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

[laughing dog]

He was referring to high school age kids.

And their adult parents and teachers.

Were they bullying kids?
Maybe so, I went to better schools than that.
Tom

Maybe you weren't trans.

Or out.

FU
I wasn't out because I was terrified of the other teens I couldn't avoid.

The high school ones. Also because of my family and myself.

People like you and Poli are why I was in the closet until my late 20s.

Grow up and take responsibility for your choices or fuck off.

 

[Politesse]

If you were afraid of your family, I don't get why you think adults bullying queer kids isn't a thing. And I definitely don't see why you think it's my fault. Their choices were theirs, yours are yours, mine are mine. I didn't invent anti-homosexual bigotry, nor do I support it.

 

[TomC]

Grow up and take responsibility for your choices or fuck off.

Luv ya.
Mean it...
You are a blessing to us all!

 

[Toni]

But pretending that I don't understand high school bullying is stupid and kinda makes me angry.
Tom

You just claimed that adults never participated in bullying students at your school, because your school was "better" than mine. If that's true, I'm not the one who grew up in an ivory tower. Or if I was, ivory towers suck. I came pretty close to being killed by a gang of fellow students at the age of twelve, and that wasn't because I was gay, I was just "weird" and my parents were from out of town. Broken rib, internal bleeding. Are little kid bones the "ivory"?

Your point is well taken. It’s been some years since I had a kid in high school and I had allowed myself to forgets lot of stuff. Mostly, I’ve been thinking about women and girls who have been abused and assaulted, and not from the perspective of kids in school today. I’m really sorry for the insensitivity

. One of my kids was almost drowned in the school pool by another kid. A group of boys attempted to push him into oncoming traffic. The school denied that this happened but the usual gym teacher who had been out that day called to profusely apologize and to assure me that substitute teacher who inadequately supervised the class would never work in the district again. A different boy threatened to set his locker—and him on fire. The school refused to take action but encouraged me to file a police report. In the end, we talked to the police and decided not to take it to court. I’ve wrestled with that decision since. This is, as I’ve mentioned, a fairly small town. I knew some of the kids involved. The leader of the kids who attempted to my kid into oncoming traffic had been abused by his father for years—the father was actually convicted of the abuse in a town where the police refused to even look into a neighbor reporting ‘parents’ bouncing their 18 month old off of the walls of the house. The leader of that gang ended up doing serious time for a variety of issues including attempted murder. The firebug had serious mental health issues but I’m unaware of abuse.

My son grew about 8 inches and punched one of his bullies back, earning a 3 day suspension—but that was the last time someone punched him.

Yeah, I saw some pretty jerky parents and some pretty jerky incompetent teachers. Honestly, I’d blocked a lot of the ugly stuff.

I could write a lot about sexism girls of my era faced and racism was a huge issue. Sexuality? Not so much. To me, a heterosexual bookish girl.

I grew up in an era and location where few if any gay people were out. I was only vaguely aware of what that entailed. The only ‘trans’ that was ever talked about was vague references to transvestites. Which seemed strange to me because I could not understand why anyone would wear a dress unless compelled to do so, much less hair rollers and make up.

Nonetheless, several of my classmates were gay and on some level I knew. We all knew. Some were friends, but it wasn’t talked about, except as an insult and I did not want to hear any insults about my friends. I’m not certain that most of them knew at the time that they were gay. One friend is a woman who married another woman but does not see herself as gay.

And then I went to college and I was no longer forced to view everything from behind the small town filters and the world opened up to me. No, I’m not gay or even bi-curious but it made sense to me. Not the anti-gay bias—that was abhorrent but did not seem to be very prevalent on my liberal campus. I was friends with a variety of people of different backgrounds and beliefs and sexual orientations. Mostly people talked about issues with being accepted by family, not hassles in high school.

Yeah, I know I lived in my own bubble.

He was referring to high school age kids.

And their adult parents and teachers.

