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

[Politesse]

Why would I be terrified of TERFs?

Because their political lobby has the ultimate goal of ending many freedoms that you value.

 

[TomC]

Why would I be terrified of TERFs?

Because their political lobby has the ultimate goal of ending many freedoms that you value.

Lemme ask you what you mean by TERFs.
I don't care about the sex/gender of people flying the plane, living next door, teaching school, in the produce section, etc, etc. Frankly, I personally don't care about it in the locker room.

However I do have a big problem with males feeling entitled to use the women's restroom, prisons, competive sports divisions, etc.
Does that make me a TERF, by your meaning for the term?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Why would I be terrified of TERFs?

Because their political lobby has the ultimate goal of ending many freedoms that you value.

Lemme ask you what you mean by TERFs.
I don't care about the sex/gender of people flying the plane, living next door, teaching school, in the produce section, etc, etc. Frankly, I personally don't care about it in the locker room.

However I do have a big problem with males feeling entitled to use the women's restroom, prisons, competive sports divisions, etc.
Does that make me a TERF, by your meaning for the term?
Tom

It stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and that's more or less wht I mean by the term, though I am aware that no one thinks of themselves as a radical.

 

[TomC]

Why would I be terrified of TERFs?

Because their political lobby has the ultimate goal of ending many freedoms that you value.

Lemme ask you what you mean by TERFs.
I don't care about the sex/gender of people flying the plane, living next door, teaching school, in the produce section, etc, etc. Frankly, I personally don't care about it in the locker room.

However I do have a big problem with males feeling entitled to use the women's restroom, prisons, competive sports divisions, etc.
Does that make me a TERF, by your meaning for the term?
Tom

It stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and that's more or less wht I mean by the term, though I am aware that no one thinks of themselves as a radical.

I know what the words are.
What do you mean by the term? Me?

If I pointed out that you post like a Feminist Exclusionary Trans Radical, would you understand what I mean?
Not "Would you agree". Would you understand what I mean?
Tom

 

[Toni]

By that logic I don't want certain men in the locker room with me either.

I understand. I do not wish to be insensitive or to make assumptions but it is less likely that you have been sexually assaulted by a male than it is that any female posting on this forum has been sexually assaulted by a male. I would guess that very few women posting here have not been sexually assaulted by a male, simply based upon the number who have stated that they have been. Overall, it’s about 1 in 3 women who have been sexually assaulted. I have been. It is traumatic, even if it does not include actual rape.

 

[TSwizzle]

Women are just too uptight, they should try some trannys.



Why should women put up with these men in their midst?

 

[scombrid]

By that logic I don't want certain men in the locker room with me either.

I understand. I do not wish to be insensitive or to make assumptions but it is less likely that you have been sexually assaulted by a male than it is that any female posting on this forum has been sexually assaulted by a male. I would guess that very few women posting here have not been sexually assaulted by a male, simply based upon the number who have stated that they have been. Overall, it’s about 1 in 3 women who have been sexually assaulted. I have been. It is traumatic, even if it does not include actual rape.

I'm aware. Not my point to minimize that. Just responding to what seems in this thread to be a pervasive insinuation that trans women are a bunch of pervs looking for an excuse to leer at women in private spaces: that and the accusation that people that want transgender people to be protected are by default wanting women to get violated. I'm relatively certain that we can protect women from predators without further marginalization of trans people. We won't because we never have but that's no reason to shit on trans people.

And no, I'm not threatened by anyone in a locker room. Yes, there have been creepers in the gym locker room but they pose no risk to me and they are certainly less of a problem for me than the hetero male creeps are for the women upstairs in the weight room.

Sorry for the cheap shot. I'm fed up with these circle jerk mega threads.

 

[seanie]

Any male who doesn’t respect females’ need for male free spaces, in some situations, is a massive red flag.

 

[Politesse]

Why would I be terrified of TERFs?

Because their political lobby has the ultimate goal of ending many freedoms that you value.

Lemme ask you what you mean by TERFs.
I don't care about the sex/gender of people flying the plane, living next door, teaching school, in the produce section, etc, etc. Frankly, I personally don't care about it in the locker room.

However I do have a big problem with males feeling entitled to use the women's restroom, prisons, competive sports divisions, etc.
Does that make me a TERF, by your meaning for the term?
Tom

It stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and that's more or less wht I mean by the term, though I am aware that no one thinks of themselves as a radical.

I know what the words are.
What do you mean by the term? Me?

If I pointed out that you post like a Feminist Exclusionary Trans Radical, would you understand what I mean?
Not "Would you agree". Would you understand what I mean?
Tom

I can't tell you whether the term applies to you or not. You know what the words mean, and presumably you know what you personally believe. Make up your own damn mind.

