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

[seanie]

What’s the relevance of “a vast array of objects and behaviors and even laws and mores and educational objectives” being described as male or female?

 

[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.

Male and female are terms assigned to a vast array of objects and behaviors and even laws and mores and educational objectives, etc.

Don't play games. And you know this is a rhetorical game, Toni. The context is plants and animals - sexually reproducing species. You know damned good and well that male and female refer to reproductive roles within those species, and we're not talking about the tradition of calling ships "her".

Make and female refers to far more than the role indicated visuals play in reproduction.

Abd you know it.

Why have you introduced the term “indicated visuals”?

What role do “ indicated visuals” have in reproduction?

 

[seanie]

Emily was talking about reproductive roles in species. She said nothing about “indicated visuals”.

You introduced the term.

What are you meaning by that?

 

[Politesse]

If you’re bothered by that, boo-fucking-hoo.

Grow up.

It's funny you're supposedly trying to take to task for a lack of empathy, while displaying the level of empathy generally associated with eight year old bullies on the playground. Are you incapable of perceiving irony, by any chance?

 

[Politesse]

I know what you were doing. But your choice of language was utlimately your own. You didn't find it in the lips of your real interlocutors. Rather, you found it in your mind, and placed it on the lips of your imagined interlocutors. It says a lot about how you really think about women, that you are comfortable talking about them like that, even to make a point. I get into plenty of arguments with people on the internet, but you will not find me describing women the way that you do, not for any rhetorical purpose. You should be ashamed, I think. Does your mother know you "joke" about other people calling women things like that?

A lot of what you post says a lot about what you really think of women... which is pretty much that women should shut the fuck up and let any dude who claims to have special gendery feels enter female single-sex intimate spaces, and if we don't then we're evil bigoted witches for not giving men what they want.

I've never said anything remotely like that, except that I do in fact disapprove of bigotry against trans people. The rest is a dishonest rhetorical tactic well-familiar to anyone familiar with alt-right political argumentation. You know, of course, that if I actually hated women, observing that fact would not offend me in the slightest, but since you know that I am in fact a committed feminist, you think accusing me of misogyny will shut me up.

But of course I don't hate women, or as your friend puts it so poetically, "the females". Indeed, I respect women so much that I generally give them the benefit of a listen to their own particular perspective on things, rather than lumping them into to some anonymous abstract class. It is because I often have conversations with women that I know not all women share the same political views. So do you, technically, but since you hate any women who disagree with you on trans issues, you feel no guilt about automatically discounting their opinion without a second thought, to the point of altogether excluding their perspectives from the whole that you call so authoritatively "how women feel".

Erasing them. Erasing their perspectives. Offering them no say whatsoever in what should be done on their behalf. You feel no guilt about erasing them. Just as you are accusing me of doing to "women" in general. Funny, that.

Revealing, some might say, what one accuses others of....

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem here is I keep hearing reasons for it that don't add up. When reasons keep not adding up that usually means people don't want to admit the true reason, and that the true reason tends to be discriminatory.

ORLY?

Questions never answered:

• Exactly what do transwomen share in common with female human beings that they do NOT share in common with male human beings, and which can be objectively verified?
• Exactly how are women supposed to be able to tell which male in an intimate space is a "real transwoman" and which is not?
• Why is it so important to you that some males be given right-by-law to enter areas where female women are naked or vulnerable, without consent from those women?
• Why should the desires of obviously male people like Eddie Izzard be prioritized over the needs of muslim and orthodox jewish women who would be excluded from using public facilities if males have access to them?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm saying that biological sex is NOT limited to the compliment of X and Y chromosomes an individual possesses.

What’s the relevance of “a vast array of objects and behaviors and even laws and mores and educational objectives” being described as male or female?

Given we’re discussing actual people, and their biological reality?

Are we?

You do not seem at all interested in people’s biological reality or the actual biology behind sex, gene expression, etc. you seem completely hung up on only the reproductive function of sex, which is weird because people engage in non-reproductive sex all the time.

Actually, seanie (and I) have a pretty solid understanding of the actual biology behind sex, and we have concluded that entirely male-bodied people with no congenital disorders of sex development aren't somehow transformed into females because of clownfish and algae.

Just because some people don't reproduce does not change the fact that sexes exist as a result of sexual reproduction. FFS, you only exist because one of your parents was incontrovertibly male and the other was incontrovertibly female. There is not a single person on the planet - not a single mammal or bird - that exists who is NOT the result of having one male and one female parent.

The only reason we even have sexes is because reproduction evolved using two different gametes.

Human exceptionalism is a religious idea. We haven't been granted magical genderiness because some skydaddy said so. We're just as much animals when it comes to sex classes as every other mammal on the planet.

 

[Politesse]

There's that completely imaginary "there is no such thing as sex" position, again. As though the debate were about whether there were trans people, rather than whether it should be legal to discriminate against them. Must be easy tilting after a windmill you yourself set up, eh?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Male and female are terms assigned to a vast array of objects and behaviors and even laws and mores and educational objectives, etc.

