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

[Emily Lake]

By operating men's and women's sports, but not excluding on the basis of sex.

Do you comprehend that this will result in all sports being entirely dominated by males? Do you understand that the end result of this is a complete lack of access to sports for females?

 

[Politesse]

By operating men's and women's sports, but not excluding on the basis of sex.

Do you comprehend that this will result in all sports being entirely dominated by males? Do you understand that the end result of this is a complete lack of access to sports for females?

I see no evidence to support that claim whatseover. Can you provide any?

 

[Politesse]

It often means there's an angry bull on the other side.

I can tell you're not from cattle country, lol!

 

[Emily Lake]

The vision of "Equity" in your image, and its definition: "Everyone gets the support they need.", make perfect sense when the crates are brought to the kids by their mother, expecting nothing in return, because she loves them. To repeat the point, they make perfect sense when "all the good things in life" are gifts from a loving God. But they do not make sense when each kid brought his own crate. For the tall kid not to get to use the crate he brought himself for a better view and to instead have the short kid on it is not "equity". If the tall kid gives it up freely, it's charity and generosity, not equity; if some adult makes him give it up, it's exploitation, not equity. When "all the good things in life" are things people make for ourselves rather than things showered on us by a loving God, the image's vision of equity does not make sense. A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in, at least little children who have loving mothers who are able to provide what they need without the children having to think about where it all comes from, as if it were a gift from God. Your image is inviting all us adults to think as children again. That is why it is childish. "Simplistic" doesn't enter into it.

I like the equitable ideal world better than yours.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism. If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've been fed a stilted and cherry-picked set of concepts while simultaneously being barred from learning any logic, critical thinking, psychology, sociology, or evolution. In short, they've been taught a utopian ideal while being denied recognition of reality.

If I'm being less generous, I simply think a lot of people are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

One in which, apparently, tall kids stand on crates they don't need just because its theirs, dammit, while other kids just have to miss the game because they haven't got one. Never mind that they all got the crates from their parents, because they're kids, not crate-makers.

Did you actually raise your kids that way? Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so?

That doesn't follow from Bomb's post at all. In fact, he quite clearly supports sharing as charity and generosity, as noted in purple in your post.

 

[Politesse]

This is about to veer far off topic... but this notion that private property is somehow an affront to others, paired with the insinuation that all fences are somehow bad, is naive and unsophisticated. You're doing a really good job of not explicitly saying so, but the tacit thrust of your post is the complete elimination of property rights.

What's infantile is your reduction of my post to "all fences are bad", which of course I did not say and wouldn't say. I do however, deny the notion that helping someone get past a fence, if that fence is barring there access to a public space that they are forced to pay for, is an injustice. If I'm going to pay for the operation of a park just like any other citizen, then I should have equal access to that park just like any other citizen.

In truth, I'm not a huge fan of the Enclosure Acts, but I'm prctical-minded enough to understand that that ship has sailed. What I don't see is why private property rights would in any way apply to publically owned land, insititutions, or services, which seems to be what you're saying if you think that letting kids onto a public field requires a "complete elimination of property rights".

 

[Emily Lake]

If I pay taxes to maintain something, why shouldn't I have access to every single program it has to offer?

My instinct is to assume that you're not serious, but I've been proven wrong so many times that I'm not going to provide that grace.

Were your premise to hold, that would mean that every single taxpayer has a right to go live in a college dorm, whether they attend that college or not. Every adult taxpayer would have the right to have police protection and escort wherever they go.

Is this the economic version of zionism, where you're actively seeking to hasten the end of humanity and bring about the extinction of our social structures?

 

[Emily Lake]

Right here, in one single post, you're conflating different meanings of the word sex. It's particularly blatant, because you're conflating a noun and a verb.

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.

Sex is a reproductive class within an anisogamous species. Parthenogenesis occurs in species that are NOT anisogamous*. So it has nothing to do with this classification.

You really seem to be struggling with this. So let's talk about bees. Bees have three forms within their species, and two sexes. They have queens, which are fertile sexually mature females of the species, and they're shaped differently, they look different, and are distinctly identifiable as queens within any colony. Workers are sterile females that never develop sexual maturity at all; they're shaped differently from queens and are distinctly identifiable based on their structure and form. Drones are fertile sexually mature males of the species, which are also distinctly identifiable from queens and workers based on their structures and their form.

Would you take the position that bees have an indeterminate number of forms, because sex is really complex and biology is really complicated? Do you think that some workers are actually queens, and that some queens are actually drones?

But we are talking humans and sex does not refer only to copulation.