As to your made-up opposite day "gotcha" version, it seems meaningless to me. If you mean to apply it to me personally, you're incorrect; none of those words apply to me except for perhaps the radical bit. Not that I consider myself much of a radical really, but that seems to be what they call any defense of Constitutional rights these days. The rest is silly. Indeed, I don't see how such a position would even make sense. Does a FETR advocate exclusively for the rights of trans men and no one else?

 

[Politesse]

we can protect women from predators

As though that were their real goal! None of these anti-trans folks do anything whatsoever to otherwise help battered, missing, and murdered women, or their families.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize plenty of people don't want to have bottom surgery because the results are poor?

Yes. What's your point? Are you suggesting that their having a good reason not to get the surgery changes the fact that letting non-ops in will increase the number of men in women's rooms many times over? The gender ideologues are in no way sticking to the status quo.

So?

And self-id is about you being able to go to DMV without a psychiatrist's sign-off, not about simply deciding you're going to be female.

I.e., it's about simply deciding you're going to be female and going to the DMV.

And you have some evidence that people do that for nefarious purposes?

And in the second place, even if you were right about the status quo it wouldn't support your contention. It is not anti-trans to say trans people have exactly the same rights as the rest of us but no extra rights on account of being trans, whether granting extra rights for trans people is the status quo or not. Affirmative action for black people is the status quo. You argue for color-blind practices, so you're trying to roll back the clock, not defending the status quo. Do you think that makes you anti-black?

The thing is it's mostly a strawman attack.

Exactly. When AA fans call you anti-black it's a strawman attack, and when gender ideologues likewise call gender critical people anti-trans it's a strawman attack, for one and the same reason. What is or isn't the status quo is beside the point -- that's determined by history and power, not by the principles at issue.

Huh? Whether I'm arguing for or against the status quo is irrelevant.

Remember, the point of this exchange was to find out why those who keep assuring us sex is a spectrum and the DSD patients commonly called "intersexed" really are literally and not just metaphorically intersexed believe their being right about it has any implications for trans issues. Merely finding someone to point at and saying "Well, she's anti-trans and she says intersexed people aren't really intersexed." explains nothing.

You aren't establishing that it isn't a spectrum.

Dude! Do I need to reach through the computer screen and shake you? Turn off your autopilot! It's serving you badly. You are not an Eliza program; stop answering like one. Read what I write and address that.

Of course I'm not establishing that it isn't a spectrum! I never said it isn't a spectrum! That's Emily's and seanie's fixation, not mine. I'm saying whether sex is or isn't a spectrum is irrelevant.

Ok, sometimes I get people's positions mixed up, sorry for incorrectly lumping you with them.

Well, does the existence of intersexed people tell us what course of action produces the least harm? Does lying about whether Parliament meant biological sex produce the least harm? Does lying about whether transwomen are women produce the least harm? I'm skeptical about whether make-believe is an effective harm-reduction strategy.

Two possibilities: People use the restroom that matches their presentation, or people use the restroom that matches their biology. So far nobody's managed to provide any concrete evidence of harm from the former. We have multiple incidents of violence from the latter. Of course the real position is expressed by P2025--that they cease to exist in society.

Gah. I knew I shouldn't oversimplify. By "category other people typically think of you as being in" I didn't mean their first impression based on the least smidgen of input; I meant their final judgment based on knowing all they need to know. If the lion's share of those people who routinely think you female only because the phone hides critical information about you would change their minds and think you male once they saw your face and your junk and your ultrasounds, that means you're in the "male" noun class. The "gender" social construct is not pig-headedly committed to first impressions.

Why should what group others think I'm in even be relevant?

Should?!? "There can be a gender to the mind" is an "is" claim, not an "ought" claim. Gender is determined by what others think, not by what the individual thinks. That's what "socially constructed" means. There's a reason it has "social" in it's name: the same reason "socialism" has. If you aren't talking about how society categorizes something you aren't talking about a social construct, which means you aren't talking about gender. What's individually constructed in one person's mind is gender identity; it isn't gender.

If you're arguing what group others think you're in shouldn't be relevant, that's not an argument for gender being up to the individual; it's an argument for abolishing gender altogether. We could do that -- we could simply stop basing any decisions on whether someone is a man or woman. But that would not make transwomen women.

The point is I am routinely lumped into the "female" category in anything that's not face-to-face. You say gender is determined by what others think. How does that not make me female?

I'm openly atheist, to some that puts me in the category of evil. Does that make me evil?

Why do you offer that analogy? Is evil a social construct?

