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

[Loren Pechtel]

So what are my options here?

Let the management and clientele of any given venue decide who is entitled to use the room labeled "women".

Tom

Alternatively...

Label restrooms for actual females as "women", for actual males as "men", and provide a single-use unisex room for anyone who wants to use it as well as trans people who don't want to be around people of their own sex.

Clearly and explicitly state that all bathrooms are unisex bathrooms, and that anyone of any sex is allowed to use them.

Both work--except you can't magically refit all the existing ones.

Pretty much, just don't lie about who is expected to be in there.

The problem is we have four pigeons and two pigeonholes. No arrangement doesn't cause problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What did Emily and seanie say that implies they don't understand it?

I have no problem whatsoever with those two or anyone else thinking in the privacy of their own mind that trans and intersex people should be excluded from the bathroom of their choice. If those thoughts manifest as a forum post, they should expect negative replies, since their right to have those feelings is counterbalanced by the right to have different feelings. If those beliefs manifest as laws aimed at the persecution of intersex persons, there's going to be a constitutional crisis sooner or later, and all of us have a reason to care about that.

This thread is about a law.

How about this: People with actual documented DSD conditions that present with ambiguities of the reproductive system get to choose whatever the fuck bathroom they want.

On the other hand, males who have no DSD conditions, and who were born with the normal male reproductive structures use the male restrooms, regardless of what they're wearing, regardless of how they feel inside their brains, and regardless of whether they still retain all of that male anatomy. And we expect that MEN will make room for gender non-conforming men in men's spaces.

Ignoring the flip side--you'll get male-presenting "females" in the women's room. We've already seen that lead to violence.

• 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.

But we see in the real world this leads to violence.

 

[Politesse]

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

A lot of people with rare genetic conditions consider themselves women, but it's certainly true that not all do, and also that not everyone who considers themselves a woman has a rare genetic disorder.

Which begs the question of why, even as several people including myself have been trying to point out that this ruling affects nearly everyone, not just trans or intersex people, you keep dragging the conversation back to trans people and the various slurs you like to employ about them. It's almost as though you know this ruling was really about hurting trans people, not about any other goal or purpose. Even as people try to correct the pseudoscience present in the ruling and in your postings,which may or may not have anything at all to do with trans people, you keeping crying out "but what about men in dresses!?" as though your strognly felt prejudice meant more to the veracity of your claims than your inability to provide empirical evidence for them.

 

[seanie]

This ruling has nothing at all to do with people with DSD conditions.

The Equality Act 2010 simply doesn’t address that. Never has.

It was simply about the meaning of “sex” in the legislation. Was it biological or certificated?

And what is the “pseudoscience” in the ruling?

 

[seanie]

And the issue is not “ men in dresses”.

That’s fine.

Whatever rocks your boat.

The issue is men in spaces designated for women.

Whatever they’re wearing.

 

[seanie]

I mean, it might not address every aspect of safety and fairness, but I wouldn’t necessarily object to males competing in female sports on the condition they must wear a full ball gown at all times.

That might be funny.

 

[seanie]

The more I think about it, it would be hilarious.

I’m all in favour of men in dresses competing in women’s sports.

You’ve convinced me.

But the dresses have to be voluminous and sequinned.

 

[seanie]

A lot of people with rare genetic conditions consider themselves women, but it's certainly true that not all do, and also that not everyone who considers themselves a woman has a rare genetic disorder.

“Consider” has nothing to do with it.

 

[seanie]

And who suggested everyone who considers themselves a woman has a rare genetic disorder?

It’s quite mad for you to dispute something that nobody has ever suggested.

At anytime.

Ever.

Are you well?

 

[Politesse]

And who suggested everyone who considers themselves a woman has a rare genetic disorder?

It’s quite mad for you to dispute something that nobody has ever suggested.

At anytime.

Ever.

Are you well?

Yes, I know you didn't. I was responding to your asinine comment:

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the issue is that sex is a well defined category across a vast array of plants and animals.

And when it comes to trans rights activism there has been a concerted effort to deny the reality of sex.

That it’s a spectrum, a Victorian/colonial invention, that it’s incredibly complex, undefinable, “INTERSEX!”, “CLOWNFISH!!!!”

And that’s all ideological horseshit.

Do you believe that sex and gender are the same thing?

I'm certain that one big problem here is that seanie and I and people like us can and do distinguish between sex and gender.

