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

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a close relative who identifies as a trans man. At this point in their life nobody would clock them as anything other than female. They use the female toilets, which probably makes sense.

That might not always be the case however.

What should be done in "not that case", when your regressive laws force him to go to the women's restroom, and then, after he gets assaulted and raped there by a local protective male, can only seek group therapy in a women's group for female survivors of assault, because the law says that's what he is?

WTF are you smoking that a protective male is going to assault AND RAPE an effectively passing transman IN THE WOMEN'S ROOM?

We have had cases of assault. And we have had a rape by women. (Remember, rape only requires sexual penetration, not that it be with a penis.)

That is such a bizarre double standard. A trans woman goes to the restroom to pee, and you call that assault. A cis man goes in there specifically to assault a woman, and she's like "well it wasn't rape".

Huh??? You have everything backwards.

I'm saying that assaults have happened, not that a trans woman is an assault.

And since the issue was rape by female-presenting people I'm not counting acts by those who are not female-presenting.

 

[Toni]

I think you’re right about that but”risk=zero” is just unsupportable nonsense.

Then find some risk.

Because nobody's been able to show a sexual assault by a female-presenting person with a penis in a women's bathroom. Bugged me for a while that I couldn't find any data comparing offense rates--finally found out that was because there's nothing to compare.

Not completely true as I linked up thread a case where a high school student who wore dresses and used the girl’s bathroom raped a girl in the bathroom and had apparently assaulted a different girl in their previous high school. I don’t know if that is ‘female presenting’ enough for you?

The article said "skirt" and said that it didn't look like they were trans. Thus I do not read that as female presenting.

As far as victims of sexual assault being traumatized by male appearing bodies in their dressing rooms: I have a lot of sympathy.

No one should have to worry about being safe in a restroom or locker room. No one.

Which still misses the problem--you're trying to require male-appearing people in the women's.

They were ‘female presenting’ enough that both schools felt it was appropriate for them to use the girls’ restroom.

I’m not ‘requiring’ anything.

I admit I’m confused. In some posts, you seem to be telling me that women should just accept trans women in women’s restrooms and locker rooms and that we are foolish to have concerns. Now you seem to have some standard in mind by which an XY person must adhere to be considered sufficiently trans female to be able to use girls/women’s facilities. Which of course does not consider trans youth who, in some states, are barred from receiving gender affirming care. Must they use restrooms at odds with their gender? That potentially put them in danger?

What, exactly, is female ( looking) enough? Does someone need to wear make up? A bra? Have hair of a certain length? Shave their legs? Be within a certain height range? Lack of facial hair? Body hair? Who decides?

Any standard you name, I absolutely guarantee you that there are plenty of XX girls and women who don’t conform. I’m pretty certain that I would not fit a lot of those so called standards of femininity at different points in my life. No one has ever, ever mistaken me for anything other than female.

I realize that some posters will notice that I seem to be holding two different points of view, in conflict with each other. I admit this is something I struggle with trying to reconcile.

The over-reaching standard should be that everybody is able to be safe and secure in whatever bathroom or locker room facilities they use.

The difficulty is that unfortunately, female persons have every reason to be apprehensive of male persons in intimate spaces. Also, men have no intention of giving up even a tiny bit of male privilege.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Light is indeed a spectrum.

Sex is not.

Clownfish can change sex.

Human’s cannot.

I was referencing Loren’s pointless and silly attempt at an analogy.

The problem is you presented inaccurate logic. I wasn't addressing the conclusion, but rather your argument for the conclusion. It's a pretty standard way of rebutting a definition: show something that meets the definition but clearly is not the right thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 50985

Which is not remotely the same search he did.

No shit.

Who said it was?

Are you adding anything to the discussion with this comment?

The argument was over what Google returned for certain search term.

Your rebuttal used a very different search and therefore wasn't a rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So far nobody's presented an actual case from a female-presenting person in a women's room.

Anybody know how trans woman Hannah Tubbs was presenting when she sexually assaulted the girl in the restroom at a restaurant? I do not.
Tom

What I recall is that Tubbs claimed to identify as a woman only after being arrested, but this could be incorrect.

That's my impression, also. I'm not looking at what they claim, because that takes time. I'm looking at what they present as. Snap judgment, are the things the person is in control of male-looking or female-looking? Unless somebody's done up in some sort of protective equipment (and I consider cold weather gear a subclass of protective equipment) we rarely have any confusion about this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 50990

Let's consider that one some more.

Frame #3, what you are missing is that it removes any incentive to better yourself. You'll get the same results if you put in effort or don't

And all the frames--you think stealing is justice? Why are they going to put on a ball game if they're not paid to do so?

Wow. Just wow.

I am continually amazed at just how far you will contort yourself to justify a status quo that inordinately favors you, a white heterosexual male with blonde hair and I’m assuming blue eyes. I am assuming you are also an only child.

