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

[bigfield]

I think if a trans man passes as male then they should be fine using the male restroom, though legally they would be best using a gender neutral option.

What would be the legal problem with using the men's restroom that leads you to say that "legally they would be best using a gender neutral option"?

I think women should be accepting of all women in women’s restrooms, regardless of how they present or identify, though if the person genuinely passes for male, and would be perceived as such, that could cause difficulty for others.

Should women be accepting of trans men in restrooms in cases where they clock the trans man as a man?

And personally, I wouldn’t object to either trans women or trans men in men’s restrooms, but I can only speak for myself in that point.

The question was asking whether it's OK for men - not specifically you - to refuse to accept trans men in men's restrooms.

 

[laughing dog]

No, what “complete” means in “complete physical transformation” begs the question of what physical transformation constitutes “complete”.

Is it a claim that a physical transformation can make a trans woman “completely” physically indistinguishable from a biological female?

What’s the difference between a “complete” physical transformation and a “less than complete” transformation?

What’s are the key physical transformations that differentiate between the two states?

How could one tell when the process was “complete”?

Stop evading. None of that is responsive to my questions. “Use” is both a verb and a noun. It has multiple meanings. For example,“use” can mean apply or consume or exploit.

You asked for a definition of complete. Complete is binary: something is complete (all of the attributes or components) or it is not. I know this difficult for you but logically if something does not contain all of its attrbutes/components, then it is not complete. Which means, and pay close attention, a physical transformation that is missing at least one component must be incomplete.

Instead of evading the questions or whinging about them, just provide the definitions. After all, you demand and expect posters to comply with your interminable requests. It seems churlish and hypocritical to reciprocate.

 

[bigfield]

I think women should be accepting of all women in women’s restrooms, regardless of how they present or identify, though if the person genuinely passes for male, and would be perceived as such, that could cause difficulty for others.

Should women be accepting of trans men in restrooms in cases where they clock the trans man as a man?

Actually, this follow up question was unnecessary, because you already answered in the affirmative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that women should accept trans men in women's restrooms, even when doing so causes them difficulty, such as cases where they clock the trans man as a man.

But then, how would that actually work?

If people clock a man entering the women's restroom, how do they know whether the man is a trans man or a cis man?

And how would this be compatible with your previous prescription that the law should not allow trans men to use the women's restroom? The law is enforced by people, so it seems like you are saying people should accept those trans men in women's restrooms, while others should enforce a law that refuses them entry to the same restrooms.

 

[Emily Lake]

So once again, which argument are you talking about knocking down? I don't think anyone here but maybe Tigers! believes in gendered souls. Of course people who think they're the other sex think it because something in the development of their brains didn't bring about the usual perception that they are the sex the rest of us observe them to be -- all thoughts are the result of brain wiring.

This isn't entirely true.

For some small portion of people who identify as trans, there is a disconnect in their perception of their sexed bodies - there's observable activation in the region of the brain responsible for self-perception. So far as I know, this has only been observed in males who are sexually attracted to males. By the way, this is the same region that shows aberrant activity in people with anorexia, BIID, and to some extent phantom limbs post amputation. It's an actual disconnect between what the brain expects to perceive and what it actually perceives.

A fair number of transgender identified males are sexually attracted to females, and they do not exhibit a problem with their self-perception. They perceive themselves as male, they know they're male. The reasons for their transgender identification are varied, but it's not a brain development issue. Some of them have a paraphilia and are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women. And some are just opportunistic and will happily grow their own boobs if it gives them access to females that would otherwise exclude them.

For both males and females with a transgender identity, some are autistic and have latched on to gender identity as an explanation for why they have trouble forming the same social and romantic bonds that neurotypical people do, and why they don't seem to fit in. And a fairly large portion of youth who express a transgender identity have been the victims of child sex abuse and sex-related trauma, and fleeing from their sexed bodies is a coping mechanism.

Prior to the ever-growing umbrella of what constitutes transgender, people with gender identity issues were almost exclusively male. Depending on the motivations, comorbidities, and symptoms, a minority of them were classed as transsexual - those exhibiting a perceptive disconnect with respect to their sexed bodies. The remainder were classed as transvestites - those who obtain sexual arousal and gratification from cross-dressing or performing as women.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. In Shakespeare, you have women dressing and (successfully) acting as men, taking on male names and accomplishing male roles. In short, "identifying as men". Which was your goal post. Do you need to shift it?

So now pretending to be the other sex for ulterior purposes counts as "identifying". Got it.

Viola called herself Cesario and passed as male because she needed freedom of movement and needed a job, not because she actually thought she was a man.