So are you saying male and female don’t refer to biological sex in this situation?

Was the discussion actually about male and female electrical sockets?

I'm saying that biological sex is NOT limited to the compliment of X and Y chromosomes an individual possesses.

For the bazillionth time... sex is not defined by chromosomes.

Do you agree that all mammals have evolved to reproduce sexually?
Do you agree that within mammals, there exist only two types of gametes?
Has there evolved a different type of reproductive system other than that associated with large gametes and that associated with small gametes?

What exactly do you think is the importance of gametes? What do you think ganetes are composed of?

Gametes are WHY we have sexes. Gametes are the carriers of the primary mechanism for sex determination in humans, but they are NOT the definition of sex. The mechanism is different in different species and phyla (not 100% where in the taxonomy the divisions occur). ALL birds use the mechanism of Z and W chromosomes, with ZZ triggering males in 99%+ and ZW triggering females in 99%+ cases; in 0% of cases is something other than male or female triggered, even if the karyotype combination diverges. ALL mammals use the mechanism of X and Y chromosomes, with XX triggering females in 99%+ and XY triggering males in 99%+ of cases; in 0% of cases is something other than male or female triggered, even if the karyotype combination diverges. Alligators use the mechanism of nest temperature, and at NO temperature is something other than male or female triggered.

 

[seanie]

If you’re bothered by that, boo-fucking-hoo.

Grow up.

It's funny you're supposedly trying to take to task for a lack of empathy, while displaying the level of empathy generally associated with eight year old bullies on the playground. Are you incapable of perceiving irony, by any chance?

If I try to mock sexists, by using sexist phrasing, and are then perceived to be sexist, that would suggest my phrasing was well judged.

And that the person perceiving me to be sexist needs to think a little harder.

A start would be considering that there might be some spaces that makes want free from males.

 

[Emily Lake]

The biological reality is that there are two sexes, because those are the evolved reproductive roles.

Sexual activity has nothing to do with it.

Neither does actual reproduction.

I’m pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Of course sexual activity has everything to do with it! If human sexual intercourse did not result in producing a fetus that would eventually be born with its own genetic make up, based on what is contributed by the sperm and ovum, humans would have died out a long time ago.

Sexual activity has to do with reproduction, but it doesn't define what the sexes are. And the sexes are not dependent on any individual ever actually having sex or reproducing. The sexes are EVOLVED in tandem with sexual reproduction via two different sized gametes.

When I was growing up, I absolutely rejected the notion that what one could or should do was denoted by what was in one’s pants and I still do.

What a person is capable of as an individual, aside from things directly related to reproduction, have nothing to do with what's in one's pants. As it stands, however, males CANNOT gestate a child or have a period no matter how they feel about it. Females CANNOT ejaculate sperm no matter how they feel about it.

And a male human being CANNOT turn into a female, nor vice-versa.

Right now you're sounding like you're arguing that males should be allowed to go into a female-designated shower, strip down, and show their junk to all the women and girls there even if those women don't consent. Is that really what you're intending to argue? Or are you engaging in obfuscating language and fuzzy arguments to try to dance around the distinction between actual real physical sex and idiotic socially-enforced gender roles?

 

[Politesse]

If you’re bothered by that, boo-fucking-hoo.

Grow up.

It's funny you're supposedly trying to take to task for a lack of empathy, while displaying the level of empathy generally associated with eight year old bullies on the playground. Are you incapable of perceiving irony, by any chance?

If I try to mock sexists, by using sexist phrasing, and are then perceived to be sexist, that would suggest my phrasing was well judged.

And that the person perceiving me to be sexist needs to think a little harder.

A start would be considering that there might be some spaces that makes want free from males.

I can certainly see why.

 

[seanie]

There's that completely imaginary "there is no such thing as sex" position, again. As though the debate were about whether there were trans people, rather than whether it should be legal to discriminate against them. Must be easy tilting after a windmill you yourself set up, eh?

So sex is real. Cool,

Is it binary, is it a spectrum, is it impossible to determine?

And why are we discussing DSD conditions?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Male and female are terms assigned to a vast array of objects and behaviors and even laws and mores and educational objectives, etc.

Don't play games. And you know this is a rhetorical game, Toni. The context is plants and animals - sexually reproducing species. You know damned good and well that male and female refer to reproductive roles within those species, and we're not talking about the tradition of calling ships "her".

Make and female refers to far more than the role indicated visuals play in reproduction.

Abd you know it.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Male and female explicitly refer to evolutionary reproductive roles. They are body types that evolved in tandem with anisogamy. How someone feels about baby dolls and toy guns has nothing at all to do with sex.

 

[seanie]

And what sex are trans people?

 

[Politesse]

So sex is real. Cool,

Is it binary, is it a spectrum, is it impossible to determine?

The expression of sex is, from a biological perspective, much more complex than a single trite political slogan can express, as has been discussed at length and many times over in this thread.

And why are we discussing DSD conditions?

Because although hurting trans people may be your primary goal, trans people aren't the only people whose health and comfort will be impacted by the legal ruling which is the supposed focus of the thread. No one is required to share your tunnel vision. And there is, of course, enough overlap between trans and intersex people that attacking one class tends to hurt the other.