Adulthood is a social construct. Fifteen-year-olds were adults in ancient Rome, children in modern America. It's even an undisputed spectrum -- a twenty-year-old is an adult for voting but a child for drinking -- and a lot of fifteen-year-olds would vote more responsibly and informedly than a lot of thirty-year-olds. Do you think any of that is grounds for supposing that a nine-year-old is an adult as long as he thinks he is?

Your position was that it's determined by what others think. I'm giving two examples where that produces an obviously wrong result.

I think you don't realize that we are asking for basically the status quo, you are not.

The status quo used to be prosecution for blasphemy if you contradicted the religious beliefs of Christians. Now it's prosecution for blasphemy if you contradict the religious beliefs of progressives, at least in the UK -- and American progressives very much come off as lusting after that power here too. If the status quo you want to preserve is that infidels shut up about our infidelitude and pretend to believe progressives' unscientific dogma, for the sake of the greater good of their ingroup, is there also some unscientific dogma of the infidels that you're volunteering to pretend to believe, for the benefit of somebody lower down on the progressive stack? Or is all this pious fraud they're demanding from society a one-way street?

Or is it that we don't want people being prosecuted for blasphemy for contradicting the religious beliefs of conservatives?

A fair portion of the "liberal agenda" is removing legal protections for conservative religious ideas.

The heck are you talking about? Who the bejesus is going to get prosecuted for blasphemy for contradicting the religious beliefs of conservatives, apart from the people progressives charge with "hate speech" for contradicting conservative Muslims? What, you think if we as a society stop pretending we believe transwomen are women then we'll put progressives in jail for claiming they are? The worst that will happen to them is being the butt of jokes. Free speech is for everyone. What legal protections for conservative religious ideas do you think still exist, for anyone to have removing them still be on his agenda?

Some examples:

Can't be open on Sunday.

Conscience laws around actions that don't match up with the "Christian" sexual morality. (Abortifacients exists in the time of the Bible. They weren't condemned. And the only thing the Bible says about birth control is actually about disobeying his duty.)

Gay marriage.

 

[scombrid]

we can protect women from predators

As though that were their real goal! None of these anti-trans folks do anything whatsoever to otherwise help battered, missing, and murdered women, or their families.

This. Whiskey Pete Kegsbreth and DJT as supported by The Heritage Foundation give lie to that notion. They don't give a shit about women's safety or freedom. Oooh, we want to stop abortion to protect women's health. Uh huh. It's scare tactics. ZOMG the libs want you to get raped by autogynophelic weirdos (Kaitlyn Jenner has said as much) and men are going to dress in drag in droves to ruin women's sports! It's just a political wedge.

Frankly, things like the "Bathroom Bill" in North Carolina are cruel when they force a trans man to use a women's bathroom because they have XX chromosomes but then they are accosted because some jackass thinks its a man going in to the women's bathroom. Or vice versa and possibly more dangerous is forcing a trans woman to use a men's room because it matches their XY. The creeps in the gym can be pretty fucking dangerous to such people.

 

[Toni]

By that logic I don't want certain men in the locker room with me either.

I understand. I do not wish to be insensitive or to make assumptions but it is less likely that you have been sexually assaulted by a male than it is that any female posting on this forum has been sexually assaulted by a male. I would guess that very few women posting here have not been sexually assaulted by a male, simply based upon the number who have stated that they have been. Overall, it’s about 1 in 3 women who have been sexually assaulted. I have been. It is traumatic, even if it does not include actual rape.

I'm aware. Not my point to minimize that. Just responding to what seems in this thread to be a pervasive insinuation that trans women are a bunch of pervs looking for an excuse to leer at women in private spaces: that and the accusation that people that want transgender people to be protected are by default wanting women to get violated. I'm relatively certain that we can protect women from predators without further marginalization of trans people. We won't because we never have but that's no reason to shit on trans people.

And no, I'm not threatened by anyone in a locker room. Yes, there have been creepers in the gym locker room but they pose no risk to me and they are certainly less of a problem for me than the hetero male creeps are for the women upstairs in the weight room.

Sorry for the cheap shot. I'm fed up with these circle jerk mega threads.

I certainly do not believe that trans women are a bunch of pervs or are particularly violent or prone to assaulting other people. I know they are more likely to be victims.

I may be mistaken but I assumed you are male. My apologies if you are not.

But this is for all of the males out there:

Women grow up constantly vigilant about their personal safety. We do. It starts very young and it never goes away fully.

This is why I express concern about women being confronted by an unexpected male appearing body next to them in the locker room. It can trigger the flight/freeze/fight reflex. It can reopen traumas. Personally, I do not particularly fear or think about strangers attacking me. I go out alone at night, answer the door, take road trips alone over hundreds of miles and never think twice about it

Actually, everyone who has attacked me was someone I knew. But if I were unexpectedly confronted with the situation of an unclothed male body, my first assumption would not be: pre-transition trans woman. It would be that that person was there to do harm to someone. I might very well react accordingly.

