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

[TomC]

Although I find it fascinating and disturbing that you, supposedly not only a feminist but the spokesperson for how all women think and feel, think that (a) all forms of recognition are legal discrimination, and (b) that's what actually you want and are arguing for.

Seanie didn't say that. Yet another strawman.

Do you really believe that in a state which allows for separate and unequal rights for men, women, and others, that women will end up ahead? Have you never read a history book?

What's unequal in having a restroom for everyone, side by side, without depriving female women of a male free place?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Although I find it fascinating and disturbing that you, supposedly not only a feminist but the spokesperson for how all women think and feel, think that (a) all forms of recognition are legal discrimination, and (b) that's what actually you want and are arguing for.

Seanie didn't say that. Yet another strawman.

Do you really believe that in a state which allows for separate and unequal rights for men, women, and others, that women will end up ahead? Have you never read a history book?

What's unequal in having a restroom for everyone, side by side, without depriving female women of a male free place?
Tom

There isn't anything unequal about having gender-divided restrooms. Using the law to attack trans people is the issue here, and openly endorsing sex discrimination is... I guess, another issue? Seanie brought it up. I dunno. I guess thinking it was some sort of "gotcha". I support the 10th and 14th ammendments, feel that the ERA ought to join them as an important legal clarification of the rights of the citizen, and always have in all three cases.

Mind you, I do think unisex bathrooms are a good idea, and probably the way of the future. But forcing them into existence legally would create more problems than it solved, and it certainly wouldn't end sex discrimination.

 

[seanie]

Becasue legal discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong.

If you think that, how can you possibly support single sex spaces in any circumstance?

 

[seanie]

Although I find it fascinating and disturbing that you, supposedly not only a feminist but the spokesperson for how all women think and feel, think that (a) all forms of recognition are legal discrimination, and (b) that's what actually you want and are arguing for.

Seanie didn't say that. Yet another strawman.

Do you really believe that in a state which allows for separate and unequal rights for men, women, and others, that women will end up ahead? Have you never read a history book?

What's unequal in having a restroom for everyone, side by side, without depriving female women of a male free place?
Tom

There isn't anything unequal about having gender-divided restrooms. Using the law to attack trans people is the issue here, and openly endorsing sex discrimination is... I guess, another issue? Seanie brought it up. I dunno. I guess thinking it was some sort of "gotcha". I support the 10th and 14th ammendments, feel that the ERA ought to join them as an important legal clarification of the rights of the citizen, and always have in all three cases.

Mind you, I do think unisex bathrooms are a good idea, and probably the way of the future. But forcing them into existence legally would create more problems than it solved, and it certainly wouldn't end sex discrimination.

So gender divided restrooms aren’t discrimination?

But sex divided restrooms are?

What’s your reasoning for that?

Excluding males from some spaces, discriminating against them on the basis of their sex, is an inclusion measure for the benefit of females.

If we didn’t have separate sex categories in most sports, only males would be rewarded for their exceptional talent. No females.

I appreciate that the term “discrimination” is generally regarded negatively, but there are some situations where discrimination between different groups of people is legitimate. Alongside many instances where it isn’t.

 

[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?

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.

Is it your contention that transwomen are female?

 

[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.

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

I didn't ask you the defend it, I asked you where in that chain of argumentation you disagree. I'm trying to get you to actually share your position in some rational fashion. All you ever seem to do is call people names, insist they're bigots, and then say "that's not what I said" when challenged on the implied positions. So fine - share your actual positions so we can maybe find some common ground, or at least find where the schism begins.

• Do you agree or disagree that a person's gender identity should be accepted as whatever they say it is?
• Do you agree or disagree that there should be no obligation or expectation for people of any sex or gender to present in a specific way?
• Do you agree or disagree that nobody should be required to undergo invasive surgeries or harmful medication in order to be considered transgender?
• Do you agree or disagree that people should have the right to use facilities and services that align with their gender identity?

Finally - is there any part of the prior post where I have misrepresented trans advocate arguments?
These are simple questions, so how about you answer them? It should take you mere seconds, and will enable an actual discussion.

 

[Emily Lake]

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”??????

Yes, Toni. Males have instincts and fairly well established behavioral tendencies. So do females.