"Ulterior purpose"? That phrasing says more about how you see women than how Shakespeare did. Viola is the unquestionably the heroine and main protagonist of the play, and everyone understands by the end of it why she did as she did. There was no crime, nor is there any punishment unless you count marriage to Orsino as one. Her needs were practical, yes. But she most certainly identified as a man, for several months. No, she is not a "trans man" in the modern sense, and I didn't claim that she was. Cultures change. But the basic facts of sex and gender - that both are bimodal in distribution but fundamentally fluid in nature to some degree, obliging every culture in history to deal with the exceptional cases somehow - do not change. Nor do those facts vary from culture to culture or over time, but cultural and religious attitudes about those facts certainly do. The question is, what kind of culture do we wish to be?

I choose freedom, and always will. To that ideology, I am very really loyal, as loyal and "ideological" as I am generally accused of being about whatever other stupid culture wars you all are fighting today. I will be damned before I let the government define how I am "allowed" to identify or on what terms.

This is ridiculous Poli. There's no sane argument that you can make that Viola was transgender. For all intents, you're asserting that transgender identity is indistinguishable from pretend.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've also said nothing at all like "Women who want a man free place for personal business are just like racists and separate but equal policies." Nor would I.

But you’ve suggested they’re akin to Nazis.

I said very explicitly that you are not. You're being played for fools, though, and the neo-Nazi movement is most definitely and not very secretly connected to the anti-trans movement, merrily funding and platforming these memes and videos that spread anti-trans rhetoric because they rightly understand that it will benefit their own causes and initiatives if they can succeed in driving a wedge between the LGBTQ alliance and the governmental Left. And between academia and the government.

Ooh, so much better. It's not that women who don't want to share intimate spaces with men on the basis of those men's subjective gender souls are nazis... it's just that they're idiots who've totally fallen for a nazi lie. Because of course, women's concerns aren't legitimate, our privacy and boundaries are irrelevant, and women don't have any reason at all to want those things. Yep. Totally better.

Keep on mansplaining it to us, you're doing a great job.

 

[Emily Lake]

You will never, in your lifetime, see a trans person with an obvious penis in a women's restroom

Bullshit. I've personally witness TWO "women" adjusting their bulges in the ladies restroom. I've seen a handful of other transgender identified males who were obviously and unambiguously male, and I'd give it 80% odds that they had dicks.

Because over 80% of transgender identified males keep their penises, and have no intention of getting it removed.

 

[Emily Lake]

So what are my options here?

Let the management and clientele of any given venue decide who is entitled to use the room labeled "women".

Tom

Alternatively...

Label restrooms for actual females as "women", for actual males as "men", and provide a single-use unisex room for anyone who wants to use it as well as trans people who don't want to be around people of their own sex.

Clearly and explicitly state that all bathrooms are unisex bathrooms, and that anyone of any sex is allowed to use them.

Pretty much, just don't lie about who is expected to be in there.

 

[Emily Lake]

What did Emily and seanie say that implies they don't understand it?

I have no problem whatsoever with those two or anyone else thinking in the privacy of their own mind that trans and intersex people should be excluded from the bathroom of their choice. If those thoughts manifest as a forum post, they should expect negative replies, since their right to have those feelings is counterbalanced by the right to have different feelings. If those beliefs manifest as laws aimed at the persecution of intersex persons, there's going to be a constitutional crisis sooner or later, and all of us have a reason to care about that.

This thread is about a law.

How about this: People with actual documented DSD conditions that present with ambiguities of the reproductive system get to choose whatever the fuck bathroom they want.

On the other hand, males who have no DSD conditions, and who were born with the normal male reproductive structures use the male restrooms, regardless of what they're wearing, regardless of how they feel inside their brains, and regardless of whether they still retain all of that male anatomy. And we expect that MEN will make room for gender non-conforming men in men's spaces.

How about you tell me which part(s) of this argument you disagree with?

• A person's gender identity is whatever that person says their gender identity is. What a person says their gender identity is cannot be challenged, and must be accepted by other people as being true. A person who has just realized their true gender identity an hour ago is just as valid as a person who has had a stable gender identity for as long as they can remember. Some people have a gender identity that is fluid depending on time or mood, and that's also valid and real.
• Cisgender people are not required to dress in sex-typical clothing, or to present as typical for their sex. Cisgender females can have short hair, wear no make-up, wear trousers and steel-toed work-boots; cisgender males can wear make-up, have long hair, and wear dresses. A person's clothing and presentation choices do not dictate their gender identity. Given that presentation does not dictate gender identity, transgender people are also under no obligation to present in the ways considered typical of the opposite sex.
• Surgical and/or hormonal alteration can be expensive. It often has other health risks as well. Because of this, neither hormonal nor surgical alteration is required for a person to be transgender. A female person can have breasts, vagina, uterus, and no exogenous testosterone and still identify as a transman, and their gender identity is completely valid. A male person can have chest hair and a beard, penis and testicles, and take no estrogen supplements and still identify as a transwoman, and their gender identity is completely valid. A person of either natal sex can take any combination of hormones or alterations or take none at all and still identify as nonbinary, and their gender identity is completely valid.
• People should be given the right by law to use facilities and services that align with their gender identity in all circumstances. People should not be denied participation in sports for which they qualify on the basis of their physical sex, and should be given the right by law to participate on the basis of their gender identity.
• Therefore, any male that says they identify as a woman must be granted access by law to female services, spaces, and athletics.