 

[Jarhyn]

And what sex are trans people?

The fact that you or anyone ask that question is a strong expression that they don't understand sex in any deeper way than an ignorant highschooler.

Sex isn't an A or B proposition, an all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other.

We have been discussing this fact for pretty much the entire thread and you have ignored it.

 

[seanie]

I didn’t ask about the”expression” of sex.

Or request a trite political slogan.

What do the terms ”female” and “male” mean in biology?

In broad terms?

 

[Emily Lake]

I know what you were doing. But your choice of language was utlimately your own. You didn't find it in the lips of your real interlocutors. Rather, you found it in your mind, and placed it on the lips of your imagined interlocutors. It says a lot about how you really think about women, that you are comfortable talking about them like that, even to make a point. I get into plenty of arguments with people on the internet, but you will not find me describing women the way that you do, not for any rhetorical purpose. You should be ashamed, I think. Does your mother know you "joke" about other people calling women things like that?

A lot of what you post says a lot about what you really think of women... which is pretty much that women should shut the fuck up and let any dude who claims to have special gendery feels enter female single-sex intimate spaces, and if we don't then we're evil bigoted witches for not giving men what they want.

I've never said anything remotely like that, except that I do in fact disapprove of bigotry against trans people.

It is implicit in many of your arguments.

It's embedded when you discount the genuine and reasonable concerns of actual female women with respect to privacy and safety from males in intimate spaces as being bigotry and hatred toward transgender-identified males, as you did right here, just above. Every single time you ignore the reality that female women face, and you insist that it's evil of women to not want cocks and balls around when we're naked, that you implying exactly what I've inferred.

The rest is a dishonest rhetorical tactic well-familiar to anyone familiar with alt-right political argumentation.

Your entire premise is dishonest far-left extremist rhetorical tactics.

You know, of course, that if I actually hated women, observing that fact would not offend me in the slightest, but since you know that I am in fact a committed feminist, you think accusing me of misogyny will shut me up.

You're not a committed feminist. You're a conveniently committed when it suits males feminist. Were you genuinely something other than a modern day lib-fem who places the needs of everyone else above the needs of female humans, you might bother to give some consideration to the actual concerns produced by things like...

• Telling teenage girls that they have no right to visual privacy from males when they're undressing after gym in a girl's shower.
• Telling the entire middle school girl's swim team that if they don't like having an adult male with a complete twig and giggleberries in the shower and changing room with them, then they should find somewhere other than the women's shower to change.
• Dismissing the charges against a previously registered sex offender with a history of flashing because he has since changed a marker on his ID to "F" therefore it's no longer flashing when he exposes his dick and balls to a sauna full of women who did NOT consent.
• Placing completely intact male prisoners with histories of violent crimes into shared cells with female inmates on the basis of those men *saying* that they identify as "women".
• The forced exclusion of muslim and orthodox jewish women from participation in public by allowing males to have right-of-entry to female intimate spaces.
• The spike in "female perpetrated sex crimes" because males are being recorded as females on the basis of their say-so.

But of course I don't hate women, or as your friend puts it so poetically, "the females". Indeed, I respect women so much that I generally give them the benefit of a listen to their own particular perspective on things, rather than lumping them into to some anonymous abstract class. It is because I often have conversations with women that I know not all women share the same political views.

Unlike you, I very strongly feel that women cannot consent on behalf of someone else. Women who are okay with sharing showers with male-bodied males cannot insist that other women must also be okay with it. They cannot give consent on my behalf to a male seeing me naked - consent is not transferable.

So do you, technically, but since you hate any women who disagree with you on trans issues, you feel no guilt about automatically discounting their opinion without a second thought, to the point of altogether excluding their perspectives from the whole that you call so authoritatively "how women feel".

I don't hate anybody (except maybe you right now, but that will pass). I certainly don't hate women who disagree with me politically.

On the other hand, I will 100% stand by my statement that males are incapable of knowing what it feels like to be a female, and that any claim by a male to "feel like a woman" is pure imagination.

Erasing them. Erasing their perspectives. Offering them no say whatsoever in what should be done on their behalf. You feel no guilt about erasing them. Just as you are accusing me of doing to "women" in general. Funny, that.

Revealing, some might say, what one accuses others of....

Oh FFS, dude. Stop overreacting and don't be so hysterical.

I'm not erasing anyone at all. Males with gender issues still exist, and I'm quite happy for them to exist and live happy lives wearing whatever dresses and lipstick they want to. Just not in female-specific single-sex intimate spaces. Because they are males.

 

[Emily Lake]

There's that completely imaginary "there is no such thing as sex" position, again. As though the debate were about whether there were trans people, rather than whether it should be legal to discriminate against them. Must be easy tilting after a windmill you yourself set up, eh?

Why do you think it's discrimination to exclude males from female-specific single-sex intimate spaces?
Do you take the position that ANY male should be allowed in, thus arguing for the abolition of all sex-specific spaces?