And here you've substituted a verb for a noun. I don't know why you've done this, since the context of the discussion has been about the noun.

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.

I honestly don't even know where to fo with this. You're acting as if humans being able to develop technology to alter reproduction somehow invalidates both the history of our evolution and the innate prompts that have resulted from that evolution. Seriously, you're acting like somehow us having invented nutritional supplements invalidates our evolution as an omnivorous species with a reliance on animal-based proteins, and simultaneously eradicates the innate drive to eat meat. Just because we've found a way to work around nature doesn't mean that nature doesn't exist at all.

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.

Mmmhmm. And which of those are we talking about here?

Are you under the impression that when I say "sex-specific intimate spaces" I'm talking about bordellos?

I’m glad you saw my point. Sex means multiple things.

I'm sad that you haven't seen my point. Context matters.

 

[Politesse]

The vision of "Equity" in your image, and its definition: "Everyone gets the support they need.", make perfect sense when the crates are brought to the kids by their mother, expecting nothing in return, because she loves them. To repeat the point, they make perfect sense when "all the good things in life" are gifts from a loving God. But they do not make sense when each kid brought his own crate. For the tall kid not to get to use the crate he brought himself for a better view and to instead have the short kid on it is not "equity". If the tall kid gives it up freely, it's charity and generosity, not equity; if some adult makes him give it up, it's exploitation, not equity. When "all the good things in life" are things people make for ourselves rather than things showered on us by a loving God, the image's vision of equity does not make sense. A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in, at least little children who have loving mothers who are able to provide what they need without the children having to think about where it all comes from, as if it were a gift from God. Your image is inviting all us adults to think as children again. That is why it is childish. "Simplistic" doesn't enter into it.

I like the equitable ideal world better than yours.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism. If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've been fed a stilted and cherry-picked set of concepts while simultaneously being barred from learning any logic, critical thinking, psychology, sociology, or evolution. In short, they've been taught a utopian ideal while being denied recognition of reality.

If I'm being less generous, I simply think a lot of people are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

One in which, apparently, tall kids stand on crates they don't need just because its theirs, dammit, while other kids just have to miss the game because they haven't got one. Never mind that they all got the crates from their parents, because they're kids, not crate-makers.

Did you actually raise your kids that way? Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so?

That doesn't follow from Bomb's post at all. In fact, he quite clearly supports sharing as charity and generosity, as noted in purple in your post.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", but also think that equitable solutions to public problems should depend entirely on the "charity and generosity" of individuals? It's fine if people get what they need, as long as they're forced to grovel at the feet of the rich to get it, even though the only way to get that rich in the first place is to be pretty guarded about charity and generosity?

Good luck with that. I don't think you quite understand the chain of events that led to the establishment of those communist states you're so afraid of. It didn't have to become a violent revolution, Tsar and Emperor alike could have made different choices that would have had different outcomes. They just didn't, because they were... well, selfish and lacked the ability for extrapolative thinking.

 

[Politesse]

Were your premise to hold, that would mean that every single taxpayer has a right to go live in a college dorm, whether they attend that college or not.

Incorrect. What every single US taxpayer has a right to do is apply to a college, same as anyone else, and to be accepted if they qualify on their academic and personal merit, without respect to sex, race, or class. And if they are accepted, to have affordable housing options reasonably available while they attend. I've long argued that there's an implied commitment to provide enough seats for anyone who wishes to attend college, hence why I have always preferred to teach at two-year colleges over R-1s or privates, but the consensus opinion is against me in that respect, for some reason most Americans seem to actually want the top universities to be exclusive playgrounds for clueless trust fund kids and valedictorians.

 

[Emily Lake]

Poli's advice on Title IX: You're allowed to have separate male and female sports teams, but only if you let males participate on the female teams if they feel like it.

Because that's what really equality and equity is all about - making sure that males get to do whatever they want, and females will just learn their place and stay silent about it.

No but thanks for embracing the MAGA version. Because that’s where all this fear mongering comes from.

Don't be daft. I've opposed males being given the special privilege of competing against female prior to Trump's first term. If we'd been talking about this in 2010, preventing males from competing against females would have been considered a LIBERAL position.

Don't let your mind be poisoned by people insisting that anything that disagrees with them is somehow evil bigoted right-wing MAGA crap. That's just blatant propaganda.

I’m old enough that I was not allowed to play competitive high school sports beyond intramural basketball. In my last year of high school, girls were finally going to be allowed to have a track team. My friends and I were so stoked. Family circumstances kept me from doing any extracurriculars. No ones’ fault: just a freak thing that happened.

