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

[seanie]

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.

No, it wasn’t.

The argument was whether the term was a fairly well known meme in discussions about sex and gender, or whether it was a deliberate slur about Aspergers.

I was accused of lying, when all I’d done was search the terms that would produce the meme.

What justifies the accusation of lying?

 

[seanie]

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.

That sex in humans is binary is not a matter of logic, it’s an empirical fact.

That light is a spectrum has no bearing on the matter.

 

[Toni]

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.

I’d say that it is a characteristic of men and male privilege that sex, particularly their own sex and sex they have or want to have is extremely important to them but the concerns of women are not. And women are bigots for having concerns.

And that most men will not recognize this at all.

 

[seanie]

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

So you’re saying any space or service that differentiates between female and male is akin to racism?

It’s a take.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

But it is! It's war against the continued development of American culture, which of you weren't aware, we have very little of merit there.

Any culture you see developing in America, from comic books (which became iconic as a staple of American culture through the Marvel cinema arc), to LGBT culture, to whatever folks are currently getting into, these people declare war against it until they (or maybe Disney) can own it.

That's a war of culture being waged, which has been waged, for generations.

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.

Having an adult expose their genitals in front of folks against their consent is a form of sexual assault.

The issue here is that "men" doing it without any silly pretense is kind of a "dime a dozen" sort of story. It happens constantly, and it doesn't reach the news.

I bet it's about a ten times more common per capita among cis women, too, but my point is, look at how few examples actually exist!

But they are going to exist, and the trans community generally loudly tells them to stop and reports their bullshit to whatever platform.

 

[bilby]

It is NOT about stomping out trans. It's about protecting women and preserving our ability to participate equally in society.

And yet, it only recently became an issue.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

Sound familiar?

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the moderates for lack of feminism, and exposing women to greater danger.

 

[seanie]

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.

Yes it is.

Simple cheek swab as a screen, that will reliably identify someone’s sex in almost
all cases, followed by by a further test should an anomaly be detected.

DSD conditions, for the most part, are well understood, and they can be very important to identify for the health of the individual.

 

[TomC]

And yet, it only recently became an issue.

I only know enough about the USA to talk about this.
I believe that as gay people became more and more accepted by society it left a problem for the professional activists. They needed a new cause. It was trans.

The more that they raised the issue and the visibility, the more the extremists on the other side realized how useful the issue could be in marshalling their supporters. It's the extremists on both sides that made trans a BFD.
Tom

 

[seanie]

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

Which still does not address the issue of you asking for male-presenting people in the women's.

Where have I asked for that?

I’ve explicitly endorsed the Supreme Court’s view that in some circumstances male-presenting females should not be allowed in spaces reserved for females.

The whole rape counselling thing?

Have you forgotten?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You're being too generous of spirit. So far as I can tell, Loren asserts that all women should give over and accept all transgender identified males into women's intimate spaces without question... and if any male commits an offense against women while in one of those spaces, well, that male obviously isn't transgender, becauses clearly they're not Scottish.

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?

Serious question on this, I genuinely want your reasoning. If a female-bodied female youth uses the female restrooms and showers in school, what danger are they facing? Similarly, if a male-bodied male youth uses the male restrooms and showers, what danger are they facing? What danger are they put in by being expected to use the facilities in which everyone else has the same body type as them?

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.

That would probably be because how we infer someone's sex isn't based on their presentation or their style of dress in the vast majority of situations. The way in which we discern the sex of other adult humans is based on secondary sex characteristics and tertiary sex-correlated traits.

Contrary to the arguments made by many about how "well some females have beards" and "some males are short" that all lead to the erroneous conclusion that it's super difficult to tell who is male and who is female... humans actually do this with around 99% accuracy on faces alone. The markers are so well established in fact, that they're cornerstones for facial recognition software, which has some of the highest accuracy possible for any visual-based software. So good that internet *toys* like instagram, snapchat, tiktok, etc. have easily available sex-swapping filters that are extremely effective.

