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

[Politesse]

Poli's argument that high school males would be "outed" by using a separate, unisex restroom rather than the female facilities inherently relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're a male in the first place.

It's more that everyone deduces which are the "trans bathrooms" instantly.

 

[Toni]

Yikes. I had not considered the ill effects possible with the all gender bathrooms. How horrible.

He was referring to high school age kids.
People who are among the stupidest and meanest among us.
Old enough to get good as bullying. Too young to have outgrown the tendency.

C'mon Toni, you're a parent. You know what I am talking about.
Tom

Also he was relying on the unstated assumption that nobody can tell that male teenagers are males in the first place, and that nobody at all knew them to be males before they found their true girly selves that summer between 8th and 9th grade.

Knock off the bullshit Emily.

What do you think is bullshit, Toni?

Poli's argument that high school males would be "outed" by using a separate, unisex restroom rather than the female facilities inherently relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're a male in the first place. We're talking about post pubertal males, who somehow nobody at all can identify as males at all. Furthermore, it relies on the assumption that nobody has ever known them as a male.

Perhaps Poli's scenario is talking about the new student who just moved here from a different state and nobody knows them, and they've been taking puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones since they were 12, and they've already had a penectomy and orchiectomy, and they're just naturally on the short end of the distribution of male heights, and they have unusually small hands and feet for a male? If that's the case, sure, maybe that one individual might end up "outed"...

But the vast majority of high school males do NOT fit that description, and pretty much all of their classmates already knows they're males.

Poli’s ‘argument’ is based on his own observation and what his students have told him. I believe him.

High school students may have known each other since grade school or may not have done. It’s fairly standard for multiple smaller elementary to feed into larger secondary schools.

I confess that I had only responded in this thread as someone who has gad to deal with sexual assault and who, as most of us do, knows plenty of other girls and women who have had much worse experiences than I did.

I had forgotten just how awful a very small number of kids can be and how terrible they can make life for any of their targets.

I have always been sincere when I write that everybody deserves to feel—and be! safe, secure and comfortable in the facilities they use. I had not considered that having an all gender option paints targets in the backs of kids who use these facilities.

 

[Emily Lake]

Poli's argument that high school males would be "outed" by using a separate, unisex restroom rather than the female facilities inherently relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're a male in the first place.

It's more that everyone deduces which are the "trans bathrooms" instantly.

So what?

If everyone already knows that they're trans, then what does it matter? All it does is to provide a middle ground where a male who identifies as a transgirl isn't forced to share intimate space with boys... but where female humans are also not forced to share intimate space with male humans.

The only situation in which your objection to having a third space even remotely makes sense is that in which nobody at all knows that the male with gender feelings is a male.

If your objective is acceptance, this is the way to get it. If your objective is domination, this will get in your way.

 

[laughing dog]

Poli's argument that high school males would be "outed" by using a separate, unisex restroom rather than the female facilities inherently relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're a male in the first place.

It's more that everyone deduces which are the "trans bathrooms" instantly.

So what?

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

Oh, and btw, depending on the size of the school, not everyone is on the know about everyone’s sex at birth assignment.

 

[TomC]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yes to the 2nd question and no to the 3rd.

 

[TomC]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yes to the 2nd question and no to the 3rd.

But no response to the main question, which was the first.

And frankly, I think that you are just making up answers to the other questions.

It was not something I was aware of at the time (70s). But I am pretty sure that if my sister had found out that a boy was in the restroom with her, she'd have enlisted her boyfriend (mega-jock) to kick his ass. And he would have.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yes to the 2nd question and no to the 3rd.

But no response to the main question, which was the first.

And frankly, I think that you are just making up answers to the other questions.

It was not something I was aware of at the time (70s). But I am pretty sure that if my sister had found out that a boy was in the restroom with her, she'd have enlisted her boyfriend (mega-jock) to kick his ass. And he would have.
Tom

So fucking what.

If a unisex bathroom is used as an identifier for trans, it makes previously unidentified trans as potential targets and misidentified people as potential targets.

 

[Toni]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yeah, almost certainly. Btw, the danger is to the trans kids and to all of the girls, trans or straight. I wish that were not so but there has been at least one case of a ‘trans girl’ who raped two different girls in two different t high schools. I only typed the scare quotes because it is not known ( at least to me) what criteria was used to determine whether that particular student should be given access to the girl’s restroom. Horrible for the girls attacked and also for other girls who surely must now be a lot more hesitant to share a public restroom. And horrible for the vast overwhelming majority of trans kids who now face unfair scrutiny and discrimination because of the actions of one person.

 

[TomC]

So fucking what.

If a unisex bathroom is used as an identifier for trans, it makes previously unidentified trans as potential targets and misidentified people as potential targets.

Previously unidentified trans didn't really have as big a problem as they do after they come out.

Apparently, these schools efforts to help trans kids backfired.

