What should be done in "not that case", when your regressive laws force him to go to the women's restroom, and then, after he gets assaulted and raped there by a local protective male, can only seek group therapy in a women's group for female survivors of assault, because the law says that's what he is?

Again, that’s not what the law says.

You haven’t read the Supreme Court judgement, have you?

 

[seanie]

I mean, the Supreme Court explicitly dealt with the issue of rape counselling group sessions in paragraph 221? I believe.

 

[seanie]

What part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning do you disagree with?

Because it seems a practical approach to a tricky dilemma to me.