This is a case where we have evolved some incredibly good cluster algorithms in our brains. There are dozens of physical markers that are sexually dimorphic in humans, and each of those traits has a distribution - and the distributions vary on the basis of sex. If you look at each one in isolation, there is a range of overlap on that trait - for example, there's overlap in foot size between males and females. But the range is relatively small compared to the standard deviations within each distribution. And when taken altogether, the likelihood of any individual falling into the overlap region of enough individual traits to cause actual confusion is extraordinarily small. A woman might be exceptionally tall and have big hands and feet (Lana!)... but it's infinitesimally likely that she also has no breasts, broad shoulders relative to hips, waist at or below her belly button, wide heels, flat brow ridges, low cheekbones, wide chin, pronounced jaw, flattened upper lip, narrow hips, forward tilted pelvis, straight femurs relative to the ground, squared or receding hairline, long ring fingers, squared orbital sockets, and low body fat in her hips and buttocks. The number of things that are likely to fall within one standard deviation of the norm for her sex far outweighs the number of things that are likely to fall within one standard deviation of the norm for the opposite sex.

Thus, when taken in totality... we're exceptionally good at correctly identifying the sex of other people once they hit puberty. If you think about it, it's an entirely reasonable evolutionary skill. It's rather beneficial to be able to accurately and efficiently identify which members of your species you can potentially reproduce with, and which you can't.

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.

I could be wrong, but I think the only realistic conflict you have is the pressure and desire to be nice, versus your commitment to observed reality. Because you're nice and caring, and you want everyone to be able to be safe and happy, you also want to try to make transgender identified people safe and happy. And I get that. Seriously, I was right there with you a decade ago.

If there were a practical way for that to happen, I'd be entirely supportive of that. If there were some way that could be actually put in practice that would allow us to quickly and efficiently identify which males are "genuinely transgender" and also "safe", that would go a long ways. But the reality right now is that such a method does not exist. There is no plausible way to distinguish a harmless genuine transgender male from a dangerous transgender male, and there's no plausible way to distinguish either of those from a bog-standard man who has tossed on a skirt and some lipstick.

And until we have a reliable way for all women to make that distinction... any policy that allows self-declared transwomen to use female intimate spaces as a right has the consequence of allowing any and all men into those spaces.

I'm not willing to sacrifice women's dignity and safety in such a way. Women aren't human shields, and we're not security blankets. We shouldn't be asked to increase our already exorbitant risk in order to help some males feel better about themselves.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

You know what? If 99% of the perptrators of violence are black, and 90% of their victims are white... there might actually be a pretty good argument for it.

As it stands right now, your entire analogy relies on the fallacious implication that men and women commit sexual offenses at similar rates, and that men are roughly as likely to be a victim of a female sexual offender as the other way around. It also relies on the unstated assumption that there is no material physical difference in strength or size between males and females.

It's a dumb fucking analogy.

 

[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.

You're talking about the internal manifestation. I'm talking about the external manifestation.

Are you talking about passing?

Or is a bit of lippy and a wig sufficient for a man to be treated as a woman?

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Thank you, Mr. "stop pretending I've altogether denied the existence of biological sex". Tilting after a windmill you yourself set up is your speciality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Having an adult expose their genitals in front of folks against their consent is a form of sexual assault.

The issue here is that "men" doing it without any silly pretense is kind of a "dime a dozen" sort of story. It happens constantly, and it doesn't reach the news.

I bet it's about a ten times more common per capita among cis women, too, but my point is, look at how few examples actually exist!

But they are going to exist, and the trans community generally loudly tells them to stop and reports their bullshit to whatever platform.

The way the trans community loudly told Darren Merager to stop his bullshit and reported his behavior?

 

[Toni]

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.

You're being too generous of spirit. So far as I can tell, Loren asserts that all women should give over and accept all transgender identified males into women's intimate spaces without question... and if any male commits an offense against women while in one of those spaces, well, that male obviously isn't transgender, becauses clearly they're not Scottish.

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?

Serious question on this, I genuinely want your reasoning. If a female-bodied female youth uses the female restrooms and showers in school, what danger are they facing? Similarly, if a male-bodied male youth uses the male restrooms and showers, what danger are they facing? What danger are they put in by being expected to use the facilities in which everyone else has the same body type as them?

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.

That would probably be because how we infer someone's sex isn't based on their presentation or their style of dress in the vast majority of situations. The way in which we discern the sex of other adult humans is based on secondary sex characteristics and tertiary sex-correlated traits.