Trust me, I raged during high school at all the ridiculous restrictions placed upon girls. I was over the moon about Title IX finally being recognized by my high school,

I also have worried about girls being crowded out of their hard won victory. That does not seem to be what has happened. There are a small number of trans girls on girl’s teams —because there is a small number of trans girls, period. Trans girls do not seem to have any real advantage. Yes, I’ve read stories about trans girls ‘stealing’ place medals but those have been exaggerated to the point of being false. I’m not particularly worried. Yes, locker rooms need to be handled sensitively for everyone’s sake.

This is not at all true - males have an advantage over females in athletics prior to puberty, and the discrepancy is magnified significantly once puberty begins. Generally speaking, schools start having sex-separated athletics in middle school - when puberty happens. For fuck's sake, middle school male soccer teams are competitive with professional women's soccer teams. So yes, actually, transgender identified male teens DO have an advantage over females in sports.

It's very nice of you, as an adult that no longer takes part in sports, to opine that you aren't particularly worried about the young female-girls who don't make the cut for the female team because their spot was taken by a male-girl. It's great that you're so sanguine about female-girls not making it to the next round of competition because a male-girl with a male body and male athleticism knocked her out of the running. It's very sweet and compassionate and caring of you to not care that female-girls are being pushed out of GIRLS athletics by male-girls.

I DO worry more about pro women’s sports, if they ever start to be financially remunerative enough

This is where I think more people need at least a little bit of exposure to differential equations. It's all about flow rates, with different rates in versus out. How do you think female-women make it into pro women's sports? Do you think they just wake up one day in their mid-twenties and decide they're going to join the WNBA?

No. They almost all get into the WNBA by competing in college. They almost all get onto the college women's team by competing in high school. They almost all get onto the high school team by competing prior to high school, either on a middle school or a community team. Each level of competition improves the skills of the participants. So for every pre-high school girl that is excluded from participating on the girls team, in favor of allowing a boy to participate, you're effectively excluding that girl from participating in high school, and college, and professionally.

Furthermore, that male-girl is already allowed to participate on the male team, given that they are male. What is the justification for excluding females from female sports in order to include males in female sports, since there are many opportunities for males to participate in male sports?

to attract males who are willing to go to a pretty big extreme to be able to be pro.

What "pretty big extremes" are you talking about? What extremes do you believe are required?

 

[Emily Lake]

By operating men's and women's sports, but not excluding on the basis of sex.

Do you comprehend that this will result in all sports being entirely dominated by males? Do you understand that the end result of this is a complete lack of access to sports for females?

I see no evidence to support that claim whatseover. Can you provide any?

https://worldathletics.org/records/by-category/olympic-games-records

FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage

The match was in preparation for Thursday's USWNT friendly versus Russia

www.cbssports.com

Battle of the Sexes: When the World No. 203 swept the Williams sisters - MARCA in English

A great deal of controversy was created recently when former tennis pro John McEnroe claimed that multiple major winner Serena Williams would not be...

www.marca.com

Pretty much every competition in the history of forever that lets us compare the performance of females versus males, with the exception of target shooting.

The very best in the world female athletes of all kinds are not competitive against males. The most elite female athletes can routinely be beaten by high school boys, sometimes by middle school boys.

 

[Politesse]

Those facts are irrelevant to your claim that adherence to the law, which requires equal access to sports, will somehow result in complete lack of access to sports.

You still haven't answered my question. You asked me whether I support Title IX. I gave a clear, unequivocal answer. I think it is only fair to ask you the same question. Do you support Title IX as written? If not, do you believe the provision should be changed, removed, or ignored? It should be a much easier question for you than for me, given that you do not work for the government as far as I know.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vision of "Equity" in your image, and its definition: "Everyone gets the support they need.", make perfect sense when the crates are brought to the kids by their mother, expecting nothing in return, because she loves them. To repeat the point, they make perfect sense when "all the good things in life" are gifts from a loving God. But they do not make sense when each kid brought his own crate. For the tall kid not to get to use the crate he brought himself for a better view and to instead have the short kid on it is not "equity". If the tall kid gives it up freely, it's charity and generosity, not equity; if some adult makes him give it up, it's exploitation, not equity. When "all the good things in life" are things people make for ourselves rather than things showered on us by a loving God, the image's vision of equity does not make sense. A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in, at least little children who have loving mothers who are able to provide what they need without the children having to think about where it all comes from, as if it were a gift from God. Your image is inviting all us adults to think as children again. That is why it is childish. "Simplistic" doesn't enter into it.

