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

[Politesse]

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!

Just as your previous post was not an empirical argument, this is not a logical one.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Whst do you mean by your not having a say? You have a say. You're saying things right now. No one is stopping you, far from it. Your brothers in arms have seized control of multiple governments to enforce your religious views on others without their consent, and your political actions have helped sweep far right factions into positions of enormous power and international influence. Downing Street, Rastrapati Bavan, Zhongnanhai, and the White House are on your side. The governor of California is signalling a backstabbing shift to your side. The media customarily portrays you as poor miserable martyrs for truth and your interlocutors as unhinged radicals with scary genitals. How much more of a "say" could you possibly have?

 

[Emily Lake]

I mean be serious, the government holds vast amounts of data about people, including their sex. It matters for healthcare, taxation, benefits etc.

I'm not talking about all of that. I'm talking about "biological sex". How does a government determine it, and how can a person accused of a sex related crime challenge it if they feel the government has mischaracterized their sex?

Submit to a cheek swab, and if that's inconclusive a genetic test and CT scan.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Given that I have not claimed that "mammals and birds evolve third sexes", and I'm not aware that anyone has *, what relevance would such a proof have to our discussion?

* (unless one considers intersex conditions to be such, as I assume you do not, and that no amount of argumentation could ever make you agree with such a proposition)

 

[Emily Lake]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

Elaboration:

• 
  
• Monoecious:
  Trees like oak, maple, and hickory have both male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers on the same tree.
  The same maples outside my house litter my yard with both pollen and with seeds, making them annoying and messy but they are also very beautiful.
  
  
• https://www.google.com/search?clien...CPezUOgwzI362HAIt1TSMDtrBG60n2J4wwr--Q&csui=3
• Dioecious:
  Trees like holly, persimmon, and gingko have separate male and female trees. Male trees produce pollen, and female trees produce fruits and seeds.
  Hermaphroditic:
  Trees like apple and pear have both male and female parts in each flower, allowing them to self-pollinate.
  
  
  
  
  

And yet, somehow, none of those trees have a third sex, and none have no sex.

Hermaphroditic and monoecious trees still have EXACTLY TWO SEXES. That they occur within the same individual is irrelevant - there are still two and only two gametes, and there are still two and only two reproductive systems.

Clownfish only have two sexes. They're sequential hermaphrodites that can change from male to female in specific situations (never the other way), but there is no third sex present within them.

 

[Toni]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

Elaboration:

• 
  
• Monoecious:
  Trees like oak, maple, and hickory have both male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers on the same tree.
  The same maples outside my house litter my yard with both pollen and with seeds, making them annoying and messy but they are also very beautiful.
  
  
• https://www.google.com/search?clien...CPezUOgwzI362HAIt1TSMDtrBG60n2J4wwr--Q&csui=3
• Dioecious:
  Trees like holly, persimmon, and gingko have separate male and female trees. Male trees produce pollen, and female trees produce fruits and seeds.
  Hermaphroditic:
  Trees like apple and pear have both male and female parts in each flower, allowing them to self-pollinate.
  
  
  

And yet, somehow, none of those trees have a third sex, and none have no sex.

Hermaphroditic and monoecious trees still have EXACTLY TWO SEXES. That they occur within the same individual is irrelevant - there are still two and only two gametes, and there are still two and only two reproductive systems.

Clownfish only have two sexes. They're sequential hermaphrodites that can change from male to female in specific situations (never the other way), but there is no third sex present within them.

You realize that trees are not in the same kingdom as human beings, right?

Do you know that at least 10 different species of animals actually do change sex, depending on a host of factors, including temperature and light?

Here’s a link: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stori...other-species-that-demonstrate-queer-behavior

 

[seanie]

The legal probl

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"?

The legal problem would be the law, requiring single sex spaces to be operated on the basis of biological sex.

That’s more of a legal problem for the service provider to be sure, but it’s still the legal position we are in.

 

[seanie]

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

How would they know they were a trans man if they genuinelY passed as male?

