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

[Loren Pechtel]

I've told you and told you, and you quoted it back to me. Pay attention. You said ==> "so a man won't be able to hear her do so." <== You made that up! There is no evidence that the problem she has with a man being in the restroom is that the man can hear her. That's a completely fanciful hypothesis that doesn't pass the laugh test. If that were her real motivation then she wouldn't mind as long as the man was deaf, which is highly improbable psychology. I don't know why you made up such an implausible motivation for her, or why you then doubled down on it and then tripled down on it, but giving yourself an excuse to blame the woman for her emotions instead of blaming the man for not respecting female boundaries looks like a good bet.

The specific case, yeah, there's no evidence for it. But fear of being heard in the bathroom has been brought up.

Look up Japanese Sound Princess. Clearly enough women have an issue with it that such devices exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.

Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".

The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.

Even those “male women” who might risk injury or assault in male-specific intimate spaces?

The premise of your statement here is that males represent a risk of injury or assault when in intimate spaces. I happen to agree with you on this. Where I disagree is what comes after that. Let's think about this, and I mean really think about this.

You have a situation where some males are at risk of injury and assault from other males. Throughout recorded history, across the entire planet, females are at a materially higher risk of injury and assault from males. So your solution to the risk of male-on-male violence is... to let males into female intimate spaces.

I assume you're only looking at this from the perspective of males - you're only considering that some males are at risk from other males, and your objective is to move those at-risk males to a place where they're not longer at risk from males. But in so doing, you're shifting risk onto females, and you're using women as human shields behind which some special males can hide. This is made even worse by the fact that nobody can tell which of the males are special males, and which of the males are bog-standard males, and which of the males are bog-standard-but-pretending-to-be-special males seeking easy access to females.

Some foxes don't act as vulpinely as other foxes expect. Those vulpine-non-conforming foxes are at risk of injury from vulpine-conforming foxes. You propose that in order to protect vulpine-non-conforming foxes from injury, vulpine-non-conforming foxes should have right of access to henhouses. Of course, vulpine-non-conforming foxes look just like vulpine-conforming foxes, and hens can't tell the difference. And nobody is allowed to challenge the foxes entering the henhouses, so pretty much all you've done is throw open the doors of the henhouse and hang out a sign saying "foxes welcome, please eat some hens".

 

[Emily Lake]

Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.

Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".

The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.

So you don't give the tiniest shit about anyone else's rights, but you want them to give a shit about your feelings?

Are you an American, by any chance?

MEN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE FEMALE SINGLE-SEX INTIMATE SPACES.

But please, go on waving that MRA flag proudly.

 

[seanie]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Well it’s true.

So there is that.

Instead of you pretending that incredibly rare DSDs somehow makes any person’s sex unknowable.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Well it’s true.

So there is that.

Instead of you pretending that incredible rare DSDs somehow makes a person’s sex unknowable.

It's worse than that. It's using incredibly rare DSDs in order to assert that males with no DSDs whatsoever should be granted the right to override women's boundaries in order to make themselves feel good.

 

[seanie]

Well we wouldn’t want men to be sad.

 

[TomC]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Continuing to ignore the obvious truth is worse. It impedes the discussion.

There's no ambiguity about the sex of the vast majority of the population. Nor is there much ambiguity about the gender of the vast majority of the population.
That's the truth whether or not it fits your ideological certainty.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I do think that for some people, it IS indeed about erasing women from public places but that’s a small minority and does not pertain to anyone posting here

Which is why I didn't say that.
What is am talking about is female women having some rights, including the right to a restroom that males are Not entitled to use.

That's the majority of posters in this thread. People insisting that males are entitled to use the women's restroom, if they want.
Tom

I was responding, I believe to the part of that nest of quotes that was written by Loren.

 

[Politesse]

Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.

Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".

The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.

So you don't give the tiniest shit about anyone else's rights, but you want them to give a shit about your feelings?

Are you an American, by any chance?

MEN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE FEMALE SINGLE-SEX INTIMATE SPACES.

But please, go on waving that MRA flag proudly.

MRA, an explicitly anti-trans network, is your political ally, not mine. No non-bigoted person considers the rights of trans women to be "men's rights", nor would they accept such dubious aid in any case.

