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

[Emily Lake]

The article said wasn't believed he was trans.

How do women tell whether the person in a skirt identifies as trans or not?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I'm not saying there's a third sex.

Rather, that we can't unquestionably sort everyone into the two even just looking at the physical aspects, let alone do so on the mental aspects.

It's a curve with very sharp peaks, not a binary division.

Sex is a binary division. Our ability to easily identify which sex another person is may be more difficult.

Argh, analogies.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are three items on the table in front of you. One of them is a golden delicious apple. One of them is an asian pear. One of them is a plastic golden delicious apple.

Apples are different from pears. Even though an asian pear might appear to be very much apple-like on visual inspection, it is not in actual fact an apple. It is a pear. My mother's inability to easily tell at a glance that it's an asian pear does not mean that there's a distribution of appleness that includes asian pears somehow.

Plastic apples are different from actual apples. They're facsimiles of apples, mimics of an actual real fruit. Just because my dad doesn't realize that the plastic apple in the bowl isn't real doesn't mean he can use it in a pie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If you're talking a simple karotype--that's what the tried with high level athletic competitions. Oops, it was tripped up by XY females and they went back to looking.

A full genetic sequence I believe catches all known DSDs--but where are you going to get one?? I've looked into it--multiple companies out there will do a sequence. But there's a big gotcha: it's random. They can't line everything up and go down the DNA. Instead they read out a whole bunch of random chunks and splice them together. There's enough repeats that they'll catch most everything. Most. Not all. And the expensive versions are in the realm of 99.99% accurate. In other words, as error prone as what you're trying to test for.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

No. I was looking at the consequences of accepting conditioned fear as reason for legal enforcement.

It's just conditioned fear about child abduction, abuse, and molestation. There's no reason to legally require background checks for adults who care for kids. Totally unreasonable.

It's just conditioned fear about dogs maybe biting someone. There's no reason to legally require leashes.

 

[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.

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.

If nobody challenges them it doesn't matter. I'm only looking at the cases where somebody objects.

 

[bilby]

Why on earth should I refrain from being angered when you dismiss my entire post and instead take the two-pronged approach of 1) insisting that women are too stupid to realize that our objections to seeing strangers dicks in our showers is all a right wing ploy

I never said any such thing. I said that YOU were too stupid. You are apparently also too angry to pay attention to the things you are enraged about.

and 2) if we object to seeing strangers dicks in our showers we're nazis?

I never said that, or even anything remotely like it.

If you were less blinded by rage, perhaps you would be able to see the things people are actually saying, rather than what your angry mind wants to see, so it can sustain its rage.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you're talking a simple karotype--that's what the tried with high level athletic competitions. Oops, it was tripped up by XY females and they went back to looking.

A full genetic sequence I believe catches all known DSDs--but where are you going to get one?? I've looked into it--multiple companies out there will do a sequence. But there's a big gotcha: it's random. They can't line everything up and go down the DNA. Instead they read out a whole bunch of random chunks and splice them together. There's enough repeats that they'll catch most everything. Most. Not all. And the expensive versions are in the realm of 99.99% accurate. In other words, as error prone as what you're trying to test for.

I think you're way overcomplicating this. Whether it's intentional or not I'm not currently going to speculate.

You do a cheek swab on everyone who wants to participate in women's athletics. For 99% of the participants, it's going to drop out a clean XX karyotype paired with a person who clearly has a female body type, and nothing more needs to be done. It's confirmation and nothing more.

In the extraordinarily unlikely event that a male with De la Chapelle syndrome some basic common-fucking-sense can be used, since the swab will return an XX karyotype for a person with a clearly male body type. At that point, a second analysis can be performed to identify the SRY gene's translocation to the X chromosome.

If the swab returns something other than XX or XY, then they can test for a DSD. It's a medical fucking test for a medical fucking condition. This isn't a goddamned mystery that's totally unsolvable.

And it certainly isn't justification for letting totally normal XY karyotype males with male body types compete against women because of their internal gendery feels. At least, not unless your objective is to force women out of public life and back into the kitchen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Record of "exposure". But is that flashing?

Look at the law in Vermont. At the state level there is no such act as indecent exposure. You're free to walk around naked if you want. But it is not legal to undress in front of someone. Naked (permitted) vs flasher (not permitted.)

Really? You are picking the nit of exposure vs flashing for a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER?