You see kids stealing. I see an illustration for the differences in privilege, equality, equity and justice. Apparently for you, justice means stealing, and the only value to anything is limiting its access, no matter who is hurt.

You assume the baseball game is being performed for pay. Apparently you never engaged in team sports, either.

Which completely fails to address the equity issue.

And note that I'm not the only one who recognized that your "justice" frame doesn't work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

And are they uncomfortable for good reason, or out of conditioned fear?

I’m not certain that you could understand that it is reasonable to fear what you’ve been conditioned to fear. Or what it takes to be afraid of something.

So the Klanners can keep blacks out of the white restroom?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, in practical terms, even if the higher rates of male violence and sexual offending are purely a product of society, how does that impact on safeguarding policies?

Because the most pressing issue is do males pose more of a threat as a class, not why they might do so.

I would add to that, are assaults more likely to happen in restrooms than in other places? There are so many things to consider when studying crime other than the sex of the people involved

So far nobody's presented an actual case from a female-presenting person in a women's room.

I'll give you one: in Disney world, someone who is a grand embarrassment to the trans community, in Florida (oh, big surprise there) for going to Disney world, dropping trow in the bathroom, and taking pictures of her genitals in full view of others there, including minors, and making herself a general Phelps level nuisance of her existence

She got arrested, of course; I would expect anyone doing similar no matter their genitals to be arrested, but it's going to be this big thing at some point soon. She's the exception that proves the rule, as it were, but it will be sold as the face of trans people, when she has for years been told by trans people to stop being such a massive piece of shit.

And that assaulted who?? Nobody.

Offensive, yes. Danger, no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lewd is lewd yeah? Are trans people being allowed in a bathroom really causing a significant risk in there being a free pass for assholes to assault people? While we clutch pearls and hunt for cases of bathroom lewdness and assault by people hiding under the trans veil are we dealing with pussy grabbers like Trump and Keggy? It’s like focusing all the attention on stranger danger while uncle Joe and the priests run amok.

Pretty much.

What we should have been doing 10, 20, 30 years ago was branding them as the people waging a culture war.

The problem with this is that it will never work with so many false theologians preaching from a literal pulpit that the war is being waged by the left, when the only people actually talking about it are the cons.

Disagree. I would not call that behavior "culture war".

 

[Toni]

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?

And are they uncomfortable for good reason, or out of conditioned fear?

I’m not certain that you could understand that it is reasonable to fear what you’ve been conditioned to fear. Or what it takes to be afraid of something.

So the Klanners can keep blacks out of the white restroom?

Knock off that bullshit.

I know that you believe that blacks are more prone to violence, more criminal, but the reality is that MALES are more prone to violence, particularly violence towards women.

 

[Toni]

View attachment 50990

Let's consider that one some more.

Frame #3, what you are missing is that it removes any incentive to better yourself. You'll get the same results if you put in effort or don't

And all the frames--you think stealing is justice? Why are they going to put on a ball game if they're not paid to do so?

Wow. Just wow.

I am continually amazed at just how far you will contort yourself to justify a status quo that inordinately favors you, a white heterosexual male with blonde hair and I’m assuming blue eyes. I am assuming you are also an only child.

You see kids stealing. I see an illustration for the differences in privilege, equality, equity and justice. Apparently for you, justice means stealing, and the only value to anything is limiting its access, no matter who is hurt.

You assume the baseball game is being performed for pay. Apparently you never engaged in team sports, either.

Which completely fails to address the equity issue.

And note that I'm not the only one who recognized that your "justice" frame doesn't work.

I definitely know that you are not the only person completely at home with his white male straight cis blonde haired blue eyed privilege who has zero intention of relaxing his death grip on that privilege.

Although, tbh, the cis, straight blonde and blue eyed part is not required for that death hold on white or male privilege.

 

[TomC]

I definitely know that you are not the only person completely at home with his white male straight cis blonde haired blue eyed privilege who has zero intention of relaxing his death grip on that privilege.

Well, they are all pretty darned brown. You can't rule out stealing.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Again, the obsession with public restrooms, when they’re possibly the least important situation.

It's your side that obsesses about them.

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.
Tom

But the flip side is they'll get male-presenting females.

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

What balls you have, telling me what my objective is.

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

I'm rather tired of men telling women across the board that positions that seek to protect women aren't actually about protecting women, and rather are just evil bigoted anti-trans right wing propaganda.

 

[Emily Lake]

Quit asking the hard questions!!

There are no hard questions in that post.
As usual, males do whatever they want.

What's difficult about that?
Tom

Sure there is. It's the same question we keep asking over and over and nobody answers:

Do you want female-presenting people with penises in the women's room, or do you want male-presenting people with vaginas in the women's room?

Male presenting people with vaginas.

How about you answer one of the many questions that keep being ignored? How about we start with a fairly straightforward one:

Do you think that females who have taken testosterone and grown a beard and body hair should be placed in male prisons?