 

[seanie]

Men's Rights Activist.

 

[TomC]

I do think that for some people, it IS indeed about erasing women from public places but that’s a small minority and does not pertain to anyone posting here

Which is why I didn't say that.
What is am talking about is female women having some rights, including the right to a restroom that males are Not entitled to use.

That's the majority of posters in this thread. People insisting that males are entitled to use the women's restroom, if they want.
Tom

I was responding, I believe to the part of that nest of quotes that was written by Loren.

You were quoting me and responding very pointedly.
Tom

 

[seanie]

You're arguing for biological males, men, to be allowed to access female only spaces on their say so.

You're a misogynist promoting the feelings of men over the interests of women.

 

[Toni]

Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.

Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".

The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.

Even those “male women” who might risk injury or assault in male-specific intimate spaces?

The premise of your statement here is that males represent a risk of injury or assault when in intimate spaces. I happen to agree with you on this. Where I disagree is what comes after that. Let's think about this, and I mean really think about this.

You have a situation where some males are at risk of injury and assault from other males. Throughout recorded history, across the entire planet, females are at a materially higher risk of injury and assault from males. So your solution to the risk of male-on-male violence is... to let males into female intimate spaces.

I assume you're only looking at this from the perspective of males - you're only considering that some males are at risk from other males, and your objective is to move those at-risk males to a place where they're not longer at risk from males. But in so doing, you're shifting risk onto females, and you're using women as human shields behind which some special males can hide. This is made even worse by the fact that nobody can tell which of the males are special males, and which of the males are bog-standard males, and which of the males are bog-standard-but-pretending-to-be-special males seeking easy access to females.

Some foxes don't act as vulpinely as other foxes expect. Those vulpine-non-conforming foxes are at risk of injury from vulpine-conforming foxes. You propose that in order to protect vulpine-non-conforming foxes from injury, vulpine-non-conforming foxes should have right of access to henhouses. Of course, vulpine-non-conforming foxes look just like vulpine-conforming foxes, and hens can't tell the difference. And nobody is allowed to challenge the foxes entering the henhouses, so pretty much all you've done is throw open the doors of the henhouse and hang out a sign saying "foxes welcome, please eat some hens".

I’m just going to distill what I think is a central disagreement t between us: You seem to see male and female as being determined entirely by whether they have XX or XY chromosomes.

I disagree. An unknown number of individuals in fact have other than XX or XY chromosomes and some who do have the most common compliment in fact have other biologically determined differences that renders them to perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex than the one they were assumed to be at birth. I fully accept that trans women are women and trans men are men and that some individuals do not fit well into either male/female boxes.

At the same time, I do have concerns about the small but extant minority of individuals with bad intentions being allowed to easily have access to their preferred victims. And I am concerned about girls and women, particularly those who have been victims of sexual assault, being traumatized by an apparent t make body in a female only space. It’s difficult to strike a fair balance. Unfortunately there are many many times more victims of sexual assault than there are trans women. But trans women absolutely deserve to be safe and secure.

OTOH, Loren seems to be concerned only with what bothers him, personally and just prefers that other people deal with what he doesn’t want to be bothered with.

 

[Toni]

I do think that for some people, it IS indeed about erasing women from public places but that’s a small minority and does not pertain to anyone posting here

Which is why I didn't say that.
What is am talking about is female women having some rights, including the right to a restroom that males are Not entitled to use.

That's the majority of posters in this thread. People insisting that males are entitled to use the women's restroom, if they want.
Tom

I was responding, I believe to the part of that nest of quotes that was written by Loren.

You were quoting me and responding very pointedly.
Tom

Sigh, I responded to a nested post, and until you threw a hissy fit, never looked to see who wrote what.

 

[TomC]

MRA, an explicitly anti-trans network, is your political ally, not mine. No non-bigoted person considers the rights of trans women to be "men's rights", nor would they accept such dubious aid in any case.

I don't know anything about the "MRA".
But you are one of the IIDB posters insisting that male women (men) are entitled to use whatever restroom they are comfortable in.

