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

[seanie]

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.

When it comes to sport, equality of opportunity requires discrimination on the basis of sex. It’s necessary to reward female excellence, by allowing them to compete without the unfair physiological advantage that being male brings.

 

[seanie]

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.

The screen identifies the presence of the SRY gene.

Further testing can identify whether an advantage is conferred.

And it’s a one time test.

This is not at all difficult to ensure fairness in sports.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And this is relevant to the sorcific case if a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER who subsequently committed sexual assault because….?

 

[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.

When it comes to sport, equality of opportunity requires discrimination on the basis of sex. It’s necessary to reward female excellence, by allowing them to compete without the unfair physiological advantage that being male brings.

Then you hate Title IX, tres simple.

 

[seanie]

If we didn't separate most sports by sex, the only people setting records, winning medals, getting sponsorship etc. would be males.

Excluding males from female sport is an inclusion measure to the benefit of females.

 

[Toni]

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.

Only if you insist that sex is determined solely by the compliment of X and Y chromosomes. Which is fine if you are talking about reproduction—although technically, some species, including a few vertebrae, utilize parthenogenesis for reproduction.

But we are talking humans and sex does not refer only to copulation. Humans most frequently engage in sex with no intention of reproducing and often take great pains to prevent pregnancy or engage in sex acts which cannot result in pregnancy. And we all know that reproduction can happen without copulation. In humans, the word sex can refer to a variety of sex acts, the external genitalia present, to determine the sex of something or to make more exciting.

 

[seanie]

The relevance being what?

 

[seanie]

Then you hate Title IX, tres simple.

And Title IX requires equal opportunities and rewards for both sexes, not that both sexes need to compete against each other.

 

[Politesse]

No, Title IX forbids exclusions on the basis of sex. I understand that you are confused about the distinction between equitable and discriminatory law, but the education code as presently written is not. In order to get what you want for American schoolchildren, you need Trump's attack on Title IX to succeed, and the legacy of Shirley Chisholm and Patsy Mink to be dismantled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hadn't thought about that aspect of it before but I think you're right. Same as the obsession with demonizing strangers when most sexual abuse comes from family or those the family puts in a position of trust.

Not quite true. Most are committed by someone that the victim knows, not by family, nor by someone the family put into a position of trust. Most of them are by acquaintances. The victim knows the person, but that doesn't mean they are close to them.

For child sex abuse, 34% are family members. 7% are strangers and the rest are acquaintances.
For rape of adults, 19.5% are committed by a stranger, 39% by an acquaintance. 33% are by a current or former boy/girlfriend but there's not a breakdown between those groups.

Your data only has stranger/acquaintance/family. Thus it's useless for separating neighbor from pastor.

What the fuck relevance do you think that has? No matter how you slice and dice this, it still remains the case the MOST sexual abuse of children, as well as sexual assaults and rapes of adults is NOT coming from family members. Are you seriously trying to quibble about whether it's a neighbor or a pastor while you advocate for the elimination of all safeguards?

Are you not following at all?

The suggestion (not by me) was that those who protest the most very well might be hiding their own issues. We see it with homosexuality, it's entirely reasonable that it might apply here.

The comparison was also made to sexual abuse of children--go bonkers about the "danger" from strangers, very well might be to cover up that the real threat was from nearby.

And your data is in no way a refutation of what I was saying. Neighbor vs pastor is a very different case--the latter is a situation where the parents have indicated that the person is to be trusted.

 

[seanie]

No, Title IX forbids exclusions on the basis of sex. I understand that you are confused about the distinction between equitable and discriminatory law, but the education code as presently written is not. In order to get what you want for American schoolchildren, you need Trump's attack on Title IX to succeed, and the legacy of Shirley Chisholm and Patsy Mink to be dismantled.

So you object to separate men’s and women’s sports?

Why isn’t the ACLU campaigning for that?

 

[seanie]

Where’s the massive campaign for a single category for sports?

Unisex, gender neutral, open competition?

If any form of discrimination is wrong?

 

[seanie]

I mean, trans women athletes must be very keen on competing against men, to demonstrate their athleticism, given that separating sports on the basis of sex is discriminatory and wrong?

 

[Politesse]

No, Title IX forbids exclusions on the basis of sex. I understand that you are confused about the distinction between equitable and discriminatory law, but the education code as presently written is not. In order to get what you want for American schoolchildren, you need Trump's attack on Title IX to succeed, and the legacy of Shirley Chisholm and Patsy Mink to be dismantled.

So you object to separate men’s and women’s sports?

Why isn’t the ACLU campaigning for that?

No, separate men and women's leagues are acceptable under Title IX, as long as both options exist. If there is only a men's league or only a women's league, though, people of the opposite sex must be allowed to participate in it if they wish.

 

[seanie]

So Title IX does allow discrimination on the basis of sex?

How else do you establish separate men’s and women’s leagues?

 

[Ahab]

No, Title IX forbids exclusions on the basis of sex. I understand that you are confused about the distinction between equitable and discriminatory law, but the education code as presently written is not. In order to get what you want for American schoolchildren, you need Trump's attack on Title IX to succeed, and the legacy of Shirley Chisholm and Patsy Mink to be dismantled.

So you object to separate men’s and women’s sports?

Why isn’t the ACLU campaigning for that?

No, separate men and women's leagues are acceptable under Title IX, as long as both options exist. If there is only a men's league or only a women's league, though, people of the opposite sex must be allowed to participate in it if they wish.

Since this is acceptable under Title IX transwomen don't have a legal basis to object to being excluded from the female category of a particular sport as long as they are allowed to compete in the male category.

 

[laughing dog]

So Title IX does allow discrimination on the basis of sex?

How else do you establish separate men’s and women’s leagues?

Title IX provides for equal access. Discrimination based on sex was already permitted under US law.

 

[seanie]

Well I’m being told different things.

Is it permissible to have separate sex categories in sport, discriminating on the basis of sex?

 

[laughing dog]

Well I’m being told different things.

Is it permissible to have separate sex categories in sport, discriminating on the basis of sex?

Yes. It has been the practice in the USA and the Olympics for decades.

 

[seanie]

No, Title IX forbids exclusions on the basis of sex.

So how do you have separate sex categories in sport?

If it’s forbidden?