Did you miss my point about people getting on the sex offender registry for simple exposure? They've gotten better about it now but there have been people on the registry for peeing in an alley.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why on earth should I refrain from being angered when you dismiss my entire post and instead take the two-pronged approach of 1) insisting that women are too stupid to realize that our objections to seeing strangers dicks in our showers is all a right wing ploy

I never said any such thing. I said that YOU were too stupid. You are apparently also too angry to pay attention to the things you are enraged about.

Yeah, that makes it so much better. It's not that I and other women who object to having stranger's dicks and balls in our intimate spaces have a legitimate concern... it's just that we're too fucking stupid to know that it's fine if men get their dicks out in our showers. I mean, you - a man - told us it's fine, why won't we just calm down and learn our places?

and 2) if we object to seeing strangers dicks in our showers we're nazis?

I never said that, or even anything remotely like it.

Sure, sure, quoting Goering was totally just a fucking coincidence...

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.

If you were less blinded by rage, perhaps you would be able to see the things people are actually saying, rather than what your angry mind wants to see, so it can sustain its rage.

Perhaps if you attempted to post something with a modicum of courtesy and consideration for the concerns of women, you could avoid pissing me off.

But nope, it's all on me. I'm a dummy because I've been retroactively gulled by the right-wing-time-machine and I don't have any original thoughts of my own. I couldn't possible have any actual legitimate concerns about having stranger's dicks show up in female intimate spaces. Nope, clearly I'm just a stupid woman. Maybe you can mansplain some more about how I'm just stupid and a dupe for objecting to having stranger's cocks in places where I'm naked?

 

[Emily Lake]

Record of "exposure". But is that flashing?

Look at the law in Vermont. At the state level there is no such act as indecent exposure. You're free to walk around naked if you want. But it is not legal to undress in front of someone. Naked (permitted) vs flasher (not permitted.)

Really? You are picking the nit of exposure vs flashing for a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER?

Did you miss my point about people getting on the sex offender registry for simple exposure? They've gotten better about it now but there have been people on the registry for peeing in an alley.

You seem to have skipped right past...

Criminal record of felony indecent exposure including public masturbation.

Oh, multiple counts of felony indecent exposure. MULTIPLE COUNTS.

 

[bilby]

and 2) if we object to seeing strangers dicks in our showers we're nazis?

I never said that, or even anything remotely like it.

Sure, sure, quoting Goering was totally just a fucking coincidence...

See, this is your anger blinding you. You were accused of being fooled by people who are using nazi tactics.

That you can twist this into "... we're nazis" just goes to show how effective that propaganda is, and how corrosive anger is to your reasoning ability.

I literally said nothing to even hint that you are a nazi, or that I thought you were a nazi. I cannot say the same about the propagandists who have bamboozled you, but that's really not a reflection on you; It's their job, and they're good at it.

 

[Politesse]

Therefore, any male that says they identify as a woman must be granted access by law to female services, spaces, and athletics.

Again, I tend to agree with this as a question of morality, but disagree that the government should be enforcing any one culture's views over anothers on "services, spaces, and athletics" should be allowed for whom. That can only lead to conflict, inequality, and ultimately violence.

Let me rephrase what you seem to be saying.

You believe that any male that says a specific phrase should have the moral right to use female services, spaces, and athletics, solely on the basis of them having said a specific phrase.

You further believe that disallowing males who say that specific phrase from using female intimate spaces and services will lead to violence and inequality... for the males who said that specific phrase?

Do you believe that there is any risk at all to females when you give males access to female intimate spaces on the basis of nothing more than a specific phrase?

Knew you were going to do that. Classic alt-right exchange. Demand a long-ass post detailing my position, that takes a half hour to write out a thoughtful response to, kvetch that Im not "engaging" with you if I refuse to play ball, but once I do, ignoring the contents of that response entirely, choosing instead to just repeat the same taglines you started out with as though they were a response, despite having nothing particularly obvious to do with my post.

I'm not doing another one of these! If you can't discuss things in even a semblance of good faith, why are you so confident that people will want to hear your opinions on anything?

 

[Politesse]

People should not be denied participation in sports for which they qualify on the basis of their physical sex, and should be given the right by law to participate on the basis of their gender identity.

"Should not" in the moral sense? I would agree with that. I think it is very wrong to make children, especially, targets for social rejection and violence on the basis of social norms they have no real power to affect.