Or do you think that humans aren't animals, and that a magical sky-daddy blessed us with super-powers and skipped the entirety of the evolutionary process?

 

[Emily Lake]

That’s very big of you.

Thanks.

Seanie, I get where you're coming from, I really do. But I think this particular approach toward LD is a distraction as well as being ineffective.

I agree that sex change operations don't actually change sex - and I don't think LD believes they do. I'm pretty sure that he's indicated a couple times now that he thinks at least penectomy and orchiectomy are expected to be considered "genuinely trans". There are a whole lot of other discussion points on this topic that are far more lucrative than beating him over the head and shoulders for not answering your specific question in exactly the way you want him to.

 

[seanie]

That’s very big of you.

Thanks.

Seanie, I get where you're coming from, I really do. But I think this particular approach toward LD is a distraction as well as being ineffective.

I agree that sex change operations don't actually change sex - and I don't think LD believes they do. I'm pretty sure that he's indicated a couple times now that he thinks at least penectomy and orchiectomy are expected to be considered "genuinely trans". There are a whole lot of other discussion points on this topic that are far more lucrative than beating him over the head and shoulders for not answering your specific question in exactly the way you want him to.

Fair enough.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you do think single sex prisons, changing rooms, showers, restrooms, sports, hospital wards, intimate care, and rape crisis counselling services, are wrong.

I said literally the opposite of that. Again: it's not discrimination to have a Honda Civic car club. It's discrimination to outlaw Subaru Outback car clubs.

I genuinely don't know what the fuck this is supposed to mean in this context. It kind of seems like you're saying that is not discrimination to have single-sex facilities, but that it *is* discrimination to exclude the opposite sex from them. Which would be dumb, so how about you clarify instead of leaving the rest of us to make such an inference?


Okay, this kind of helps:

Again, no, they don't. I can have a town cherry festival and that is not fruit discrimination. What is fruit discrimination is if I try to pass a law at the state level to shut down the neighboring village's peach festival without their consent.

Although I find it fascinating and disturbing that you, supposedly not only a feminist but the spokesperson for how all women think and feel, think that (a) all forms of recognition are legal discrimination, and (b) that's what actually you want and are arguing for.

Do you really believe that in a state which allows for separate and unequal rights for men, women, and others, that women will end up ahead? Have you never read a history book?

Does this mean that you are okay with sex-specific facilities, as long as both sexes have reasonable and appropriate access (as opposed to racial segregation that was separate and extremely unequal despite the terminology used)?

 

[Emily Lake]

”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

That is not true of all men and it is true of some women. In general, men tend to be taller and have more upper body strength but that is also not universally true.

Believe it or not: women also have sex drives and sometimes as strong or stronger than the average man's or her male partner's. I'm not certain what you mean by pervy but yes, plenty of women like porn, even the grosser stuff, and some women molest or even rape minors. It is less common or less commonly recognized than for men and is likely due to a mixture of biology and socialization. Same thing with violence--partly biology but also strongly socialization. And choice. We all have choices.

I just don't think things are as black and white or male/female as your response implies.

Don't be obtuse, Toni. Tom didn't say all men are pervy, rapey, and violent - and it's not at all implied by his post. It is true that men as a class have an evolved predisposition to be very copulation-focused, and as a result of this have a higher likelihood of acting on those predispositions in a way that our just-barely-a-drop-in-the-ocean developed societies disapprove of.

This isn't news, it's not even shocking. I mean, it's not female elephants out there raping rhinos. It's not female seals going at it with dead penguins.

Acknowledging that men have a significantly higher sex drive than women doesn't excuse or justify poor behavior.

 

[Politesse]

So gender divided restrooms aren’t discrimination?

But sex divided restrooms are?

I honestly don't get the sieve you read my posts through...

What?

 

[Emily Lake]

There isn't anything unequal about having gender-divided restrooms.

There's a lot wrong with having gender-divided restrooms. I don't think there's anything unequal with having sex-divided restrooms. Sex is not gender, and it sure as fuck isn't gender identity.

Using the law to attack trans people is the issue here, and openly endorsing sex discrimination is... I guess, another issue? Seanie brought it up. I dunno. I guess thinking it was some sort of "gotcha". I support the 10th and 14th ammendments, feel that the ERA ought to join them as an important legal clarification of the rights of the citizen, and always have in all three cases.