It’s the presence of males that is the primary concern, and in that regard the Equality Act recognises that perception can be just as significant as reality. Hence trans women are still protected from discrimination if the basis of that discrimination is that they are perceived to be women.

 

[seanie]

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

I think they should accept trans men in men’s restrooms, for the reasons I’ve pointed out.

 

[seanie]

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.

Jesus wept.

I’m not asking what “complete” means.

I’m asking you to explain what “complete physical transformation” means?

As in the actual steps in this physical transformation, and how can you tell when it’s “complete”?

Describe what you actually mean by the phrase.

 

[seanie]

Tell us the “components” that make a trans woman’s physical transformation “complete”.

 

[seanie]

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.

You’re wrong. Read harder.

 

[seanie]

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.

Sorry, that’s not what I was meaning.

The law doesn’t say trans men can’t use women’s restrooms. What it says is that there are circumstances where it could be legitimate to exclude trans men from female single sex spaces, the specific example being rape counselling sessions where the presence of a man, or someone perceived to be a man, could cause distress and interfere with the operation of the service.

It’s not at all certain that a public restroom would meet the same threshold as the operation of a rape counselling service.

 

[seanie]

You realize that trees are not in the same kingdom as human beings, right?

Do you know that at least 10 different species of animals actually do change sex, depending on a host of factors, including temperature and light?

But humans aren’t one of them.

So your point is moot.

 

[seanie]

You’re just back to arguing men should be allowed in women’s spaces because…

…clownfish.

It’s silly.

 

[Bomb#20]

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...

In the probably vain hope of laying your trumped-up charge that the number is made-up to rest once and for all, here again is the post where seanie cited his source:

View attachment 50518

 

[seanie]

We could aim for everyone presenting, identifying, considering themselves however they wish, but respecting that there are situations where someone’s sex, which is a material reality, does matter.

So we operate services on the basis of female only, mixed sex, individual, and sometimes male only spaces.

There will always be grey edges, and questions as to how it operates in practice, but much of life operates by social convention, not policing.

In areas where spaces are more managed, then there’s less reliance on social convention. But it requires a person’s sex to be recognised as a matter of policy and law.

 

[Emily Lake]

I realize it makes some men feel all manly by proclaiming that they are staunch defenders of women’s safety and virtue but it would be much more meaningful and effective if y’all quit being a threat to women’s physical safety.

In what way do you think that I, or any of the men on this forum, are a threat to women's physical safety?
Well, maybe Jarhyn or thebeave, but I am confident that most of us have been thoroughly socialized.

Who do you mean by "y'all", if not me?
Tom

I think that you are a threat to women's physical safety as a result of you being male. Granted there are some exceptions - there exist some exceptionally small and weak men, and there exist some exceptionally large and strong women. But if recollection serves, you're neither small nor weak. So on the assumption that you're a man of fairly average strength and size, then it is incontrovertible that if you wanted to do so you could completely physically dominate an average woman and cause her harm and there's not a goddamned thing she could do to resist you without a firearm.

Now, after years of interacting with you, I completely believe that you have absolutely no desire to physically dominate any woman. Because I know you as a person, I trust you as a person, and I do not consider you a threat.

But the reality remains that if you decided to do so, you could physically control me in a way that an average woman wouldn't be able to do. That makes you - and every man - a risk, in the same way that a lion or a bear or an over-eager great pyrenees is a risk.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, the issue is that sex is a well defined category across a vast array of plants and animals.

And when it comes to trans rights activism there has been a concerted effort to deny the reality of sex.

That it’s a spectrum, a Victorian/colonial invention, that it’s incredibly complex, undefinable, “INTERSEX!”, “CLOWNFISH!!!!”

And that’s all ideological horseshit.

Do you believe that sex and gender are the same thing?

I'm certain that one big problem here is that seanie and I and people like us can and do distinguish between sex and gender.

It's the people who refuse to distinguish between sex and gender that are creating the problems for the rest of us. Seanie and I get the difference. Does @laughing dog?
Tom

Which do you believe plays more importance in people's lives? Sex or gender?

Sex.

 

[seanie]

Bill Cosby always seemed so nice….