I am not a flight or a freeze person. Maybe I was once, long ago but I learned at a young age to fight back and to not wait fur the other person to get the upper hand.

The last things I want to do are to be in a physical confrontation with anyone—or to cause another person trauma.

I’m about as far from MAGA as one can be. But this is a concern for me.

I fully support trans rights. But simply having a bunch of men call me names or tell me I just have to accept men’s bodies in women only spaces is no big deal does not alleviate my concerns. Indeed, it just reinforces the fact that men are perfectly comfortable insisting that women must put up with whatever they think is no big deal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For most individuals, their apparent sex is obvious at birth. But not for all individuals. Whether you like it or not, some individuals’ apparent sex does not match their reception of their own selves. It is not up to you or to me to tell them they are wrong if they feel more like a boy or more like a girl than their external characteristics would seem to indicate. Some individuals don’t feel they fit into either the make box or the female box. Maybe we just need to get rid of the boxes so we quit trying to stuff people into them, whether or not they fit.

Exactly. Pigeonholes make it easy but that doesn't mean they make it right. Things like "male" and "female" refer to groups of characteristics that tend to travel together. Tend to, not always. Look at the trend in hiking equipment: moving away from gender to what that "gender" actually translates to: proportions. There probably is some welcoming to the trans crowd in that, but using gear for the "wrong" gender goes back much farther.

 

[seanie]

No, that’s not what male and female refer to.

Male and female refer to the two reproductive sexes that exist across a vast array of plants and animals.

Hiking equipment notwithstanding.

 

[seanie]

Or are you suggesting we identify the sex of trees by their choice of camping equipment?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's the thing: What I'm looking for is understanding. I 100% believe that all trans individuals deserve to have access to facilities that fit their gender. Trans males should be able to safely use a male locker room/shower/bathroom without any fear for safety. So should cis males. As far as I can tell (and I'm open to being told I'm wrong) men do not have the same objections to trans male individuals using male only facilities.

In liberal areas that's the case. In conservative ones it could be dangerous.

Where women are concerned,, there is a safety issue which may not really be an issue with regards to virtually any trans woman in a women's bathroom. However, it can be extremely difficult to know, at a glance, if the person next to you in the shower is safe or not safe. And further, to react accordingly.

But you have yet to show an example of a hazard.

.
It does not ring true to me that men do not recognize that women have reason to fear male bodies in intimate spaces when men are the reasons women have those fears in the first place. And it's pure assholery to tell women to just get over it or that they are bigots if they want to know that the person in the shower is or is not a risk.

I've written before but I will again: Not that long ago, I had a conversation with a man in his 30's who was upset/offended when the woman he had recently started dating wanted to bring along a friend when she first went to his apartment. At first he didn't know the reason but later, he found out that she wanted to be certain that he was not some kind of creep--which he found offensive.

Here's the thing: Some creeps are obvious creeps. Some people who seem creepy are perfectly harmless and nice. Some very nice looking/sounding/acting (at first) guys are actually creeps.

It's a lot worse for the person who has to wonder if the person who invites them to their home is safe or not safe, is a creep or a good guy. Because the women who have those fears have had experiences to cause them to have those fears.

Almost all women have at some time gone out with someone who was not nearly as nice as he initially seemed. I'm not talking about basic incompatibility, I'm talking about someone being violent or at the very least, feeling entitled to whatever he wanted because he paid for dinner or drove or bought movie tickets, etc. A lot of women insist on paying their own way to help remove this sort of pressure. It does not always work.

Of course not all women are great people either. Some are entitled, obnoxious, take advantage of their dates, etc. But usually the force issue is a male thing, and not a female thing.

The problem is you are taking a reasonable fear and applying it with a too-broad brush.

 

[Toni]

Or are you suggesting we identify the sex of trees by their choice of camping equipment?

Frankly, I’m pretty convinced that you could not correctly identify the sex of a tree if it dropped an apple on your head.

You seem extremely focused on only one part of what determines sex —for most people. You are decidedly uninterested in the fact that a small change in the location of a single gene results in different expressions of sex characteristics. And to believe that what matters is only penis/testicles or ovaries//ovaries/vagina/breasts. But presumably do not consider women who have undergone radical bilateral mastectomies and/or oophorectomies and hysterectomies to no longer be women.

 

[seanie]

Well no. Obviously.

Surgeries and hormone treatments don’t change a person’s sex.

 

[seanie]

And again, what do rare genetic conditions have to do with men without rare genetic conditions, considering themselves women?