Contrary to the arguments made by many about how "well some females have beards" and "some males are short" that all lead to the erroneous conclusion that it's super difficult to tell who is male and who is female... humans actually do this with around 99% accuracy on faces alone. The markers are so well established in fact, that they're cornerstones for facial recognition software, which has some of the highest accuracy possible for any visual-based software. So good that internet *toys* like instagram, snapchat, tiktok, etc. have easily available sex-swapping filters that are extremely effective.

This is a case where we have evolved some incredibly good cluster algorithms in our brains. There are dozens of physical markers that are sexually dimorphic in humans, and each of those traits has a distribution - and the distributions vary on the basis of sex. If you look at each one in isolation, there is a range of overlap on that trait - for example, there's overlap in foot size between males and females. But the range is relatively small compared to the standard deviations within each distribution. And when taken altogether, the likelihood of any individual falling into the overlap region of enough individual traits to cause actual confusion is extraordinarily small. A woman might be exceptionally tall and have big hands and feet (Lana!)... but it's infinitesimally likely that she also has no breasts, broad shoulders relative to hips, waist at or below her belly button, wide heels, flat brow ridges, low cheekbones, wide chin, pronounced jaw, flattened upper lip, narrow hips, forward tilted pelvis, straight femurs relative to the ground, squared or receding hairline, long ring fingers, squared orbital sockets, and low body fat in her hips and buttocks. The number of things that are likely to fall within one standard deviation of the norm for her sex far outweighs the number of things that are likely to fall within one standard deviation of the norm for the opposite sex.

Thus, when taken in totality... we're exceptionally good at correctly identifying the sex of other people once they hit puberty. If you think about it, it's an entirely reasonable evolutionary skill. It's rather beneficial to be able to accurately and efficiently identify which members of your species you can potentially reproduce with, and which you can't.

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.

I could be wrong, but I think the only realistic conflict you have is the pressure and desire to be nice, versus your commitment to observed reality. Because you're nice and caring, and you want everyone to be able to be safe and happy, you also want to try to make transgender identified people safe and happy. And I get that. Seriously, I was right there with you a decade ago.

If there were a practical way for that to happen, I'd be entirely supportive of that. If there were some way that could be actually put in practice that would allow us to quickly and efficiently identify which males are "genuinely transgender" and also "safe", that would go a long ways. But the reality right now is that such a method does not exist. There is no plausible way to distinguish a harmless genuine transgender male from a dangerous transgender male, and there's no plausible way to distinguish either of those from a bog-standard man who has tossed on a skirt and some lipstick.

And until we have a reliable way for all women to make that distinction... any policy that allows self-declared transwomen to use female intimate spaces as a right has the consequence of allowing any and all men into those spaces.

I'm not willing to sacrifice women's dignity and safety in such a way. Women aren't human shields, and we're not security blankets. We shouldn't be asked to increase our already exorbitant risk in order to help some males feel better about themselves.

I’m on my phone and it’s really difficult ( for me) to respond by quoting paragraph by paragraph, so I will address one of your points re: dangers female presenting persons might face in female only spaces and dangers male presenting persons might face in male facilities.

I think we are all aware that adolescents tend to be more insecure and immature and to react poorly to that which makes them feel more insecure. I’m pretty certain we are all up to date on the fact that a gay boy or one who may simply not appear to be masculine enough or who otherwise does not sufficiently confirm is too often subjected to harsh ridicule and even violence. This also happens to girls in girls facilities but less often and usually less violent.

I think we are both aware that most individuals who are trans and who wish to transition are counseled to live first as the gender they identify with before undergoing medical treatment. This creates a no-win situation for say, an adolescent with XY chromosomes who wishes to transition to female. Or any person with XY chromosomes who wishes to transition. If they attempt to start their journey by dressing as a female, they are likely to be subjected to violence in male facilities, they are likely to face fear/rejection if they use the female facilities. Or worse. Especially if adults become alarmed. This is true however well behaved they are.

While virtually no transsexuals are sexually violent, we know that a few are. We also know that a very few individuals will feign being transgender in order to access their victims, Is it right to punish all trans youth for the bad actions of a tiny but not-nonexistent minority of bad actors?

And to make it more complicated, is it fair to expect females who have good reason to fear sexual violence to tolerate someone with a male appearing body in female only spaces?

There is a big conflict between the rights and interests of trans individuals and usually females. IMO, everyone: male, female, cus, trans, intersex, straight, gay, bi, queer or questioning in any way have a right to feel and to be safe and secure and to use the facilities that best meet their needs.