It's the people who refuse to distinguish between sex and gender that are creating the problems for the rest of us. Seanie and I get the difference. Does @laughing dog?
Tom

Which do you believe plays more importance in people's lives? Sex or gender?

Sex.

Gender might be very important for some people, and how they consider themselves.

To most people it’s not even a question. Not least because most people have only a vague notion of what the term is supposed to mean.

What is it?

So we have a subjective, (undefined?), sense of self, and an objective material reality that is a person’s sex.

Which is the better basis for policy and law?

I think that like so much in biology there is actually a range. Some people care, some people don't. The ones we see as trans are the ones that have a mismatch and do care. And it makes little sense to those who don't care. Intellectually I can look and see that a bit over half of the human race is attracted to me, but emotionally that makes absolutely no sense to me.

And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the same thing applies that has turned up with homosexuality--those who protest the most tend to be covering up that they are actually homosexual and/or are not willing to admit to themselves that they are homosexual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason that a majority of people don’t send a lot of time contemplating gender is that for a majority of people, sex and gender align pretty well. But not for everybody. In the US, the rights of minorities are as important ( in theory, at least) as the rights of the majority.

Disagree. I don't think we are in a position to know if it's because they align or because they don't care.

I can look at the issue but it doesn't make much sense to me. Ok, I've got guy bits. I've also got blond hair. That's simply the way it is, how is it right or wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Urinals only make sense in men-only restrooms.

A variety of devices exist to permit a woman to urinate while standing. They are typically used in outdoor environments but could perfectly well be used at a urinal.

"Why can't women just be more like men?"

The point is that it is possible for women to use them. And if you're dealing with dirty facilities that's likely the best option if you're prepared.

 

[Toni]

The reason that a majority of people don’t send a lot of time contemplating gender is that for a majority of people, sex and gender align pretty well. But not for everybody. In the US, the rights of minorities are as important ( in theory, at least) as the rights of the majority.

Disagree. I don't think we are in a position to know if it's because they align or because they don't care.

I can look at the issue but it doesn't make much sense to me. Ok, I've got guy bits. I've also got blond hair. That's simply the way it is, how is it right or wrong?

Really? What does hair color have to do with sex or gender?

For you and for humans, they do not question whether they are make or female. Their compliment of X and Y chromosomes corresponds well with their genitalia AND with how they perceive themselves.

You don’t question it re: yourself because it fits and makes sense to you. It simply is who you are and there is zero incongruence. It’s even simpler for you because you are ( based on your posts) heterosexual.

For me, no one seeing me would ever mistake me fur anything other than female, despite in my teen years being pretty flat chested and being teased about that rather mercilessly by my sisters who claimed I could not really be a girl. Which went along with the observable fact that I was very much a tomboy who had a number of what were then thought of as typically male interests. And which ignored my typically female interests. For a while I considered that I wished I were a boy but really what I wanted is what I saw as the privilege boys had over girls. In my generation, boys were preferred and certainly my father wanted a son. I was also continually told I was just like my father—and in some ways, that was true. But otoh, my father closely resembled his mother who had died when he was a child. I don’t know if he was like her in personality but I’m guessing he was at least somewhat, based upon the scant knowledge I have of her. Even though I was sometimes teased or ridiculed and occasionally resented for having so-called make attributes, it never for a moment ever occurred to me that I was not female. Instead I believed that it was incorrect to assign interests to either boy or girl. I still do believe that. But as it happens my physical self aligns well with my self perception and I am heterosexual.

But for some people life is not that simple. They do not feel comfortable being called boy because they don’t feel like a boy. Or they don’t feel like a girl even though their body is female. Some individuals feel like they are neither make or female. And that gets complicated because people like assigning others specific boxes. Throw in sexual attraction and all its variants and there simply are a lot of different kinds of people in the world, just considering sex, gender, and sexuality without getting into introvert/extrovert or race or religion or heritage or languages spoken at home or height or weight or hair color or texture and so on.

You and I are fortunate that we’ve never questioned our sex or gender. Most people are like us in that respect.

But not everybody is. And this has been known to be a fact wherever it has not been explicitly suppressed by whatever authorities there were across the globe for at least as long as there’s has been written word and I suspect as long as humans have existed.

Nowadays, we talk about it more because at least some individuals are more open about who they are and are less likely to stay inside the neat little boxes that society put them in. And because it is now being used as a political issue.

 

[Toni]

Urinals only make sense in men-only restrooms.

A variety of devices exist to permit a woman to urinate while standing. They are typically used in outdoor environments but could perfectly well be used at a urinal.