Were they bullying kids?
Maybe so, I went to better schools than that.
Tom

Maybe you weren't trans.

Or out.

FU
I wasn't out because I was terrified of the other teens I couldn't avoid.

The high school ones. Also because of my family and myself.

People like you and Poli are why I was in the closet until my late 20s.

My conservative depression baby Catholic mother kept trying to tell me that she loved me no matter what. She did her best!

It was a struggle.
Tom

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be rude or derisive. I do understand why you were not out and maybe did not even understand exactly what was going on with your own self. Not a criticism at all.

I’m older than you but not that much. I understand the era and the area. A number of my high school friends were gay but at that time: not out, perhaps not even to themselves. A couple of the girls dated guys in high school. And after. One guy was unmistakeable gay and sadly enough, his life was rough enough that wasn’t even his biggest problem by a long shot. Gay was an insult in my high school, in my day.

I only made that remark because you suggested you went to a better school but honestly, you were dealing with exactly what the queer kids in my high school and Politesse’s high school and high schools all over were dealing with. Quality of school had nothing to do with it. Lots of ignorance and bigotry and insecurity and Christian fundamentalism. There was a huge PTL ( praise the lord) group in my high school and a couple of my friends who turned out to be gay were a huge part of that. One even went to a Bible college ( which killed me: she’s so bright and creative and my ( narrow minded) opinion was that Bible college was for people who could not get into ‘real’ college. )

I remember someone telling me that one of my friends was gay ( yes, she was but not at all out and dated guys) and I was furious because gay was a huge insult and there was nothing wrong with my friend. And there wasn’t and isn’t. She’s great. One of the smartest, kindest most talented people I’ve ever known. I only had the vaguest idea of what gay was and only knew that it was an insult and you did not insult my friends.

To tell the truth, my focus in high school was dealing with family shit and mostly getting into college, which necessitated earning an academic scholarship big enough to let me attend. Sex, sexuality, gay, straight: not very much on my radar at all, except in some unfortunate circumstances when I had to deal with it. My attention was elsewhere, not on the dating scene. Usually nose in book unless I was in a boat or in the woods or drawing or cleaning something. Plus friends and family. For myself, I avoided dating fir a couple of reasons but a major reason was that my observation was that boys held you back.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The case that caused them to go back to eyeballs was Swyer--XY females.

To me, whether they can compete comes down to whether they got an advantage from their prior life. And I find myself in the position of not trusting either side on this. It's very much an edge case, though, there simply aren't that many.

 

[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.

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.

Given the witch hunting and the fact that they are not locked up after multiple "felony" convictions makes me question what actually happened.

 

[Bomb#20]

Especially when you further go on to maliciously imply that Bomb would teach children to take by force (Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so) rather than to respect both law and social convention.

Shaming children for sharing is a hit or be hit mentality.

What happened to you to make you so zealous you don't give a damn whether what you say about unbelievers is true? I didn't shame anyone for sharing. You made that up out of whole cloth. I'd try shaming you for libeling me, but libel really isn't anything you'd be ashamed of, is it? But you're an anthropologist, so maybe you have some insight. A lot of people behave the way you behave -- acting like they think ethical consideration is only for ingroup. What drives that?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

"Hit or be hit, never share" was certainly malicious framing, and that frame is all yours. As for the rest, your phrasing is ambiguous -- it's not clear what the subject of "but also think that ..." is. It appears from your syntax to be "humans in general"; if so, Emily told you nothing of the sort, so inventing those words and putting them in her mouth is kind of malicious. But more likely the subject was "you"; if so that's not really malicious so much as just uncritically believing your own religion's propaganda and stereotypes of unbelievers. Emily and I said nothing to limit charity and generosity to individuals; that's your insertion. If the taxpayers are feeling generous and charitable toward someone they can always vote to tax themselves to finance a donation. (Of course more often they vote to tax someone else, in which case as noted it's exploitation.) But in neither case is it equity -- it's never impartial. For that matter, it's not even equitable going by the flawed definition in the cartoon -- it takes a pretty blinkered notion of "everyone" to imagine "Everyone gets the support they need" is what leftists have in mind, which is invariably tribal rather than need-based.