 

[Emily Lake]

You wrote "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class." and "You cannot teach those beliefs as facts." If you intended to express "nothing about censoring it", but only "ought not", well, the way to do that was to say "They are free to do as they like within a public sociology class, but ought not." and "You ought not teach those beliefs as facts." Are you unfamiliar with what "free to" and "cannot" mean in English? And why do you keep bringing up their congregations and kitchens and "a private school that teaches your wacky religion", except to contrast a place where you ought be allowed with one where you ought not be allowed? After all, you "ought not" teach your wacky religion even in a private school. Wacky religions are parasites on the human nervous system, so you ought not to infect people with them any more than you ought to give a guy tapeworms to help him lose weight.

You're the one bringing allowance into it. At present in the US, the federal government has no say over curriculum, for any reason, and things should stay that way. But I won't apologize for having strong feelings about whether or not pseudoscience should be taught in a science classroom, for fuck's sake.

I don't think that's true. Public schools, for example, are not allowed by law to incorporate religious dogma into their lessons. They can't have a period for catechism and bible study.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A fair number of transgender identified males are sexually attracted to females, and they do not exhibit a problem with their self-perception. They perceive themselves as male, they know they're male. The reasons for their transgender identification are varied, but it's not a brain development issue. Some of them have a paraphilia and are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women.

Are we now making a distinction between brain wiring and thoughts that are pleasurable?

And some are just opportunistic and will happily grow their own boobs if it gives them access to females that would otherwise exclude them.*

For both males and females with a transgender identity, some are autistic and have latched on to gender identity as an explanation for why they have trouble forming the same social and romantic bonds that neurotypical people do, and why they don't seem to fit in. And a fairly large portion of youth who express a transgender identity have been the victims of child sex abuse and sex-related trauma, and fleeing from their sexed bodies is a coping mechanism.*

Prior to the ever-growing umbrella of what constitutes transgender, people with gender identity issues were almost exclusively male. Depending on the motivations, comorbidities, and symptoms, a minority of them were classed as transsexual - those exhibiting a perceptive disconnect with respect to their sexed bodies. The remainder were classed as transvestites - those who obtain sexual arousal and gratification from cross-dressing or performing as women.*

* - uncited

You wrote "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class." and "You cannot teach those beliefs as facts." If you intended to express "nothing about censoring it", but only "ought not", well, the way to do that was to say "They are free to do as they like within a public sociology class, but ought not." and "You ought not teach those beliefs as facts." Are you unfamiliar with what "free to" and "cannot" mean in English? And why do you keep bringing up their congregations and kitchens and "a private school that teaches your wacky religion", except to contrast a place where you ought be allowed with one where you ought not be allowed? After all, you "ought not" teach your wacky religion even in a private school. Wacky religions are parasites on the human nervous system, so you ought not to infect people with them any more than you ought to give a guy tapeworms to help him lose weight.

You're the one bringing allowance into it. At present in the US, the federal government has no say over curriculum, for any reason, and things should stay that way. But I won't apologize for having strong feelings about whether or not pseudoscience should be taught in a science classroom, for fuck's sake.

I don't think that's true. Public schools, for example, are not allowed by law to incorporate religious dogma into their lessons. They can't have a period for catechism and bible study.

Umm... you might want to turn on CNN. We are just about there.

 

[Emily Lake]

Only to people for whom the "science" of sex omes from sketchy right-wing youtube videos and 19th century armchair speculators, and "pseudoscience" refers to the reasonably established consensus of professional scientists of biology, reproductive science, sociology, and psychology.

This is made up bullshit that you have trotted out as if it were fact.

Sociology and psychology have fuck-all to do with sex. Reproductive science is pretty fucking clear that males can't gestate babies and that females don't squirt out sperm, and also that humans cannot actually change sex. And biologists who aren't in the business of scoring internet points toward their political agendas have a very well established definition of sex, which has been presented to you several times. That you ignore it is your own problem - your willingness to plug your ears and close your eyes to things that don't fit your ideological belief system is your own deal.

