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

[laughing dog]

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.

Do you have citation for that? IMO, those transwomen are not serious about their gender.

On the otherhand, if your statistic is accurate, IMO, the other 20% are probably serious about their gender.

https://uvahealth.com/services/transgender/transgender-surgery-faqs​

How common is gender reassignment surgery?​

Gender reassignment (confirmation) surgery is more common in transgender men (42 to 54%) than transgender women (28%). Top (chest gender confirmation) surgery is performed approximately twice as often as bottom (genital) surgery. In studies that assessed transgender men and women as an aggregate, top surgery accounts for 8 to 25% and bottom surgery accounts for 4 to 13%.

Lots of males are quite happy to grow their own boobs, not so keen on lopping of their horns. And I rather agree that they're not particularly serious about their gender identity.

Thank you.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Tell us what you mean woman and physical transformation.

 

[Politesse]

Given the context of the discussion, you must surely concede that “sperg” was used in reference to the meme about sex as a spectrum?

You can’t seriously contend the comment had anything to do with Asperger’s




(Though I appreciate being serious is not a significant concern for you.)

It would fit your "anything statistically unusual is a disorder" mentality, no? Most people who hate social acceptance of gender fluidity also hate social acceptance or neurodiversity. It's all Woke, and they hate Woke. Believe me, I get Aspie and Sperg and Spaz and Rainman and Tard and all the rest all the time in real life, nothing shocks me anymore. But perhaps you haven't completed your slide into full on alt-right ideology just yet. Don't worry, fascism is a spectrum, and we all have our own special place on the spectrum.

 

[Politesse]

Using sex to discriminate between different classes of citizens, and assigning them different and unequal rights, is most certainly sexism. One of the most dangerous forms of sexism.

So no single sex spaces at all?

No single sex prisons, changing rooms, showers, restrooms, sports, hospital wards, intimate care, rape crisis counselling services, not anything?

Good luck arguing that as a policy.

I haven't argued for any such thing. Only, as always, equal protection under the law for all citizens. Which is. Believe it or not, not my original idea, but a 150 year old idea that has many times over saved my country from utter implosion and destruction.

 

[Politesse]

Using sex to discriminate between different classes of citizens, and assigning them different and unequal rights, is most certainly sexism. One of the most dangerous forms of sexism.

So no single sex spaces at all?

No single sex prisons, changing rooms, showers, restrooms, sports, hospital wards, intimate care, rape crisis counselling services, not anything?

Good luck arguing that as a policy.

I haven't argued for any such thing. Only, as always, equal protection under the law for all citizens. Which is, believe it or not, not my original idea, but a 150 year old idea that has many times over since its adoption saved my country from utter implosion and destruction.

 

[Toni]

You are aware, of course, that for humans, at least, sex serves as more than a mere reproductive mechanism.

Meh. Potato, potahto. Sex serves as a reproductive mechanism - that's how it evolved, it's why it exists. We, as well as some other animals, have evolved other characteristics and behaviors that increase our likelihood to copulate and therefore to sexually reproduce successfully. Intercourse is (generally) pleasurable because those who enjoy intercouse have historically had a higher reproductive rate, and have thus passed on more of their copulation-enjoying genes. We have evolved a bonding instinct that is closely tied to the copulation, because it turns out that those how form pair bonds are more successful at raising their offspring to maturity - thus being more successful at continuing their gene lines.

In very, very, very recent history, we've come up with ways to hijack our own drives and to prevent pregnancy. That's great for us right now in a lot of ways... but it also means that a whole lot of gene lines go extinct as a result. Guess whose gene lines are going to be propagated and shape our future evolution?

Sexes in anisogamous species are 100% reproductive mechanisms. They're not always successful, but that's irrelevant.

And that gender and sex do not always align the way you expect or want them to.

I genuinely don't care about gender or gender identity. I do care about sex.

No offense but you do seem to have some pretty messed up ideas about sex.

 

[seanie]

Tell us what you mean woman and physical trans formation.

Woman: adult, human, female.

And no, I don’t need to provide a meaning for somebody else’s phrase.

 

[seanie]

It would fit your "anything statistically unusual is a disorder" mentality, no? Most people who hate social acceptance of gender fluidity also hate social acceptance or neurodiversity. It's all Woke, and they hate Woke. Believe me, I get Aspie and Sperg and Spaz and Rainman and Tard and all the rest all the time in real life, nothing shocks me anymore. But perhaps you haven't completed your slide into full on alt-right ideology just yet. Don't worry, fascism is a spectrum, and we all have our own special place on the spectrum.

I see.

So you’re fully committed to not being serious.

 

[seanie]

I haven't argued for any such thing. Only, as always, equal protection under the law for all citizens. Which is. Believe it or not, not my original idea, but a 150 year old idea that has many times over saved my country from utter implosion and destruction.