I like the equitable ideal world better than yours.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism. If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've been fed a stilted and cherry-picked set of concepts while simultaneously being barred from learning any logic, critical thinking, psychology, sociology, or evolution. In short, they've been taught a utopian ideal while being denied recognition of reality.

If I'm being less generous, I simply think a lot of people are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

One in which, apparently, tall kids stand on crates they don't need just because its theirs, dammit, while other kids just have to miss the game because they haven't got one. Never mind that they all got the crates from their parents, because they're kids, not crate-makers.

Did you actually raise your kids that way? Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so?

That doesn't follow from Bomb's post at all. In fact, he quite clearly supports sharing as charity and generosity, as noted in purple in your post.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", but also think that equitable solutions to public problems should depend entirely on the "charity and generosity" of individuals? It's fine if people get what they need, as long as they're forced to grovel at the feet of the rich to get it, even though the only way to get that rich in the first place is to be pretty guarded about charity and generosity?

Good luck with that. I don't think you quite understand the chain of events that led to the establishment of those communist states you're so afraid of. It didn't have to become a violent revolution, Tsar and Emperor alike could have made different choices that would have had different outcomes. They just didn't, because they were... well, selfish and lacked the ability for extrapolative thinking.

You're really good at malicious framing.

Yes, humans are selfish. Just like any other social animal is. We prioritize our families above our neighbors, and we prioritize our neighbors above strangers. We seek to provide advantages to our family to ensure their success in the future, even if that means that someone else's family has a tough time of it. And I guarantee that you do this too.

Not all humans lack extrapolative thinking... but those who advocate for marxist notions (even if they avoid specifically calling them such) do. Marxism is profoundly antithetical to human nature. To function it requires that all members of the group always behave in an ideal fashion and never favor themselves or their families over the needs of a complete stranger. It's a fundamentally inhumane and immoral framework, and it benefits scheming looters and freeloaders, as well as privileging those within the bureaucratic structure which is rife with grift and corruption.

 

[Politesse]

The vision of "Equity" in your image, and its definition: "Everyone gets the support they need.", make perfect sense when the crates are brought to the kids by their mother, expecting nothing in return, because she loves them. To repeat the point, they make perfect sense when "all the good things in life" are gifts from a loving God. But they do not make sense when each kid brought his own crate. For the tall kid not to get to use the crate he brought himself for a better view and to instead have the short kid on it is not "equity". If the tall kid gives it up freely, it's charity and generosity, not equity; if some adult makes him give it up, it's exploitation, not equity. When "all the good things in life" are things people make for ourselves rather than things showered on us by a loving God, the image's vision of equity does not make sense. A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in, at least little children who have loving mothers who are able to provide what they need without the children having to think about where it all comes from, as if it were a gift from God. Your image is inviting all us adults to think as children again. That is why it is childish. "Simplistic" doesn't enter into it.

I like the equitable ideal world better than yours.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism. If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've been fed a stilted and cherry-picked set of concepts while simultaneously being barred from learning any logic, critical thinking, psychology, sociology, or evolution. In short, they've been taught a utopian ideal while being denied recognition of reality.

If I'm being less generous, I simply think a lot of people are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

One in which, apparently, tall kids stand on crates they don't need just because its theirs, dammit, while other kids just have to miss the game because they haven't got one. Never mind that they all got the crates from their parents, because they're kids, not crate-makers.

Did you actually raise your kids that way? Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so?

That doesn't follow from Bomb's post at all. In fact, he quite clearly supports sharing as charity and generosity, as noted in purple in your post.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", but also think that equitable solutions to public problems should depend entirely on the "charity and generosity" of individuals? It's fine if people get what they need, as long as they're forced to grovel at the feet of the rich to get it, even though the only way to get that rich in the first place is to be pretty guarded about charity and generosity?

Good luck with that. I don't think you quite understand the chain of events that led to the establishment of those communist states you're so afraid of. It didn't have to become a violent revolution, Tsar and Emperor alike could have made different choices that would have had different outcomes. They just didn't, because they were... well, selfish and lacked the ability for extrapolative thinking.

You're really good at malicious framing.

Malicious framing? I quoted you, it's your frame, not mine. I actually don't agree with you about human nature, but who cares what an anthropologist thinks about humans?

Yes, humans are selfish. Just like any other social animal is. We prioritize our families above our neighbors, and we prioritize our neighbors above strangers. We seek to provide advantages to our family to ensure their success in the future, even if that means that someone else's family has a tough time of it. And I guarantee that you do this too.