Perhaps the best solution is to also include gender neutral facilities. Perhaps all facilities should have stalls with doors.

I don’t really feel much pressure to be nice. Not necessarily certain I particularly nice.

I absolutely DO feel the absolute need to be as fair and supportive and empathetic to everyone’s needs. I think that is a duty of us all.

It really is not necessarily as easy as it is simple to respect everyone’s needs, where they conflict. I see conflict here between the rights of trans individuals to feel safe and respected and the rights of females to feel safe and respected. I’m not ignoring the needs of cis men here. I just have not heard any man express concerns over trans men in make facilities.

I also want to point out:

Outside a doctors office, and even in a doctor’s office we do not classify someone according to their chromosomes. In doctors offices, we tend to go by the sex assumed birth and in medical records unless given other information.

Socially we decide don’t decide whether someone is male or female based upon their chromosomal array. We don’t know it. We do see an individual who dresses a certain way, walks a certain way, has a certain type of hair style, a certain voice and way of holding themselves and make assumptions about whether someone is make or female. We are usually correct but not always.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is NOT about stomping out trans. It's about protecting women and preserving our ability to participate equally in society.

And yet, it only recently became an issue.

Women objecting to males inserting themselves into female-only events and spaces on the basis of their internal feelings is not a recent issue. It's been going on for over half a century. Women have been objecting to fully surgically altered and well behaved transsexuals using female spaces for about as long as surgical alteration has been possible. So no, it's not actually a recent issue - it's just that men don't give a fuck about women. For the most part, it's been more important to men to *exclude* those transsexuals from male spaces than for them to give a second's thought to the impact it has on women. I mean, it's like you've never heard of Michfest.

What I will say is that it has become more of an issue over the past decade and a half, and it's done so because men changed the rules of the game.

How it used to work is that transsexuals were under clinical treatment and oversight. They had a psychiatric condition, they had ongoing therapy, and they were screened by clinicians so that only those with genuine and intractable dysphoria were given permission to undergo genital modification surgeries. And part of that therapy and treatment came with the clear expectation that they would behave and would make sure they didn't make women feel uncomfortable or threatened. One of the benefits of this is that treatment excluded transvestites - heterosexual men who obtained sexual arousal and titillation from presenting in female-typical ways. This massively reduced the likelihood of sexual offenders being given access to women's spaces.

In addition, it was understood by everyone that those few men who were transsexual were using female facilities at the discretion of the women in them. Women allowed it as a courtesy, out of compassion. And we had the security of knowing that if we were uncomfortable for any reason, we could ask that man to leave and he would comply; if he didn't comply we could seek assistance from the manager or law enforcement, and they would be on our side. There was understanding that these were female spaces, and that women had the authority to exclude any man at any time.

This arrangement worked pretty well. Even though most of the time, we could tell that the transsexual wasn't a real woman, we were willing to engage in polite fiction because it was nice to do so, and because we were confident that society as a whole had our backs if something went wrong.

What has changed is pretty significant. It started with a loosening of the clinical criteria and the legal oversight of transsexuals. The word transsexual was gradually, but steadily, replaced with the word transgender. Advocacy began that argued that it wasn't a mental health issue at all, so there should be no requirement or expectation that a transgender person be under the oversight of a clinician. Activists began lobbying policymakers in both the government and in private businesses to allow transgender status to be defined based on self-declaration, not clinical diagnosis. So instead of a person being diagnosed as transsexual, it shifted so that anyone who says they're transgender is considered transgender. That means there's no objective way to determine whether anyone is actually transgender in a meaningful way or not. They also expanded the umbrella of what is considered transgender to explicitly include transvestites (and many other things as well).

Paired with this was a very aggressive approach to coercing society to go along with it all. Not referring to a man as "she" if he wished it was framed as a horrific hate crime, and treated as if it were actual violence. If a woman objected to a man who came nowhere near passing being in female spaces, those women were branded as hateful transphobic bigots - and were hounded out of their jobs and harrassed endlessly. When changes to law were proposed, and women tried to get together to talk about what impact it would have, they were surrounded by violently aggressive males threatening them with rape and violence. Elderly women were attacked by young males for the horrific crime of worrying that women might be endangered by these changes - and then that woman was chided by the judge and denied damages because she failed to persistently refer to her male-bodied attacker as "she".

