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

[seanie]

There are very good reasons for females, in some situations, to want female only spaces

This is not unreasonable.

And it requires the exclusion of all males, regardless of how they consider themselves, or present, or identify, because a male in a female only space no longer makes it a female only space.

This is not complicated.

 

[Emily Lake]

A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in...

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.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking",

Dude! She said "a lot of people", not "humans in general". Pretty sure when she said "selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", she specifically had you in mind.

Not solely Poli, but I'm about 90% confident that he does fall into the category of those to whom I'm referring.

But allow me to attempt to make my post more clear. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but apparently not.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism.

If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've the people who like communism have 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 who like communism are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

No one but her did say anything about communism, though. I'm no communist. Obviously you aren't. Who's she talking to, the voices in her head? I just assumed she meant for her comments to be relevsnt to the thread somehow.

Well, you're responding TO me, rather than ABOUT me, so "you" would seemingly be a more appropriate term to use than "she", but whatever. I'll assume you're confused.

The "equity" in the image Toni posted is directly marxist in content. The premise is that everyone gets what they need, regardless of where they start out, and that this is a noble and beneficial approach. This is nothing more than a rather thin rebranding of the core tenet "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

You stated that the equitable ideal world is one you prefer, thus it seems reasonable to infer that you support the cornerstone of marxist thought.

Aside from that, over the years you've seemed to take a lot of inching-up-to-marxism positions, generally favoring collectivism and redistribution of capital, minimization and weakening of property rights, minimal protection of the commons, etc.

But perhaps I'm oversimplifying the general tone of your views. Always a possibility.

Bullshit. It’s about removing enough barriers so that everyone can participate to the best of their abilities. It does not mandate that pro basketball players must play on their knees so that I can have an equal chance to play. Nor are musicians required to wear gloves and render themselves tone deaf so that I can play as well as they can.

It means removing unnecessary barriers and providing appropriate accommodations so that everyone can access essential services regardless of sex, gender, race, country of origin, first language, religion.

It dues not require that no one wear a crucifix or yarmulke or burqa in order to avoid offending anyone.

It requires that public education make reasonable accommodations for all students, including adaptive physical education/equipment, interpreters, including ASL interpreters, etc.

It requires curbs thst allow people with wheelchairs ( or strollers) to utilize sidewalks. So do ramps, etc.

For starters. It does NOT require that no student is allowed to progress faster than the slowest student.

And so on.

None of what you describe is in any way captured by your image. Unless you think that fences around baseball fields are "unnecessary barriers" and that crates to stand on to see over the fence are "necessary services"

Look - I'm all for providing needs-based assistance when necessary, and for providing equal opportunity to all (especially children). But the image you posted isn't arguing for that - it's part and parcel of a marxist approach. And that image has been repeatedly used to denigrate capitalism in its entirety and to extol the premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It just takes the new tactic of starting with the heart-strings approach of need before trying to compel the ability.

 

[seanie]

Why aren’t the ACLU arguing for the end to separate men’s and women’s sports?

 

[Emily Lake]

I was talking about conditioned to fear as being a reason for a law protecting against that fear.

Conditioned to fear something that ACTUALLY CAUSES WOMEN HARM ON A REGULAR BASIS. Seriously, we're not talking about incredibly rare cases of men sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, or raping women. We're talking about 25% of women having been subjected to an attempted or completed rape at least once in their life, and over 80% of women having been sexually assaulted in their life.

It's an entirely reasonable concern based on what actually for realsies happens to us way, way more frequently than it should.

We haven't established that anybody has been harmed by a penis on a female-presenting person in the women's room.

What, other than the several cases that you've already been given, and that you just keep pretending don't exist?

 

[Toni]

A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in...

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.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking",

Dude! She said "a lot of people", not "humans in general". Pretty sure when she said "selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", she specifically had you in mind.

Not solely Poli, but I'm about 90% confident that he does fall into the category of those to whom I'm referring.