Obviously, the simple answer to the problem is to fix human behavior. Especially that of males and younger people. Young male people tend to be the absolute worst.


Reminds me of a bit of advice from Samuel Clemens. Paraphrasing:
"When a boy turns around 12, stick him in a barrel. Feed him through the little hole. When he gets about 16?
Plug up the damn hole..."
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Poli’s ‘argument’ is based on his own observation and what his students have told him. I believe him.

IIRC, Poli's students are adults, in community college, not high school students. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's their worry. The exact same argument leveled at you and I regarding whether or not our concerns about penis-havers in female intimate spaces are justified and rational applies here.

High school students may have known each other since grade school or may not have done. It’s fairly standard for multiple smaller elementary to feed into larger secondary schools.

Sure... but even if they're feeders (which is common), at least some portion of the students will absolutely know that Jane was John the prior year.

I confess that I had only responded in this thread as someone who has gad to deal with sexual assault and who, as most of us do, knows plenty of other girls and women who have had much worse experiences than I did.

I had forgotten just how awful a very small number of kids can be and how terrible they can make life for any of their targets.

I have always been sincere when I write that everybody deserves to feel—and be! safe, secure and comfortable in the facilities they use. I had not considered that having an all gender option paints targets in the backs of kids who use these facilities.

I understand the argument Poli has made. I challenge whether or not that target is larger or smaller or unchanged. Poli presented the argument as if these high school males did NOT have a target on them when they're invading female spaces, but that a target would come into existence if they use a sex-neutral facility. That relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're actually males in the first place, which I think is a flawed assumption.

Furthermore, the entire concept of having a neutral facility is that ANYONE can use them. They're not "trans only" facilities. The expectation is that most students will continue to use the facilities that are set aside for their sex, that trans students will use the neutral facility if they're not comfortable using the facility set aside for their sex, but also that the occasional really shy person might also use them once in a while too.

I would speculate that transgender identifying male students are already known to be male in most cases. Those male students will face some assholes who oppose them identifying as trans regardless of which facilities they use. While I wish it weren't the case, I acknowledge that there is a baseline level of hostility that exists.

If they use male facilities, they will face that baseline, and might face additional hostility from other males who have deemed them not male enough to use male spaces. This is pretty much the same kind of abuse that gay men faced, where straight men are just dickheads to any dudes they think aren't man enough to be in the man club. I don't know the magnitude of hostility that boys face from other boys for the apparently unforgivable crime of wearing a skirt. But I assume some exists.

If they use female facilities, they will face that baseline, and they will face resentment and fear from a large number of the girls who they've imposed themselves on without consent. And they will probably face even more hostility from the boys in the school who do not support letting boys invade the girl's locker room and bathroom. At a minimum, there will be some girls who are made uncomfortable, and there will be brothers, boyfriends, and friends who wish to defend those girls.

If they use the unisex facility... I think the only hostility that will be faced is the baseline level that unfortunately already exists. That baseline level cannot be addressed by bathroom and locker room usage, it needs to be addressed more holistically.

So at the end of the day, when weighing the options it seems to me that using separate unisex bathrooms and locker rooms has the lowest available level of risk for transgender students. It also has the lowest level of risk for female students.

 

[Emily Lake]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yes to the 2nd question and no to the 3rd.

But no response to the main question, which was the first.

And frankly, I think that you are just making up answers to the other questions.

It was not something I was aware of at the time (70s). But I am pretty sure that if my sister had found out that a boy was in the restroom with her, she'd have enlisted her boyfriend (mega-jock) to kick his ass. And he would have.
Tom

So fucking what.

If a unisex bathroom is used as an identifier for trans, it makes previously unidentified trans as potential targets and misidentified people as potential targets.

I think that the likelihood of a teenage transgender person passing so well that nobody knows they're trans is very, very, very low.

As I said previously, the entire argument put forth by Poli relies on the assumption that absolutely nobody at all knows they're trans in the first place. And you know what? If nobody knew they were trans, it would never have become an issue in the first place. The entire reason that it's an issue is because most people know what their actual sex is already.

Again, the issue is not that they're transgender. The issue is that they're males imposing themselves on females in intimate spaces without consent and over the objection of those female humans.

In complete seriousness... do you think that my objection to transgender identified men using women's showers is because I have a problem with men wearing skirts? Is that actually what you think? Becauses I'll tell you (all) again - it has nothing at all to do with what they're wearing, it has to do with their sex. A male human in a dress and heels is just as male as a male human in jeans and steel-toed boots. I don't care how they present, I care what their sex is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the challenge to you is not to argue for why sex is a spectrum. The challenge is to give a reason to think any of the organisms at intermediate points on that spectrum are still alive. They could have all died in the Precambrian.

We have individuals with varying degrees of intersexedness. And the doctors can't reliably assign them as male or female based on examination. How is that not a spectrum?