Politically and legally, I don't think the government should be telling people who can or cannot participate in a sport in the first place, let alone with formal sex discrimination as their sole guide to enforcing said rules. Why would anyone consent to that? If that had always been the law, women would not be allowed to participate in most sports, as they were historically barred from them in almost all cases, and were only able to change those conventions by violating perceptively male spaces (and, once again, sartorial rules).

Do you think that the government should never have passed Title IX at all?

But since you bring it up:

Title IX is one of the most important amendments in the history of the Federal Education Code, and I support it wholeheartedly. I also routinely advise and inform my students as to their rights under Title IX, and assist them in securing those rights should they need it. Patsy Matsu Mink, who helped rescue the bill when it was being ripped to shreds in the House, is another personal hero of mine.

Title IX explicitly forbids discriminating on the basis of sex, including within the domain of sports, including every form of exclusion on the basis of sex, such as attempting to expel someone from a program because you believe them to be of the "wrong" sex as you have been advocating for in this thread. It is not in any way a hindrance to gender equality in athletics, on the contrary it created considerably more weight to existing state and federal guidelines requiring equality of opportunity for all students regardless of sex. Quite revolutionary in 1972, and still controversial as we can plainly see.

Are you aware that your TERF buddies are currently trying to have Title IX eviscerated once again? Some friends! They would have women bullied out of the colleges altogether if they could, but they'll settle for sports teams if that's all they can get.

 

[ZiprHead]

Our ability to easily identify which sex another person is may be more difficult.

Trans Or Not Quiz: Can You Spot The Difference?

Do you think you’ve got a sharp eye? Take our trans or not quiz and put your instincts to the test! This fun and lighthearted challenge is designed to see if you can identify subtle details about appearances and expressions. No matter if you’re a pro at spotting differences or simply curious...

www.proprofs.com

My score. 11 correct out of 20. Can you do better?

ETA: Sorry, not just Emily.

 

[TSwizzle]

Are you aware that your TERF buddies are currently trying to have Title IX eviscerated once again?

Eviscerated how exactly. (Daily Kos, lol)

Some friends! They would have women bullied out of the colleges altogether if they could, but they'll settle for sports teams if that's all they can get.

Male bovine excrement.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Disagree.

Going up to someone and exposing your genitals is a form of sexual assault. Simply having your genitals exposed where others can see is not assault.

I really do think indecent exposure can rise to the degree of sexual assault, especially when a camera is involved in that same space. Either way I think we can agree that this person IS an example of the elusive trans sex offender, however trans people also tell her, unequivocally, to stop with her bullshit.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

If you're talking a simple karotype--that's what the tried with high level athletic competitions. Oops, it was tripped up by XY females and they went back to looking.

A full genetic sequence I believe catches all known DSDs--but where are you going to get one?? I've looked into it--multiple companies out there will do a sequence. But there's a big gotcha: it's random. They can't line everything up and go down the DNA. Instead they read out a whole bunch of random chunks and splice them together. There's enough repeats that they'll catch most everything. Most. Not all. And the expensive versions are in the realm of 99.99% accurate. In other words, as error prone as what you're trying to test for.

To be fair, with enough material, companies can and do do full assays of a genome for detecting minutiae that identify the species of secondary genomic samples.

This is one of the primary technologies for detecting fungal infections in humans.

They can be quite sensitive as long as you know what you are looking for, and can have a good computer.

Then, I'm not sure I would submit my genome for testing just to play in a sport, so that people can judge my mutations haram in sports or whatever.

 

[seanie]

I was talking about conditioned to fear as being a reason for a law protecting agains

Are you suggesting that women’s concerns about men in spaces reserved for women, is simply the result of “conditioning”?

That those concerns are unfounded?

That women have no reason to be wary of men?

Because that would be quite a claim.

 

[seanie]

I'm not saying there's a third sex.

Rather, that we can't unquestionably sort everyone into the two even just looking at the physical aspects, let alone do so on the mental aspects.

It's a curve with very sharp peaks, not a binary division.

So sex is binary, but we can’t unquestionably sort everyone into that binary?

So what?

Even if there are rare instances where a person’s sex is not obvious, that’s not true for the vast majority of people. Most of the time a person’s sex is pretty fucking obvious.

And trans women are obviously male, because that’s a prerequisite to be being a trans woman.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

How are you getting that?!? No, it would mean blacks can keep the klanners out of the black restroom. Perhaps you're confused about who was afraid of whom.