But allow me to attempt to make my post more clear. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but apparently not.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism.

If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've the people who like communism have 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 who like communism are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

No one but her did say anything about communism, though. I'm no communist. Obviously you aren't. Who's she talking to, the voices in her head? I just assumed she meant for her comments to be relevsnt to the thread somehow.

Well, you're responding TO me, rather than ABOUT me, so "you" would seemingly be a more appropriate term to use than "she", but whatever. I'll assume you're confused.

The "equity" in the image Toni posted is directly marxist in content. The premise is that everyone gets what they need, regardless of where they start out, and that this is a noble and beneficial approach. This is nothing more than a rather thin rebranding of the core tenet "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

You stated that the equitable ideal world is one you prefer, thus it seems reasonable to infer that you support the cornerstone of marxist thought.

Aside from that, over the years you've seemed to take a lot of inching-up-to-marxism positions, generally favoring collectivism and redistribution of capital, minimization and weakening of property rights, minimal protection of the commons, etc.

But perhaps I'm oversimplifying the general tone of your views. Always a possibility.

Bullshit. It’s about removing enough barriers so that everyone can participate to the best of their abilities. It does not mandate that pro basketball players must play on their knees so that I can have an equal chance to play. Nor are musicians required to wear gloves and render themselves tone deaf so that I can play as well as they can.

It means removing unnecessary barriers and providing appropriate accommodations so that everyone can access essential services regardless of sex, gender, race, country of origin, first language, religion.

It dues not require that no one wear a crucifix or yarmulke or burqa in order to avoid offending anyone.

It requires that public education make reasonable accommodations for all students, including adaptive physical education/equipment, interpreters, including ASL interpreters, etc.

It requires curbs thst allow people with wheelchairs ( or strollers) to utilize sidewalks. So do ramps, etc.

For starters. It does NOT require that no student is allowed to progress faster than the slowest student.

And so on.

None of what you describe is in any way captured by your image. Unless you think that fences around baseball fields are "unnecessary barriers" and that crates to stand on to see over the fence are "necessary services"

Look - I'm all for providing needs-based assistance when necessary, and for providing equal opportunity to all (especially children). But the image you posted isn't arguing for that - it's part and parcel of a marxist approach. And that image has been repeatedly used to denigrate capitalism in its entirety and to extol the premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It just takes the new tactic of starting with the heart-strings approach of need before trying to compel the ability.

I largely think fences which prevent the public from watching baseball games are unnecessary.

I also am getting a very good idea of who is and who is not able to engage in abstract thinking or looking beyond one specific example.

 

[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.

None of those are simply conditioned fears.

Are you fucking kidding?

Those aren't simply conditioned fears, implying that they're rational concerns.
But women being concerned about sexual offenses committed by men... well that's just irrational I guess.

 

[Emily Lake]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

The... checks notes... social penalty of not allowing males to invade female single-sex intimate spaces.

 

[Emily Lake]

The best, or the most plausible? The latter seems like requiring that a single use facility is always available if needed for those who need it. The best would be a cultural shift.

But federal law is not the right instrument to effect either change, in any case. There is no solution that all states and cities would find acceptable as a top-down, firearm-enforced mandate.

I think all states in the US would fully support a stand-alone single use facility being available alongside multi-use sex-specific facilities. I would. Seanie would. Tom would. I guarantee Toni would.

You know who wouldn't support that? Males who identify as women. As they've clearly demonstrated on several occasions.

 

[Emily Lake]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

It’s not a legal penalty to require men to stay out of some spaces reserved for women.

And how does insure such a requirement is meant?

Same way jaywalking, or forbidden U-turns, or trespassing is met. If it's not causing a problem, nobody cares. If it *is* causing a problem, then the law is enforced.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because anyone who “considers themselves a woman is a woman”.

And so any man who says they “consider themselves a woman” is good to go?

