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

[Politesse]

There are many, many examples of individuals in the early 19th century who lived, for all intents and purposes, according to their preferred gender regardless of their birth sex. Why do you think the Nazis were so appalled at them? Then, as now, they were horrified at the degree of social acceptance that such people were beginning to acquire, and felt compelled to "fight back" against the tides of social change.

 

[Emily Lake]

You might as well hear someone speaking English and infer it's "because you never studied French" -- it's sheer snobbery.

By that logic, anyone who studies any field or picks up any trade with specialized knowledge is a "snob".

Only when they insist that they're technical use of a common word is the only legitimate use, and then they play stupid linguistic games that change the meaning of straightforward colloquial statements by demanding that their jargony definition replace the contextually appropriate one.

 

[Politesse]

Do you also believe that all doors should be required to be left open, and any stranger allowed to wander through people's houses, and action should only be taken AFTER a stranger takes something that isn't theirs?

See, you're pretending that the transexuals you're so afraid of must be like you, unable to conceive of non-authoritarian solutions to social problems. No, no one has required that doors be left open, only that a court should have to prove that a theft has occurred before someone goes to prison for theft. What you're advocating for is the equivalent of arresting someone of a certain class the second they enter a well-to-do neighborhood, on suspicion of the theft they might commit, or because seeing them makes the rich people who live there feel afraid.

In short, you are pretending to be attacked. But you aren't. You are attacking other people, using the police as your weapons.

 

[Politesse]

Only when they insist that they're technical use of a common word is the only legitimate use, and then they play stupid linguistic games that change the meaning of straightforward colloquial statements by demanding that their jargony definition replace the contextually appropriate one.

In technical contexts, yes, technical uses should be used. In less formal settings, it is not as important.

Are you forgetting the context of this derail? I did, in fact, use the term sex-divided restroom, since I knew that to my audience, that effectively meant the same thing as gender-divided. Seanie leapt on it as a "gotcha", trying to "catch me out" as secretly unclear or hypocritical on the meaning of those terms. When in fact I was just being practical and using language as it is most often used.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

And the hypothesis that is consistently supported is that males and females are different in some important ways. Much of that has little or nothing to do with socializing.
Tom

The second part is not supported.

It's not supported by the information that you prefer to be true. That's the problem you have.
Tom

No, it’s not the problem I have. I have an issue with people mis-using words and not being willing or perhaps being unable to understand the difference between hypothesis and fact, or evidence and fact.

Oh FFS, you're doing the same thing Poli is doing - you're demanding that technical jargon is the only way in which a commonplace word can be used.

Nobody has claimed that "male humans are more aggressive and prone to sexual violence than females" is a *scientific* hypothesis. It is, however, an explanatory hypothesis for a massive amount of very consistently observed phenomena.

 

[Politesse]

The fact that the harm in this context falls pretty much entirely on women doesn't seem to bother you one teensy little bit. Why is that?

What harm? Making people feel uncomfortable? You think that only women ever feel uncomfortable?

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s interesting to me that some people refuse to read other people’s positions with a clear head and an interest in understanding, but instead look for points they can argue against.

Yes. It's very interesting, isn't it.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, and I don't think my political position is really all that hard to understand. I am not an authoritarian. I don't want the government to legislate every intimate aspect of my personal life. I don't want the government telling people what fucking bathroom they are "allowed" to use (when five years ago that wasn't considered a "government allowance" at all) no matter what advice they are giving them. What right does anyone in Trump's government have to tell me where I am "allowed" to take a piss, when I managed just fine the first forty years of my life, when no such advice was ever required? I don't care whether they agree with my personal moral rules or not, people should not allow restroom control to become a part of the government's mandate in the first place.

Up until quite recently, social convention was plenty sufficient to ensure that males (regardless of how they identified) used they men's room and females (regardless of how they identified) used the women's room. Exceptions were very rare, and pretty much always a case-by-case concession.

Unfortunately, an extremely loud and pushy minority of males with gender identity issues took it upon themselves to demand that women must kowtow to their wants. They started violating women's boundaries and using women's rooms without our consent and against our desires, and started being aggressive domineering assholes about it too. They also started convincing schools that young boys should be allowed to use the girl's rooms on the basis of their say so, and just fuck whatever the girls want.