Sex is defined by biologists based on the type of reproductive system within an anisogamous species. Within every anisogamous species, there has evolved two reproductive systems in tandem with two gamete types. Biologists use a universal definition within with the reproductive system associated with the production of large sessile gametes is termed female, and the reproductive system associated with the production of small motile gametes is termed male. Within every single anisogamous species observed to date, there are two - and only two - reproductive systems, just as there are two - and only two - gametes. Individuals within any given species are classified as male or female based on the type of reproductive system that they developed; this does not require that they actually produce gametes of any sort, nor does it require that the entire reproductive system be present or typical. In some cases of deleterious medical conditions, the reproductive system doesn't form as expected which can make it difficult to classify an individual as male or female. This, however, does not imply that those individuals are neither male nor female, nor does it imply that they are a new and different sex. It means nothing more than that it's not easy to figure out.

This definition is used by biologists because it is universal. It applies to all anisogamous species that we have ever observed. It applies to every single mammal, every single bird, and the overwhelming majority of vertebrates and plants and insects. And within all of those groups, none have more than two sexes - some are single sexed and reproduce by cloning or budding, but none have more than two sexes.

 

[Emily Lake]

The post above is a nice, apt little demonstration of a rhetorical strategy common among TERFS, Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, and other pseudoscience pushers, wherein one starts with a simple claim that no one actually disagrees with, but then piles on a spiral of increasingly implausible additions to it without offering any meaningful evidence to justify their gradual slide away from the materially demonstrable and towards a gleefully fictive world purely defined their ideological commitments.

Please show us a single example of a mammal or bird that has evolved a third sex. What gamete has their reproductive system evolved in tandem with? What does that reproductive system look like? How is that reproductive system defined, and what evolutionary role does that third sex play in reproduction for that species?

Until you can do this, kindly STFU with your pseudoscience dogma. Your imagined belief structure isn't reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is pure ideology, and does not reflect the real sciences of human biology or sociology in any way. Seanie knows full well that this statement contradicts the perspective of the vast majority of scientists, or at least has been told this many times and refuses to believe it no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

Stop presenting your baseless assertions as if they're facts. This is nothing more than your wishful belief.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, I think they absolutely do understand that. Obviously they want to coercive power of the law to win for them what they know honest public debate never could.

Oh this is so rich I might have gained five pounds just reading it!

FFS, the entirety of this trans agenda was NOT advanced through public debate. It was slipped in behind the scenes by lobbyists inserting themselves into policy and intentionally keeping policy changes hidden from the public. At no point whatsoever did the public in CA or ME get to weigh in on whether or not male prisoners with dicks and balls should be housed with female prisoners just because those males said they feel all girly on the inside. At no fucking point did the public get to take part in a debate about whether entirely male bodied students should be competing against girls and taking their wins from them. At no fucking point did parents and the public get a say in whether or not male students with completely normal male anatomies should have the privilege of using their daughter's showers and changing rooms because of their gendery feelings. And in every instance where these policy changes have been FORCED on us against our will, there has been push back. And the more the public learns about the topic, the LESS supportive we are of letting men walk all over the rights and boundaries of women and girls because they have special feelings.

 

[Emily Lake]

The position that someone’s sex is an ineffable mystery is ideological horseshit.

It’s very straightforward 99.98% of the time.

There's that completely imagined number again...

It's not imagined. Only 0.02% of all babies are born with reproductive ambiguities. 99.98% are unambiguously male or female.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity. And they may have been "in the closet" about it for over 50 years because of their fears of rejection in a society that is hostile to transfolks.

So some men, really, really, believe that they are women.

Yeah, we know this.

But they’re not.

I really, really, really believe that I'm a progressive billionaire who is 6 feet tall. I really, truly, believe it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Trans women have to be male in the first place. It’s a prerequisite.

More suppositions, still no evidence. What a funny flavor "objective" truths come in these days!

Oooh, I'm a transwoman! I said so, so I get to be. The objective and observable fact that I have a female body, with a female reproductive system (what's left of it anyway), and a completely normal female karyotype shouldn't be a barrier to me identifying as a transwoman.

Anyone can be a transwoman if they want to be. Or a cisman.

Wait, I've changed my mind. I'm a cisman. It totally say so and words mean whatever the fuck I want them to mean in whatever way makes me right. So there. Logic!

 

[Politesse]

The position that someone’s sex is an ineffable mystery is ideological horseshit.

It’s very straightforward 99.98% of the time.

There's that completely imagined number again...

It's not imagined. Only 0.02% of all babies are born with reproductive ambiguities. 99.98% are unambiguously male or female.

Just saying, "nuh uh it is real" doesn't make it so...

 

[Emily Lake]

ETA ~I'm a big hulking dude. I sure as hell don't want those people in the restroom with me, although I am not afraid of them.

But you support this Scottish ruling? Which requires most of them to use the "men's restroom"?

Technically, it doesn't require them to use the men's, it prohibits them using any restroom labeled women's.

And I think this is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Because they are MALES.