How do you operate single sex spaces without discriminating on the basis of classes of people?

Even if you operate them on the basis of “gender identity”?

Anyone who “considers themselves a woman” can participate, but anyone who doesn’t can’t?

That’s still discriminating between two different classes of people, isn’t it?

So go away, have a little think, then come back to me when you can explain why single sex spaces are compatible with your belief that discriminating between different classes of people is always wrong.

 

[seanie]

No offense but you do seem to have some pretty messed up ideas about sex.

I admire the chutzpah.

 

[Bomb#20]

There’s mixed doubles in tennis.

You can’t enter a team of two males.

Why is that?

It's a safety issue -- if you allow teams of two males some dumbass will convince his partner they can pull off the fabled Iron Lotus and the next thing you know somebody's head comes off.

Oh, sorry, that's figure skating.

 

[Bomb#20]

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:

And how is that number any less of an invention?

Called it.

They list out the most common forms of intersex conditions, then insist without justification that those should not be considered intersex condifions

"most clinicians do not recognize as intersex" looks to me like offering a justification.

and that therefore the "real" number is lower than that which - they freely admit - the actual scholarly consensus maintains it to be.

Where are you seeing "they" "freely admit" anything of the sort? Do you have access to a non-paywalled copy of Leonard Sax's paper?

 

[bigfield]

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.

You've previously said that, "the organisations with decent legal advice seem to be changing their policies and signs, to provide female only, male only, and gender neutral facilities."

1. How widespread is this change?
2. Do you have any examples of facilities that have undergone this conversion?

If service providers are breaking the law by allowing trans men to use the men's restroom, then does that put pressure on the service provider to deny trans men access to the men's restroom, regardless of whether they offer a gender-neutral alternative?

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.

I asked you the same question but you declined to answer. We can come back to that.

You said that, "I think women should be accepting of all women in women’s restrooms, regardless of how they present or identify." All women here either means dis women and trans women, or cis women and trans men, and I figure you meant the latter. Some trans women present as men.

So, do you think women be accepting of trans men in restrooms in cases where they clock the trans man as a man?

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.

What if the man is the service provider who owns the men's restroom, and operates it on the basis of sex?

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.

OK, I've read header and I see where I've misunderstood.

"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."

What difficulty would it cause, and whom would it cause difficulty for? I initially thought that you meant it would cause difficulty for some women, but you've said that's wrong.

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.

Are there any circumstances in which you think trans men should be excluded from women's restrooms?

 

[seanie]

What if the man is the service provider who owns the men's restroom, and operates it on the basis of sex?

If the service provider has male and female facilities, as a matter of law their policy has to be based on biological sex. That’s not a choice.

But as pointed out before, public restrooms are relatively unmanaged spaces. There’s nobody on reception before you can enter. So the extent to which such an issue would be policed is doubtful. That won’t be the case in other situations.

What difficulty would it cause, and whom would it cause difficulty for? I initially thought that you meant it would cause difficulty for some women, but you said that’s wrong.

No.

There are some circumstances where many women want spaces free from men for reasons of privacy, dignity, safety, or fairness. A trans man who convincingly passed, and as such was perceived to be male, could cause the same discomfort to those women as a man, because they’d perceive them as a man.

Again, that is exactly the point the Supreme Court made in relation to rape counselling group sessions.

When it comes to rape counselling sessions I could absolutely see there might be a need to exclude all males and trans men from a particular service, as long as alternative services are on hand. When it comes to restrooms I’m less sure. However, a gender neutral option may provide a solution.

 

[seanie]

Another article by Naomi Cunningham KC.

“But if we can get back to a situation in which there are clear, unambiguous rules requiring men (however they identify) to stay out of women-only spaces and women (however they identify) to stay out of men-only spaces, rule-breaking will become obvious again. Most people will mostly comply. If we see a man in the ladies’, we don’t have to grapple with whether he is a man pretending to be a woman, or a man who identifies as a woman, or a man who is pretending to identify as a woman, or what the difference between those three things might be anyway. We can just identify him on sight as a rule-breaker, and expect HR or security or the bouncers or whoever to back us up when we complain.

No doubt once in a while there will be a rule-breaker who “passes” well enough to get away with it. That doesn’t mean the rule is impossible to police, or require us to conduct the “genital inspections” that feature in so much hyperventilating commentary from trans activists and allies. It’s nothing more than an observation that perfection in human affairs is rare to vanishing: we don’t abandon speed limits or taxes or the law against theft just because people sometimes break speed limits, evade taxes and steal things without being detected and punished. It is really quite surprising to have to point this out to three eminent lawyers.”

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Tell us what you mean woman and physical transformation.

Woman means a female of the human species, usually applied to females who have attained sexual maturity or legal majority, dependent on context. It is also often used to include females human beings of any age.