Then a system that is entirely reliant on the "generosity" of the privileged, to the point of giving up the rights we've already won as citizens, is stupid.

 

[Emily Lake]

Were your premise to hold, that would mean that every single taxpayer has a right to go live in a college dorm, whether they attend that college or not.

Incorrect. What every single US taxpayer has a right to do is apply to a college, same as anyone else, and to be accepted if they qualify on their academic and personal merit, without respect to sex, race, or class. And if they are accepted, to have affordable housing options reasonably available while they attend. I've long argued that there's an implied commitment to provide enough seats for anyone who wishes to attend college, hence why I have always preferred to teach at two-year colleges over R-1s or privates, but the consensus opinion is against me in that respect, for some reason most Americans seem to actually want the top universities to be exclusive playgrounds for clueless trust fund kids and valedictorians.

Well, I suppose you can revise your prior post then?

If I pay taxes to maintain something, why shouldn't I have access to every single program it has to offer?

Clearly you think that paying taxes for something does NOT entitle you to access every single program, and that some constraints can exist. Constraints like... buying a ticket and sitting in the bleachers. Especially since most stadiums don't have their ongoing operating costs paid by taxes, but rather by tickets. Most stadiums are subsidized for initial build, and for remodeling. Some have portions of their op-ex subsidized by the local governments, but usually the majority of it is covered by tickets and by renting the space to other events.

 

[Politesse]

You seem to be struggling with the concept of equal (not unlimited or unregulated) access, at a very fundamental level, and I do not know how to help you understand it. The notion of equal access does not seem all that complicated to me, to be honest, though I see where it would be a hard pill to swallow if there's someone you want to take it away from without admitting that you oppose equal access.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those facts are irrelevant to your claim that adherence to the law, which requires equal access to sports, will somehow result in complete lack of access to sports.

Mediocre males outperform females at every level once puberty has begun. Without separation by sex, you'll have a high-performing males team and a mediocre males team, and females will be left on the sidelines, cheering on the "girl's basketball" team which is comprised of one unusually tall girl and a bunch of boys.

If you do NOT allow girl's teams to be single sex and limited to females, the RESULT is to exclude girls from access.

You still haven't answered my question. You asked me whether I support Title IX. I gave a clear, unequivocal answer. I think it is only fair to ask you the same question. Do you support Title IX as written? If not, do you believe the provision should be changed, removed, or ignored? It should be a much easier question for you than for me, given that you do not work for the government as far as I know.

Without the ability to offer separate female-only athletics, any entity subject to Title IX would fail to be compliant. In particular, they'll fail the proportionality standard.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

You've focused only the the explicit non-discrimination aspect of it, but you're entirely ignoring the preceding requirements of not being excluded from participation in, and not being denied the benefits of athletics or educational programs.

To meet the requirement of no discrimination in the way that you have presented it, all schools could just list all of their teams as being co-ed, and open to both males and females. But that doesn't work, because the actual result of that is that females are tacitly excluded even though they're hypothetically allowed to participate. If a track team has only 10 positions available, all 10 of those are going to be filled by male students. Sure, technically the girls are allowed to try out, but they will never make the cut.

So even though they're nominally listed as being "available" to all students regardless of sex, they're functionally only accessible by male students. Thus, only males are able to participate and gain the benefits of athletics.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then a system that is entirely reliant on the "generosity" of the privileged, to the point of giving up the rights we've already won as citizens, is stupid.

What rights do you think we're giving up in your framing, Poli?

 

[Emily Lake]

You seem to be struggling with the concept of equal (not unlimited or unregulated) access, at a very fundamental level, and I do not know how to help you understand it. The notion of equal access does not seem all that complicated to me, to be honest, though I see where it would be a hard pill to swallow if there's someone you want to take it away from without admitting that you oppose equal access.

I'm not struggling with it at all, even though you continue to falsely misrepresent my motivation as being hateful.

In fact, I'm quite a proponent of limited and regulated access to public goods when 1) there's risk that bad actors can exploit others or 2) hen the good is limited.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to swap out equal and equitable depending on which supports your argument of the moment, even if so doing results in the totality of your posts being contradictory. Your positions often lack integrity in the mathematical sense - they are not whole and complete, and they aren't internally consistent.

 

[Politesse]

Then a system that is entirely reliant on the "generosity" of the privileged, to the point of giving up the rights we've already won as citizens, is stupid.

What rights do you think we're giving up in your framing, Poli?

The right not to be excluded from government services on the basis of sex.