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

[seanie]

Do you oppose single “sex” provision in principle?

No women’s prisons, showers, changing rooms, accommodation, intimate health care, rape counselling services, sports?

Should everything be unisex/gender neutral?

If so, argue for that.

If not, you need to define your criteria why some people are allowed into those spaces, and some are not.

 

[laughing dog]

No. And, I cannot even fathom how you could come up with such a stupid question from what I wrote.

Then why did you say “indicate a seriousness”?

Is that a relevant criteria?

Sufficient surgery and hormone treatment to “indicate a seriousness”?

To confuse you.
No.
No.

So is “a complete physical transformation” irrelevant?

Are we back to “ anyone who considers themselves a woman is a woman”?

Where are you drawing your lines?

What are the criteria.

No.
No.
Where I’ve always drawn them.
Criteria to what?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's about identifying threats to women.

You haven't, though. Scapegoating an entire segment of society for possible future crimes they might commit is not preventing any crimes from occurring. You might as well say that you're preventing drowning by making people "more aware of the threat that water poses, even when in vapor form". Even if we accepted the immorality of a Minority Report solution to this problem, as a practical matter the strategy just won't work.

Show me the evidence that anti-trans legislation has had the overall effect of reducing violence against women, in any state or nation that has advanced it.

Is it your contention that males do not present any risk to females at all? That we should never take actions to prevent male violence against women, we should only take action after women are harmed by males?

 

[Emily Lake]

Hey @Politesse you seemed to have missed a question. So allow me to direct you to this:

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.

 

[Politesse]

It's about identifying threats to women.

You haven't, though. Scapegoating an entire segment of society for possible future crimes they might commit is not preventing any crimes from occurring. You might as well say that you're preventing drowning by making people "more aware of the threat that water poses, even when in vapor form". Even if we accepted the immorality of a Minority Report solution to this problem, as a practical matter the strategy just won't work.

Show me the evidence that anti-trans legislation has had the overall effect of reducing violence against women, in any state or nation that has advanced it.

Is it your contention that males do not present any risk to females at all? That we should never take actions to prevent male violence against women, we should only take action after women are harmed by males?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. No, I definitely did not say that. I said quite the opposite of that. Attacking trans women is doing nothing whatsoever to help cis or trans women in any way. Precisely because the real threats are elsewhere, and you are doing nothing at all to change that by occupying the police and filling the courts with petty complaints and accusations that are anything but credible accusations of rape, abuse, and murder. Which are disturbingly commonplace, and usually go unaddressed.

 

[Politesse]

Hey @Politesse you seemed to have missed a question. So allow me to direct you to this:

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.

We've gone over all this. I'm not interested in "defending" a position I have never espoused.

 

[Toni]

That expectation is a long, long, long, long way from Dachau.

Devils advocate here but it has not been long when golf club membership was limited to ( white, Christian) males only.

I think for legal purposes, legal experts should take the medical community’s recommendations. I would expect the “ectomies” you mentioned and vagioplasty at the very least. Those indicate a seriousness and they typically (and hopefully) psychological therapy.

My point is that there are transwomen who are clearly no threat and possibly in danger if treated as a male. Those individuals deserve just as much protection and respect as people as “regular” women.

So by “complete” you meant “a serious attempt”?

No. And, I cannot even fathom how you could come up with such a stupid question from what I wrote.

Can you explain what you mean?
Does it mean chromosomes are changed? Male instincts?

I don't remember who brought up the term "complete physical transformation", but it wasn't me because I don't think that is remotely possible.
Tom

”Male instincts”??????

 

[seanie]

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.

So explain why you simultaneously decry discriminating on the basis of sex, whilst not arguing for the abolition of single sex spaces?

Have you thought this through at all?

 

[seanie]

Where I’ve always drawn them.

It would helpful to clarify where you’ve always drawn them, so others can be clear what you mean.

 

[TomC]

”Male instincts”??????

Do I need to explain the concept?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Where I’ve always drawn them.

It would helpful to clarify where you’ve always drawn them, so others can be clear what you mean.

Even if I had a clue what lines you are unclear zbout, I think you should pay attention, so no.

 

[seanie]

That’s very big of you.

Thanks.

 

[Toni]

”Male instincts”??????

Do I need to explain the concept?
Tom

Yes, I think that you do because I’m not at all certain what you are talking about.

 

[Toni]

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.

So explain why you simultaneously decry discriminating on the basis of sex, whilst not arguing for the abolition of single sex spaces?

Have you thought this through at all?

 

[TomC]

”Male instincts”??????

Do I need to explain the concept?
Tom

Yes, I think that you do because I’m not at all certain what you are talking about.

Men are the pervy, rapey, violent sex.

I realize that it will take some nuance and context to understand the men are the pervy rapey people sex, of the two, but that's exactly what I am talking about.

If you don't understand that, then I am not much interested in going on with your education. I don't think you are willing to understand.
Tom

 

[seanie]

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.

So explain why you simultaneously decry discriminating on the basis of sex, whilst not arguing for the abolition of single sex spaces?

Have you thought this through at all?

View attachment 50990

How does that address the question?

Do you want to only have unisex spaces or not?

Is discriminating between diffent classes of people always wrong?

Because, if so, that’s the Paralympics fucked.

 

[seanie]

Even the image is disingenuous.

It shows people watching sports, and how they can be equitably treated.

How about participating in sports?

How does your meme work for that?

 

[Politesse]

I realize that it will take some nuance and context to understand the men are the pervy rapey people sex, of the two, but that's exactly what I am talking about.

The nuance? What nuance? That perspective couldn't be less nuanced if it tried. What would be an less nuanced version of that opinion?

 

[seanie]

Men commit violent and sexual crimes at a far higher rate than women, and have a far higher prevalence of paraphilia.

Is this news to you?

 

[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.

So explain why you simultaneously decry discriminating on the basis of sex, whilst not arguing for the abolition of single sex spaces?

Have you thought this through at all?

Becasue legal discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong. What more do you want? It's not discrimination to have a Honda Civic car club. It's discrimination to outlaw Subaru Outback car clubs.