Physical transformation in this context means surgical and hormonal intervention intended to mimic the visual sex characteristics of the opposite sex. For males, that would imply orchiectomy and penectomy, vaginoplasty, electrolysis or laser hair removal, tracheal shaving, facial feminization surgery, and either estrogen-induced fatty deposits in the breast region or breast implants, among other possible procedures.

What it doesn't mean however, is that a male can actually turn into a real woman in any fashion whatsoever.

FWIW, seanie is being a bit more zealous in hounding laughing dog (pun intended) than I think is useful... but I'm also quite interested in knowing which of those procedures LD thinks is sufficient for a male to be considered "completely transformed". I'm guessing at minimum orchiectomy and penectomy, but I honestly don't know how much LD thinks is enough.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are aware, of course, that for humans, at least, sex serves as more than a mere reproductive mechanism.

Meh. Potato, potahto. Sex serves as a reproductive mechanism - that's how it evolved, it's why it exists. We, as well as some other animals, have evolved other characteristics and behaviors that increase our likelihood to copulate and therefore to sexually reproduce successfully. Intercourse is (generally) pleasurable because those who enjoy intercouse have historically had a higher reproductive rate, and have thus passed on more of their copulation-enjoying genes. We have evolved a bonding instinct that is closely tied to the copulation, because it turns out that those how form pair bonds are more successful at raising their offspring to maturity - thus being more successful at continuing their gene lines.

In very, very, very recent history, we've come up with ways to hijack our own drives and to prevent pregnancy. That's great for us right now in a lot of ways... but it also means that a whole lot of gene lines go extinct as a result. Guess whose gene lines are going to be propagated and shape our future evolution?

Sexes in anisogamous species are 100% reproductive mechanisms. They're not always successful, but that's irrelevant.

And that gender and sex do not always align the way you expect or want them to.

I genuinely don't care about gender or gender identity. I do care about sex.

No offense but you do seem to have some pretty messed up ideas about sex.

Meh. You seem to have some "human exceptionalism" ideas about sex. Copulation only exists at all as a mechanism for reproduction, and is entirely dependent on their being two distinct and discrete sexes in our species. Everything else associated with it - pair bonding, pleasure, etc - is an evolved mechanism that increase the likelihood of passing on our genes.

That doesn't mean that I think people should only have sex in order to procreate - quite the contrary given that I don't have kids yet rather enjoy fun-time-with-hubby. It just means that I recognize and understand that all of the fun parts of it evolved as a mechanism for increasing the likelihood of genes being passed on. I don't glamorize them as being something separate from evolutionary pressure, as if it were bestowed by a great sky-daddy to set us apart from the animals

 

[Emily Lake]

It would fit your "anything statistically unusual is a disorder" mentality, no? Most people who hate social acceptance of gender fluidity also hate social acceptance or neurodiversity. It's all Woke, and they hate Woke. Believe me, I get Aspie and Sperg and Spaz and Rainman and Tard and all the rest all the time in real life, nothing shocks me anymore. But perhaps you haven't completed your slide into full on alt-right ideology just yet. Don't worry, fascism is a spectrum, and we all have our own special place on the spectrum.

That's absurd.

I have no problem with accepting gender fluidity - FFS, I idolized Prince and Annie Lennox! I grew up when gender -bending was de rigueur! I don't wear dresses or skirts, I don't wear heels, and I almost never wear make-up. The only reason my hair isn't short is because 1) it's unflattering and 2) that takes a lot of upkeep that I'm too lazy to do. I don't exactly fit traditional gender norms for women myself.

I have several autistic friends and relatives (reasonably likely I'm on the spectrum but it's never been a barrier so I don't care), as well as an ADHD spouse.

Your screed of ad hominem condescension is off the mark and pointless. All it really accomplishes is to make YOU look like a dolt who can't engage at anything more than a fancified grade-school level of discourse.

 

[Emily Lake]

It would fit your "anything statistically unusual is a disorder" mentality, no? Most people who hate social acceptance of gender fluidity also hate social acceptance or neurodiversity. It's all Woke, and they hate Woke. Believe me, I get Aspie and Sperg and Spaz and Rainman and Tard and all the rest all the time in real life, nothing shocks me anymore. But perhaps you haven't completed your slide into full on alt-right ideology just yet. Don't worry, fascism is a spectrum, and we all have our own special place on the spectrum.

I see.

So you’re fully committed to not being serious.

Oh no, he's entirely serious. Remarkably wrong-headed and blinded by his own belief system... but totally serious.

His being serious does not imply that you should take him seriously though.

 

[Politesse]

Your screed of ad hominem condescension is off the mark and pointless. All it really accomplishes is to make YOU look like a dolt who can't engage at anything more than a fancified grade-school level of discourse.

Well, thank goodness you've avoided being rude, then.