And that brings us up to "grovel at the feet of the rich". Looks like malicious framing to me -- you appear to be shaming people who ask for help, as though it were somehow more dignified to take by force. It isn't.

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.

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.

Well, in the first place, how the heck does the needy relying on generosity instead of on "want, take, have" exclude any sex from any government service?

And in the second place, how the heck do you figure that's a right we've already won as citizens? Last I checked, getting military defense without having to register for the draft in exchange is a government service we men are excluded from.

 

[Politesse]

If the taxpayers are feeling generous and charitable toward someone they can always vote to tax themselves to finance a donation.

That is such a bizarre way to describe having access to government-sponsored facilties and services. Or did you forget that was what we were talking about? Not excluding people from being allowed to use the shit they fund? No one has to vote to "donate" the rights of a citizen to you. You already have them. Your taxes built the park. You have every reason to assume you are going to have access to it. That's not fucking Stalinism, it's just how parks work.

 

[Politesse]

Last I checked, getting military defense without having to register for the draft in exchange is a government service we men are excluded from.

I am utterly baffled as to why you would assume, based in our conversation, that I support a mandatory draft based on sex. I most certainly do not.

 

[Politesse]

Well, in the first place, how the heck does the needy relying on generosity instead of on "want, take, have" exclude any sex from any government service?

I can't think of any way that it does. You're seemingly at pains to portray a simple lack of discrimination as sone sort of "generosity". It costs you literally nothing, nothing at all, to let some kid use s public bathroom. But you're trying to insist that anyone who opposes sex discrimination must be a Marxist out to steal all your money or something, which doesn't follow in the slightest.

 

[Toni]

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.

Given the witch hunting and the fact that they are not locked up after multiple "felony" convictions makes me question what actually happened.

To be fair: Trump has not been locked up after conviction of 34 felonies, so..,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

People don't like being shown they've been duped.

I see the same thing in both directions. Look at how the world has gobbled up the Hamas delusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 is one of those good ideas that turned out to not match the real world adequately.

As with most anti-discrimination efforts it pretends that equity is equality. Nope, in the real world there are more people interested in male sports than female sports and more people will pay to watch male sports.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

What scenario are you thinking of that doesn't involve going up to someone and exposing yourself?

That being said, this feels like disorderly conduct, not sexual assault. Not a predator.

 

[laughing dog]

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 is one of those good ideas that turned out to not match the real world adequately.

As with most anti-discrimination efforts it pretends that equity is equality. Nope, in the real world there are more people interested in male sports than female sports and more people will pay to watch male sports.

And that is relevant to the underlying principle of equality of opportunity because….?

 

[Politesse]

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 is one of those good ideas that turned out to not match the real world adequately.

As with most anti-discrimination efforts it pretends that equity is equality. Nope, in the real world there are more people interested in male sports than female sports and more people will pay to watch male sports.

I doubt many people have that opinion now, that didn't have it in 1972 as well, unless they weren't born yet at the time. Believe it or not, Title IX was never universally popular. But our constitutional republic has to be stuck together with a new roll of duct tape from time to time, and Title IX was one of those rolls. I'm certain that's why Tricky Dick swallowed his reservations and signed it into law. As with his privately uncomfortable but publically unquestioned support of the ERA, he was smart enough to realize that American women were not content to be property anymore, that equal representation under the law was becoming more than just an avenue of hypothetical largesse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

To do a genetic test for contains sequence X is much, much easier than ensuring it doesn't contain X.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Republican "thinking" detected.

You need to handle the edge cases! An awful lot of the stupidity that Republicans engage in comes down to trying to deny the outliers rather than address them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'm not forgetting. The Klanners are afraid of uppity blacks. The reverse situation would only apply if someone walked into the restroom in Klan attire.