We didn't used to *need* laws about this, because males didn't used to trample all over women's boundaries. But because special males got aggressive and vicious about it, now we need rules.

 

[Emily Lake]

As for the main issue at hand, unless you agree to stop pretending I've altogether denied the existence of biological sex, when I haven't - when as far as I know no one does - there's little point in further conversation. You're not discussing in good faith, and I'm getting very tired of typing the same responses over and over just for you to lie and deflect and ignore them for the umpteenth time.

Oh do shush. We're discussing in perfectly good faith. We just don't accept your belief that intimate spaces and services ought to be divided on the basis of gender identity.

 

[Politesse]

We're discussing in perfectly good faith.

No. Pretending that I have argued that sex does not exist, when I have not, is not argument in good faith. The first time might be an innocent misunderstanding. The third time is just a lie.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are many, many examples of individuals in the early 19th century who lived, for all intents and purposes, according to their preferred gender regardless of their birth sex. Why do you think the Nazis were so appalled at them? Then, as now, they were horrified at the degree of social acceptance that such people were beginning to acquire, and felt compelled to "fight back" against the tides of social change.

Obvious males with male parts were not riding some tide of social acceptance that let them get their dicks out in female showers.

For the love of rational thought, please stop parroting idiotic revisionist history as if it's gospel truth. NAzis didn't "start" by attacking trans, Joan of Arc didn't identify as a man, and Malcolm Michael's Jr. didn't kick off the stonewall riots and wasn't even transgender.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you also believe that all doors should be required to be left open, and any stranger allowed to wander through people's houses, and action should only be taken AFTER a stranger takes something that isn't theirs?

See, you're pretending that the transexuals you're so afraid of must be like you, unable to conceive of non-authoritarian solutions to social problems. No, no one has required that doors be left open, only that a court should have to prove that a theft has occurred before someone goes to prison for theft.

So we're allowed to exclude males from female-only intimate spaces as a preliminary safeguarding approach then?

What you're advocating for is the equivalent of arresting someone of a certain class the second they enter a well-to-do neighborhood, on suspicion of the theft they might commit, or because seeing them makes the rich people who live there feel afraid.

No, what I'm advocating for is that if someone enters my house without permission, I can evict them, and if needed I can press charges for trespassing regardless of whether they steal anything or not.

In short, you are pretending to be attacked. But you aren't. You are attacking other people, using the police as your weapons.

This is dumb. I mean, just a completely asinine argument.

Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting voyeurism as a crime committed against them?
Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting exhibition as a crime committed against us?

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact that the harm in this context falls pretty much entirely on women doesn't seem to bother you one teensy little bit. Why is that?

What harm? Making people feel uncomfortable? You think that only women ever feel uncomfortable?

Voyeurism, exhibitionism, forced participation in sexual role play, and yes - an increase in sexual offending against women.

As opposed to the "harm" of expecting human males to come to terms with the fact that they are human males? The "harm" of not playing pretend with someone else's wishes about how they look? The "harm" of telling the emperor that he is, in actual fact, naked?

 

[Emily Lake]

We're discussing in perfectly good faith.

No. Pretending that I have argued that sex does not exist, when I have not, is not argument in good faith. The first time might be an innocent misunderstanding. The third time is just a lie.

Oh calm down, don't overreact so much. It's not that big a deal.

Seriously, you technically admit that sex exists... but you simultaneously assert that sex isn't relevant, and that sex shouldn't be the basis of division for intimate spaces and services. You admit that it technically exists, but also insinuate that it's not important and that a person's subjective imagining of how they wish they looked should be considered more important than sex. You've admitted that sex exists, but you've also put forth the inane argument that it's a spectrum and that since some few people are difficult to classify, we should scrap the entire notion when it comes to policy.

Then you conflate arguments against your pseudoscience policy positions as being "bad faith" accusations of pretending that sex doesn't exist.

 

[seanie]

Are you forgetting the context of this derail? I did, in fact, use the term sex-divided restroom, since I knew that to my audience, that effectively meant the same thing as gender-divided. Seanie leapt on it as a "gotcha", trying to "catch me out" as secretly unclear or hypocritical on the meaning of those terms. When in fact I was just being practical and using language as it is most often used.

I “leapt” on the lack of clarity in the language you were using, leading you to suggest you had no objections to single sex spaces, when in reality you do. You think they should be single gender instead, allowing biological males into female spaces.