Mind you, I do think unisex bathrooms are a good idea, and probably the way of the future. But forcing them into existence legally would create more problems than it solved, and it certainly wouldn't end sex discrimination.

I don't think unisex bathrooms are a good idea, not universally. There are many situations in which I think they're fine, mostly things like small restaurants that have two single-use rooms that contain their own sinks and lock. To me, there are some situations in which practicality wins out, and having to have two discrete sets of facilities simply isn't reasonable.

On the other hand, I think that having unisex middle school bathrooms is an absolutely atrocious idea - and one that absolutely disadvantages female-girls astronomically more.

 

[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”??????

Yes, Toni. Males have instincts and fairly well established behavioral tendencies. So do females.

Or do you think that humans aren't animals, and that a magical sky-daddy blessed us with super-powers and skipped the entirety of the evolutionary process?

I think that it is not only males who can be aggressive, violent, have sexual needs and desires, and so in. It is not only females who are gentle and nurturing or know how to correctly fold laundry.

And so on.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no talent for cartooning so this will have to do. The baseball game labeled "Justice" would look more like this:

Really?

Yes, really -- and if you'd seen my feeble attempts at cartooning you wouldn't have asked.

 

[Emily Lake]

We should have to have laws about this. But some people are going to exploit goodwill and kindness for their own jollies or for nefarious reasons. So now we can't have nice things.

I hate it when I realize I mistyped way after the edit window has closed.

This should have said "We shouldn't have to have laws about this..."

 

[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.

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

That is not true of all men and it is true of some women. In general, men tend to be taller and have more upper body strength but that is also not universally true.

Believe it or not: women also have sex drives and sometimes as strong or stronger than the average man's or her male partner's. I'm not certain what you mean by pervy but yes, plenty of women like porn, even the grosser stuff, and some women molest or even rape minors. It is less common or less commonly recognized than for men and is likely due to a mixture of biology and socialization. Same thing with violence--partly biology but also strongly socialization. And choice. We all have choices.

I just don't think things are as black and white or male/female as your response implies.

Don't be obtuse, Toni. Tom didn't say all men are pervy, rapey, and violent - and it's not at all implied by his post. It is true that men as a class have an evolved predisposition to be very copulation-focused, and as a result of this have a higher likelihood of acting on those predispositions in a way that our just-barely-a-drop-in-the-ocean developed societies disapprove of.

This isn't news, it's not even shocking. I mean, it's not female elephants out there raping rhinos. It's not female seals going at it with dead penguins.

Acknowledging that men have a significantly higher sex drive than women doesn't excuse or justify poor behavior.

Some men have significantly higher sex drives compared with women. Some women have significantly higher sex drives compared to average men or women. This is hardly universal and is likely as influenced by societal expectations as it is by the presence or lack of a Y chromosome.

 

[Emily Lake]

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”??????

Yes, Toni. Males have instincts and fairly well established behavioral tendencies. So do females.

Or do you think that humans aren't animals, and that a magical sky-daddy blessed us with super-powers and skipped the entirety of the evolutionary process?

I think that it is not only males who can be aggressive, violent, have sexual needs and desires, and so in. It is not only females who are gentle and nurturing or know how to correctly fold laundry.

And so on.

Nobody said "only". Tom certainly didn't.

 

[seanie]

Mind you, I do think unisex bathrooms are a good idea, and probably the way of the future. But forcing them into existence legally would create more problems than it solved, and it certainly wouldn't end sex discrimination.

How about unisex athletics?

How about unisex prisons?

 

[Politesse]

I genuinely don't know what the fuck this is supposed to mean in this context. It kind of seems like you're saying that is not discrimination to have single-sex facilities, but that it *is* discrimination to exclude the opposite sex from them.

Yes. That isn't just my opinion, it's been the norm for more than a century. We've had sex-divided restrooms, but it has not been against any law, let alone federal law, to use the "wrong" restroom. This didn't create any real problems, until the alt-right started using this as a wedge issue to try and turn the political left on one another instead of paying attention to their very real and much more pressing attempts to destabilize the country and strip women of their most fundamental rights.