Because men are dangerous to be around, especially when you don't know them.
Tom

 

[Toni]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Continuing to ignore the obvious truth is worse. It impedes the discussion.

There's no ambiguity about the sex of the vast majority of the population. Nor is there much ambiguity about the gender of the vast majority of the population.
That's the truth whether or not it fits your ideological certainty.
Tom

Indeed.

My ideological certainty is that everyone deserves dignity and respect and access to bathroom facilities where they feel comfortable and safe.

 

[seanie]

Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.

Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".

The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.

Even those “male women” who might risk injury or assault in male-specific intimate spaces?

The premise of your statement here is that males represent a risk of injury or assault when in intimate spaces. I happen to agree with you on this. Where I disagree is what comes after that. Let's think about this, and I mean really think about this.

You have a situation where some males are at risk of injury and assault from other males. Throughout recorded history, across the entire planet, females are at a materially higher risk of injury and assault from males. So your solution to the risk of male-on-male violence is... to let males into female intimate spaces.

I assume you're only looking at this from the perspective of males - you're only considering that some males are at risk from other males, and your objective is to move those at-risk males to a place where they're not longer at risk from males. But in so doing, you're shifting risk onto females, and you're using women as human shields behind which some special males can hide. This is made even worse by the fact that nobody can tell which of the males are special males, and which of the males are bog-standard males, and which of the males are bog-standard-but-pretending-to-be-special males seeking easy access to females.

Some foxes don't act as vulpinely as other foxes expect. Those vulpine-non-conforming foxes are at risk of injury from vulpine-conforming foxes. You propose that in order to protect vulpine-non-conforming foxes from injury, vulpine-non-conforming foxes should have right of access to henhouses. Of course, vulpine-non-conforming foxes look just like vulpine-conforming foxes, and hens can't tell the difference. And nobody is allowed to challenge the foxes entering the henhouses, so pretty much all you've done is throw open the doors of the henhouse and hang out a sign saying "foxes welcome, please eat some hens".

I’m just going to distill what I think is a central disagreement t between us: You seem to see male and female as being determined entirely by whether they have XX or XY chromosomes.

I disagree. An unknown number of individuals in fact have other than XX or XY chromosomes and some who do have the most common compliment in fact have other biologically determined differences that renders them to perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex than the one they were assumed to be at birth. I fully accept that trans women are women and trans men are men and that some individuals do not fit well into either male/female boxes.

At the same time, I do have concerns about the small but extant minority of individuals with bad intentions being allowed to easily have access to their preferred victims. And I am concerned about girls and women, particularly those who have been victims of sexual assault, being traumatized by an apparent t make body in a female only space. It’s difficult to strike a fair balance. Unfortunately there are many many times more victims of sexual assault than there are trans women. But trans women absolutely deserve to be safe and secure.

OTOH, Loren seems to be concerned only with what bothers him, personally and just prefers that other people deal with what he doesn’t want to be bothered with.

No, sex is not determined by chromosomes, though XX and XY are a very reliable guide.

And why do you accept trans women are women, given they are men who identify as women?

What is your reasoning for accepting adult males as women?

 

[seanie]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Continuing to ignore the obvious truth is worse. It impedes the discussion.

There's no ambiguity about the sex of the vast majority of the population. Nor is there much ambiguity about the gender of the vast majority of the population.
That's the truth whether or not it fits your ideological certainty.
Tom

Indeed.

My ideological certainty is that everyone deserves dignity and respect and access to bathroom facilities where they feel comfortable and safe.

Just not the women who don’t want men present, eh?

 

[TomC]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Continuing to ignore the obvious truth is worse. It impedes the discussion.

There's no ambiguity about the sex of the vast majority of the population. Nor is there much ambiguity about the gender of the vast majority of the population.
That's the truth whether or not it fits your ideological certainty.
Tom

Indeed.

My ideological certainty is that everyone deserves dignity and respect and access to bathroom facilities where they feel comfortable and safe.

Does that include females who want a male free space for personal business?

It doesn't seem like you do think female women deserve that.

Here's the thing. All we decent folks need to do is to get men to stop acting like such dicks! Consistently treat the women around them with respect and consideration?

Let's just do that, okay?
Tom