It was simple obfuscation on your part.

 

[scombrid]

Anybody seen my pearls?

 

[TomC]

Anybody seen my pearls?

Check with Poli or Jar. They've got plenty.
Tom

ETA ~I'd have suggested Toni, but it would doubtlessly be sexist to presume a female woman has some pearls laying around.~

 

[Politesse]

Do you also believe that all doors should be required to be left open, and any stranger allowed to wander through people's houses, and action should only be taken AFTER a stranger takes something that isn't theirs?

See, you're pretending that the transexuals you're so afraid of must be like you, unable to conceive of non-authoritarian solutions to social problems. No, no one has required that doors be left open, only that a court should have to prove that a theft has occurred before someone goes to prison for theft.

So we're allowed to exclude males from female-only intimate spaces as a preliminary safeguarding approach then?

What you're advocating for is the equivalent of arresting someone of a certain class the second they enter a well-to-do neighborhood, on suspicion of the theft they might commit, or because seeing them makes the rich people who live there feel afraid.

No, what I'm advocating for is that if someone enters my house without permission, I can evict them, and if needed I can press charges for trespassing regardless of whether they steal anything or not.

In short, you are pretending to be attacked. But you aren't. You are attacking other people, using the police as your weapons.

This is dumb. I mean, just a completely asinine argument.

Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting voyeurism as a crime committed against them?
Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting exhibition as a crime committed against us?

This coming from the only admitted voyeur on the forum! You were bragging just last week about how you look at other women's crotches in private spaces to see if they were "adjusting their bulge", as you put it, and speculate in writing, on a public forum, about what you imagine their genitals looked like. Casting odds, no less. But you want me to believe that your victims are somehow more guilty of voyeurism than you? Or is voyeurism not a crime when you do it? Oh, of course not! Why, you weren't looking for sexual gratification, only ammunition for your anti-civil rights campaigning. So innocent! I sure none of those women would feel "uncomfortable" if they knew you were only out to hurt them personally as opposed to pleasing yourself! No, Emily, your victims certainly did not consent to be violated by you, let alone outed, misgendered, disrespected, and used as tools for your ideological agenda. You make other women less safe. They don't.

Per your confession:

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

 

[seanie]

Females, as in biological women and girls, are entitled to female only spaces in some circumstances, free from males, however those males, as in biological men and boys, consider themself.

 

[TomC]

Do you also believe that all doors should be required to be left open, and any stranger allowed to wander through people's houses, and action should only be taken AFTER a stranger takes something that isn't theirs?

See, you're pretending that the transexuals you're so afraid of must be like you, unable to conceive of non-authoritarian solutions to social problems. No, no one has required that doors be left open, only that a court should have to prove that a theft has occurred before someone goes to prison for theft.

So we're allowed to exclude males from female-only intimate spaces as a preliminary safeguarding approach then?

What you're advocating for is the equivalent of arresting someone of a certain class the second they enter a well-to-do neighborhood, on suspicion of the theft they might commit, or because seeing them makes the rich people who live there feel afraid.

No, what I'm advocating for is that if someone enters my house without permission, I can evict them, and if needed I can press charges for trespassing regardless of whether they steal anything or not.

In short, you are pretending to be attacked. But you aren't. You are attacking other people, using the police as your weapons.

This is dumb. I mean, just a completely asinine argument.

Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting voyeurism as a crime committed against them?
Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting exhibition as a crime committed against us?

This coming from the only admitted voyeur on the forum! You were bragging just last week about how you look at other women's crotches in private spaces to see if they were "adjusting their bulge", as you put it, and speculate in writing, on a public forum, about what you imagine their genitals looked like. Casting odds, no less. But you want me to believe that your victims are somehow more guilty of voyeurism than you? Or is voyeurism not a crime when you do it? Oh, of course not! Why, you weren't looking for sexual gratification, only ammunition for your anti-civil rights campaigning. So innocent! I sure none of those women would feel "uncomfortable" if they knew you were only out to hurt them personally as opposed to pleasing yourself! No, Emily, your victims certainly did not consent to be violated by you, let alone outed, misgendered, disrespected, and used as tools for your ideological agenda. You make other women less safe. They don't.

Per your confession:

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

You write posts like that and you still act surprised that a bunch of us consider you a dishonest ideologue, completely removed from the human situation.

Tom