 

[Emily Lake]

And what if the birth certificate is wrong? Billions of birth certificates, some are bound to be erroneous.

Someone inserted an unintended hyphen in my wife's naturalization certificate, simply assuming a hyphenated name when that was not the case. Official government document, wrong. And in times past birth certificates occasionally got destroyed. Think the reconstructions are anything like 100% accurate?

A birth certificate does not determine a person’s sex. It is however a very reliable guide. And should a question arise as to a person’s sex, that question can be resolved by a straightforward one off genetic test.

Because a person’s sex is an objective material reality, regardless of paperwork.

It's not a straightforward genetic test to catch all the ways things can go wrong. And by no means can we be confident that we know all the ways it can go wrong.

And you totally can't prove that there's NOT a teapot orbiting mercury.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think you’re right about that but”risk=zero” is just unsupportable nonsense.

Then find some risk.

Because nobody's been able to show a sexual assault by a female-presenting person with a penis in a women's bathroom. Bugged me for a while that I couldn't find any data comparing offense rates--finally found out that was because there's nothing to compare.

Not completely true as I linked up thread a case where a high school student who wore dresses and used the girl’s bathroom raped a girl in the bathroom and had apparently assaulted a different girl in their previous high school. I don’t know if that is ‘female presenting’ enough for you?

The article said "skirt" and said that it didn't look like they were trans. Thus I do not read that as female presenting.

So... interesting pattern that you perhaps haven't caught on to. When a male in a skirt gets their feelings hurt by being called "sir", or is politely asked if he's in the right bathroom, or when he has his ladydick out in a sauna.... then they're always reported as trans regardless of whether they even remotely pass. And any woman who has pointed out that they're males is derided as a bigot. When a male in a skirt is incontrovertibly caught committing crimes against women, they get reported as being "in a skirt" but will opine that they might not be actually trans.

It's interesting how all of the bad ones are "not really trans" somehow. It's very No True Scotsman.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

A "solution" that fails in the edge cases is not a solution. Logic that works 99.98% of the time is a bug, intolerable in a loop that executes 8 billion times.

Well, you know, only a very very few people are thieves, so we can't have laws that prevent the other 99.98% of people from walking into your house without permission.

Why aren't you arguing that every item ever produced must be made either ambidextrous or available in both left- and right-handed forms? The prevalence of left-handedness is 500 times higher than DSDs that produce genital ambiguities. There are WAY more people who don't have easily accessible solutions for their handedness, and that has impacts on a huge amount of everyday life.

But nope - you're going to spend your time arguing about 0.02% of people who have genital and reproductive ambiguities, even though most of them still have sex-typical secondary traits... all in service of making sure that men without any physical anomalies at all get the privilege of violating women's boundaries at will.

Can you explain why that's so important to you? Why are you so hell-bent on making sure that any man who says magic words gets to enter areas where women are naked or vulnerable without consent?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't question it but I find it unimportant.

It's a privilege of men that they find their sex to be unimportant to them.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm talking about the movement. It's about stomping out the trans. Plenty of people have fallen for the propaganda without supporting that goal.

It is NOT about stomping out trans. It's about protecting women and preserving our ability to participate equally in society. It's about adhering to reality over wishes, to objective facts over desires.

I - and every other gender critical person I interact with - is perfectly happy to have people of any sex wear and present however they want, do have whatever surgeries and medical interventions they desire (on their own dime, as adults). I support their right to express themselves however they want. I will go to the wall defending the right of transgender people to not be discriminated against in employment, or housing, or any other EO consideration.

But I am absolutely NOT willing to regurgitate falsehoods in the service of creating loopholes for men to gain access to women, and I'm NOT willing to increase the risk of predation for the half of the human population that ALREADY suffers an abysmal rate of victimization.

I'm not going to pretend that some men are women, or that some women are men, based solely on their subjective and unverifiable feelings.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yeah, I understood that part.

I was attacking the logic.

if (p > .9998%) then it's binary.

I gave a set that meets that test, but clearly is not binary, therefore the argument is wrong.

Same as chair = 4 legs and you sit on it:

You're being intentionally obfuscatory and ignorant.

In all anisogamous species, sex is strictly binary. There is no third gamete and there is no reproductive system that evolved to support the production of a third gamete. There is no mixed gamete and there is no reproductive system that evolved to support the production of a mixed gamete. In every single anisogamous species there are two and only two gametes, there are two and only two evolved reproductive systems.

Any argument that tries to insist otherwise is a false argument, it's tantamount to intelligent design, and it's made in the service of destroying our ability to understand reality and to conduct actual science.

Furthermore, the existence of rare medical abnormalities is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of whether physically normal men with subjective and unverifiable feelings about their personality traits should be given right of access to female-only intimate spaces over the objection of the women who use them.