Have you really thought the implications in terms of policy and law?

Dude, I appreciate your participation and dedication... And I know this thread moves fast, but I think I speak for all of us when I ask that you edit your posts to include more in them instead of spamming the thread with a dozen posts back to back all saying more or less the same thing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Have you really thought the implications in terms of policy and law?

Pretty ironic comment, coming from someone who adamantly refuses to see this in any other lens than their very specific obsession with "a man in a woman's locker room", never "what are the rights of a citizen?" or "what sort of powers do I want my government to have?", or "Am I comfortable with everything that will result from this ruling?", or "Why are most of the entities funding and promoting the campaign I support hard right-wing authoritarians?"

I don't want my government to have the power to grant special rights to men that override female boundaries and rob of us consent. Doesn't really seem like that much to ask.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why aren’t the ACLU arguing for the end to separate men’s and women’s sports?

Because the ACLU has lost the plot.

 

[seanie]

A world where equity means everyone getting the support they need is the world little children live in...

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.

So you're telling me that humans in general are "selfish" and "lack the ability for extrapolative thinking",

Dude! She said "a lot of people", not "humans in general". Pretty sure when she said "selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking", she specifically had you in mind.

Not solely Poli, but I'm about 90% confident that he does fall into the category of those to whom I'm referring.

But allow me to attempt to make my post more clear. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but apparently not.

Communism is horrific and inhumane. Lots of people like communism.

If I'm being generous of spirit, I say that they've the people who like communism have 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 who like communism are selfish and lack the ability for extrapolative thinking.

No one but her did say anything about communism, though. I'm no communist. Obviously you aren't. Who's she talking to, the voices in her head? I just assumed she meant for her comments to be relevsnt to the thread somehow.

Well, you're responding TO me, rather than ABOUT me, so "you" would seemingly be a more appropriate term to use than "she", but whatever. I'll assume you're confused.

The "equity" in the image Toni posted is directly marxist in content. The premise is that everyone gets what they need, regardless of where they start out, and that this is a noble and beneficial approach. This is nothing more than a rather thin rebranding of the core tenet "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

You stated that the equitable ideal world is one you prefer, thus it seems reasonable to infer that you support the cornerstone of marxist thought.

Aside from that, over the years you've seemed to take a lot of inching-up-to-marxism positions, generally favoring collectivism and redistribution of capital, minimization and weakening of property rights, minimal protection of the commons, etc.

But perhaps I'm oversimplifying the general tone of your views. Always a possibility.

Bullshit. It’s about removing enough barriers so that everyone can participate to the best of their abilities. It does not mandate that pro basketball players must play on their knees so that I can have an equal chance to play. Nor are musicians required to wear gloves and render themselves tone deaf so that I can play as well as they can.

It means removing unnecessary barriers and providing appropriate accommodations so that everyone can access essential services regardless of sex, gender, race, country of origin, first language, religion.

It dues not require that no one wear a crucifix or yarmulke or burqa in order to avoid offending anyone.

It requires that public education make reasonable accommodations for all students, including adaptive physical education/equipment, interpreters, including ASL interpreters, etc.

It requires curbs thst allow people with wheelchairs ( or strollers) to utilize sidewalks. So do ramps, etc.

For starters. It does NOT require that no student is allowed to progress faster than the slowest student.

And so on.

None of what you describe is in any way captured by your image. Unless you think that fences around baseball fields are "unnecessary barriers" and that crates to stand on to see over the fence are "necessary services"

Look - I'm all for providing needs-based assistance when necessary, and for providing equal opportunity to all (especially children). But the image you posted isn't arguing for that - it's part and parcel of a marxist approach. And that image has been repeatedly used to denigrate capitalism in its entirety and to extol the premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It just takes the new tactic of starting with the heart-strings approach of need before trying to compel the ability.

I largely think fences which prevent the public from watching baseball games are unnecessary.