"Why can't women just be more like men?"

The point is that it is possible for women to use them. And if you're dealing with dirty facilities that's likely the best option if you're prepared.

But why should we need to? Why can’t we have access to sufficient and adequate facilities that work best for us? We are half of the world’s population, after all.

Btw, it is quite possible to take a piss in the woods without any of those devices. Not necessarily comfortable or convenient but definitely possible, one does want to be facing downhill, tho.

 

[seanie]

Yes, I know you didn't. I was responding to your asinine comment:

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

Seems a perfectly reasonable question.

Since the overwhelmingly majority of men who identify as women do not have a DSD condition, and are unequivocally, unambiguously, biologically male, what do rare genetic conditions have to do with it?

Is it cos clownfish?

Or cos light is a spectrum?

 

[seanie]

Well, the issue is that sex is a well defined category across a vast array of plants and animals.

And when it comes to trans rights activism there has been a concerted effort to deny the reality of sex.

That it’s a spectrum, a Victorian/colonial invention, that it’s incredibly complex, undefinable, “INTERSEX!”, “CLOWNFISH!!!!”

And that’s all ideological horseshit.

Do you believe that sex and gender are the same thing?

I'm certain that one big problem here is that seanie and I and people like us can and do distinguish between sex and gender.

It's the people who refuse to distinguish between sex and gender that are creating the problems for the rest of us. Seanie and I get the difference. Does @laughing dog?
Tom

Which do you believe plays more importance in people's lives? Sex or gender?

Sex.

Gender might be very important for some people, and how they consider themselves.

To most people it’s not even a question. Not least because most people have only a vague notion of what the term is supposed to mean.

What is it?

So we have a subjective, (undefined?), sense of self, and an objective material reality that is a person’s sex.

Which is the better basis for policy and law?

I think that like so much in biology there is actually a range. Some people care, some people don't. The ones we see as trans are the ones that have a mismatch and do care. And it makes little sense to those who don't care. Intellectually I can look and see that a bit over half of the human race is attracted to me, but emotionally that makes absolutely no sense to me.

And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the same thing applies that has turned up with homosexuality--those who protest the most tend to be covering up that they are actually homosexual and/or are not willing to admit to themselves that they are homosexual.

Don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but I’m not sure that a bit over half of the human race is attracted to you.

You may have got your wires crossed.

And which is more likely? That many women do actually want some spaces free from men? Or that the women who say that are covering up that they’re actually men?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Oh, so now all of a sudden you care whether claims add anything to the discussion, do you?

Which side are you referring to?
Seanie and I are both on the side of women who want a male free place for personal business, under certain circumstances.

...
It's really about making the trans disappear, not about putting them in the "right" bathroom.

Asserting this adds nothing to the discussion.

I don’t think any men they should be using facilities reserved for women.

...
(Yeah, I know, the real "answer" is that they disappear.)

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

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.

... Of course the real position is expressed by P2025--that they cease to exist in society.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

You are not stupid, so you cannot possibly believe that making up the most shameful motive you can think of and condescendingly explaining to your opponent that that's his real reason is an effective way to persuade him. He knows his own motives, goals and intentions far better than you do. So you must know that when he hears you he's going to know perfectly well that you're just trumping up an ad hominem argument. So who exactly are you trying to convince when you tell us "the real position" is that they cease to exist in society? The gender ideologues on your side -- are you virtue signaling? Lurkers -- are you well-poisoning? Yourself -- are you giving yourself permission to dismiss our actual arguments even though you haven't refuted them?

Making up a discreditable motive is all too easy. Here, I'll do it back to you. We all know why you care about this issue. Single-sex bathrooms are awkward for your sister-in-law, because she's mannish-looking so other women keep objecting to her using the women's room. It's distressing to her, and she's family, and you care about her. And distress to one woman you know and care about carries more weight on your scales of cost/benefit analysis than distress to a hundred million women you don't know and don't care about.

I'll bet you don't find that a persuasive argument. Think about that the next time you're tempted to tell us we just want trans people to cease to exist.

 

[Politesse]

Or cos light is a spectrum?

Light is a spectrum, you uneducated fool! Just how many centuries are you trying to roll us back?

 

[WAB]

Or cos light is a spectrum?

Light is a spectrum, you uneducated fool! Just how many centuries are you trying to roll us back?

Pretty sure they are saying light IS a spectrum, but that doesn't mean sex is. Like, that clownfish can change sex doesn't mean humans can. You should have quoted their whole post.