Where vetted transsexuals used to discreetly use women's restrooms with the concession of women, now self-declared transwomen were exposing their penises and testicles in showers and spas, not only to adult women but also to young girls. And when the women and girls objected, they were told that they were in the wrong, and that the male-bodied person had a right to expose their genitals, and if the women and girls didn't like it they could leave. Teenage girls were told by a judge that they had no right to expect visual privacy from the opposite sex while using the girl's showers in their school - a judge effectively legalized voyeurism against young girls.

Now we have completely physically intact male violent offenders being placed in shared cells with female inmates, because those men discovered their "true selves" while incarcerated - and at no point has anybody given any real consideration to the effect this has on the women inmates. The effect on those female prisoners simply doesn't count when held up against the feelings of males.

That's what changed, and that's why it has recently become an issue. Because it is not even remotely the same accommodation that women used to be willing to make. It's shifted from being a reasonable accommodation and courtesy, to being a coerced submission to any man who says magic words.

And if you can't see why that change is a problem, well, I have things to say but they won't be allowed.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

Sound familiar?

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the moderates for lack of feminism, and exposing women to greater danger.

This is the sort of absolute bullshit that makes me seethe with anger. Are you seriously analogizing women who object to males invading female intimate spaces with fucking nazis? What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

 

[TSwizzle]

While virtually no transsexuals are sexually violent, we know that a few are. We also know that a very few individuals will feign being transgender in order to access their victims

This is nonsense on stilts. Plenty examples have been provided in this thread of violent "transgenders".

 

[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?

Thank you, Mr. "stop pretending I've altogether denied the existence of biological sex". Tilting after a windmill you yourself set up is your speciality.

What are you talking about? I've made post after post after post in this thread carefully, patiently explaining the difference between sex and gender, and the biological aspects of sex. How could it possibly follow that I secretly disbelieve in biological sex, and why would such a secret belief matter anyway, if my public position is pro-science?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Self ID" is about going down to DMV and changing your ID without a psychiatrist's sign-off.

No, it isn't. That's what you think it ought to be about, but that's not what it's actually about.

In reality, self-id is about
1) removing any and all gatekeeping to being recognized as transgender, so that no medical condition or distress is required legally or socially
2) removing any requirement or expectation of transition of any sort, so that a male doesn't have to have surgery or take hormones or even wear female-typical clothing in order to be considered transgender both legally and socially
3) removing any expectation of a person who does not pass from having to provide documentation of their sex in order to access single-sex spaces
4) making it socially unacceptable to challenge a person's dedication when they verbally declare themselves transgender
5) not requiring any change to legal documents of any sort in order to be treated as if they're the opposite sex

Male prisoners in california being moved to female prisons generally haven't changed their marker on their ID at all - they've simply declared that they're "women" and that their gender identity entitles them to be housed with women.

But is that what's actually happening, or just fear tactics? Because of someone is challenged and their ID is wrong they would have a problem. And the DMV is enough of a gate to prevent casual misuse.

 

[Toni]

"Self ID" is about going down to DMV and changing your ID without a psychiatrist's sign-off.

No, it isn't. That's what you think it ought to be about, but that's not what it's actually about.

In reality, self-id is about
1) removing any and all gatekeeping to being recognized as transgender, so that no medical condition or distress is required legally or socially
2) removing any requirement or expectation of transition of any sort, so that a male doesn't have to have surgery or take hormones or even wear female-typical clothing in order to be considered transgender both legally and socially
3) removing any expectation of a person who does not pass from having to provide documentation of their sex in order to access single-sex spaces
4) making it socially unacceptable to challenge a person's dedication when they verbally declare themselves transgender
5) not requiring any change to legal documents of any sort in order to be treated as if they're the opposite sex

Male prisoners in california being moved to female prisons generally haven't changed their marker on their ID at all - they've simply declared that they're "women" and that their gender identity entitles them to be housed with women.

But is that what's actually happening, or just fear tactics? Because of someone is challenged and their ID is wrong they would have a problem. And the DMV is enough of a gate to prevent casual misuse.

I don’t know if you are aware, but a driver’s license is not required to enter a woman’s bathroom or locker room.


Really, you sound like Trump claiming you need and ID to buy groceries.