I also am getting a very good idea of who is and who is not able to engage in abstract thinking or looking beyond one specific example.

The

 

[Emily Lake]

I largely think fences which prevent the public from watching baseball games are unnecessary.

Okay. You can think that if you like. Do you also think that closed-door venues that prevent the public from attending a concert are unnecessary?

I also am getting a very good idea of who is and who is not able to engage in abstract thinking or looking beyond one specific example.

I'm actually quite good at both abstract and extrapolative thinking. I wasn't kidding when I told you that the image you posted has persistently been used to support advocacy for a marxist system. It gets used to direct focus to the "to each according to his need" aspect of marxism, and uses that as the starting point. That underlies the modern approach to equity, which relies on the premise that we should give everyone what they need, and by doing so we will accomplish equal outcomes. It stands in direct opposition to the capitalist approach of equal and unfettered opportunity.

 

[seanie]

Dude, I appreciate your participation and dedication... And I know this thread moves fast, but I think I speak for all of us when I ask that you edit your posts to include more in them instead of spamming the thread with a dozen posts back to back all saying more or less the same thing.

OK.

 

[Politesse]

You know who wouldn't support that? Males who identify as women. As they've clearly demonstrated on several occasions.

Yes, and I certainly understand why. Hence why I clarified that there is a huge difference between the ideal and the practical.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know who wouldn't support that? Males who identify as women. As they've clearly demonstrated on several occasions.

Yes, and I certainly understand why. Hence why I clarified that there is a huge difference between the ideal and the practical.

Would you explain your reasoning for why males who identify as women do not support having access to a single-use, any-sex space?

 

[Toni]

I largely think fences which prevent the public from watching baseball games are unnecessary.

Okay. You can think that if you like. Do you also think that closed-door venues that prevent the public from attending a concert are unnecessary?

I also am getting a very good idea of who is and who is not able to engage in abstract thinking or looking beyond one specific example.

I'm actually quite good at both abstract and extrapolative thinking. I wasn't kidding when I told you that the image you posted has persistently been used to support advocacy for a marxist system. It gets used to direct focus to the "to each according to his need" aspect of marxism, and uses that as the starting point. That underlies the modern approach to equity, which relies on the premise that we should give everyone what they need, and by doing so we will accomplish equal outcomes. It stands in direct opposition to the capitalist approach of equal and unfettered opportunity.

Equal and unfettered opportunity?

I understand that is what we are fed and perhaps, once upon a time, it was true, in the ideal, anyway. But today we are living the grotesque bastardization of the dream of both ‘equal’ and ‘unfettered.’

The only thing that is unfettered is the grotesque power and excess of the rich and powerful,

I’m no Marxist. I’d love free and equal opportunity. Unfortunately the unfettered part has proven all too true for the select few who invent and create nothing but ways to make money off of the labor of other, lesser beings.

 

[laughing dog]

Edit your sentence.

FFS, how does one insure your requirement is met?

 

[Politesse]

You know who wouldn't support that? Males who identify as women. As they've clearly demonstrated on several occasions.

Yes, and I certainly understand why. Hence why I clarified that there is a huge difference between the ideal and the practical.

Would you explain your reasoning for why males who identify as women do not support having access to a single-use, any-sex space?

Because using the "Trans Room" is not much better than using the "wrong room" in terms of attracting abuse, legal persecution, and sexual assault. Most trans kids do not feel any safer using a room that immediately outs them as a "gender activist" than they do using a single-gendered space. This isn't speculative, my high school students report the above as a frequent problem at schools where the three-room solution has already been applied.

So it is not perfect, and it helps Trump's goons with their favorite hobby (hurting children and laughing). But, it is the best option that the public will support, and I already conceded that in the above post you were quoting, so please don't waste all of our time writing yet more screeds about how I'm an insane progressive communist radical who will only accept ideal solutions. That mirror you use to imagine what other people are like can only take so much strain.