 

[laughing dog]

It makes them more dangerous, that’s what.

More dangerous than what?
More dangerous than using the boys restroom? More dangerous than the girls finding out that a boy is using the restroom labeled women?
Tom

Yes to the 2nd question and no to the 3rd.

But no response to the main question, which was the first.

And frankly, I think that you are just making up answers to the other questions.

It was not something I was aware of at the time (70s). But I am pretty sure that if my sister had found out that a boy was in the restroom with her, she'd have enlisted her boyfriend (mega-jock) to kick his ass. And he would have.
Tom

So fucking what.

If a unisex bathroom is used as an identifier for trans, it makes previously unidentified trans as potential targets and misidentified people as potential targets.

I think that the likelihood of a teenage transgender person passing so well that nobody knows they're trans is very, very, very low.

As I said previously, the entire argument put forth by Poli relies on the assumption that absolutely nobody at all knows they're trans in the first place. And you know what? If nobody knew they were trans, it would never have become an issue in the first place. The entire reason that it's an issue is because most people know what their actual sex is already.

Sigh, even if some people know, not everyone does. And if the potential violent reactionaries find out, there is a problem. This is issue is not about "most" people knowing their sex. It is about people whose gender may be in the wrong body.

Again, the issue is not that they're transgender. The issue is that they're males imposing themselves on females in intimate spaces without consent and over the objection of those female humans.

In complete seriousness... do you think that my objection to transgender identified men using women's showers is because I have a problem with men wearing skirts? Is that actually what you think? Becauses I'll tell you (all) again - it has nothing at all to do with what they're wearing, it has to do with their sex. A male human in a dress and heels is just as male as a male human in jeans and steel-toed boots. I don't care how they present, I care what their sex is.

Sorry, but a transwoman who has gone through a complete physical transformation is not the same as a male human in jeans and steel-toed boots. A transwoman who has gone through a psychological transformation is not the same as a male human who has not.

This has nothing to do with skirts. It has to do with personality and people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason it's immoral is because it is a plea to embrace "To each according to his need" as a moral ideal. And unless he slept through the entire twentieth century, the author of that image knew damn well his moral ideal killed upwards of fifty million people.

I do not think it killed millions--because I don't believe anyone in power actually tried to use it. Rather, it was a stage set to get and hold power. Any more than the MAGAs desire fascism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Yup. You can't prove meaning A and then interpret that to also prove meaning B. Fundamentally, it's multiple related words with the same spelling.

 

[Politesse]

IIRC, Poli's students are adults, in community college, not high school students. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's their worry.

They're a mix, these days. Around a fifth of my students are enrolled in one of the local high schools when they start taking classes with us. I've not heard of any bullying incidents on our campus.

 

[Politesse]

In complete seriousness... do you think that my objection to transgender identified men using women's showers is because I have a problem with men wearing skirts?

That is fucking obvious. Non-bigots don't describe trans women as "men wearing skirts". You seem incapable of talking about trans people with even minimal respect.

 

[TomC]

In complete seriousness... do you think that my objection to transgender identified men using women's showers is because I have a problem with men wearing skirts?

That is fucking obvious. Non-bigots don't describe trans women as "men wearing skirts". You seem incapable of talking about trans people with even minimal respect.

I'm extremely sure that it was Loren describing some of his clothes, a kilt, as looking like a skirt.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Didn't think you could. That was the point where you should have conceded you were wrong and ended the post. But you have to do you...

You're seemingly at pains to portray a simple lack of discrimination as sone sort of "generosity".

If you were to take the entire corpus of your posts, put them all in a Cuisinart, and set it on max, apparently because the salad that would come out would not be materially different from the arguments that went in, you infer that the same is the case with other posters' arguments. But it's just projection on your part -- many of the rest of us write posts with logical structure. You need to actually read for content and follow the reasoning if you hope to understand what others are saying to you. No, I am not seemingly at pains to portray a simple lack of discrimination as any sort of "generosity". That never happened. That never seemed to have happened. It's a fantasy on your part -- one you formed by splicing together random fragments from separate chains of reasoning.

It costs you literally nothing, nothing at all, to let some kid use s public bathroom.

That is such a bizarre line of argument. There are any number of policies I've seen you oppose even though they cost you literally nothing. So what's the reasoning? Are you basically making an ad hominem argument, one to the effect of "You don't share my ideology; my ideology teaches that infidels are unprincipled scoundrels; therefore you are motivated by selfishness; therefore an appeal to your selfishness is the way to get through to you."?

FYI, it costs me literally nothing, nothing at all, to let some boy use a public girls' bathroom, but it does impose a cost on the girls who would also like to use that bathroom, and I care about those girls enough to take their interests into account in my cost benefit analysis. Taking other people's interests into account is a decision procedure I recommend you also adopt.

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.

No, that never happened -- you're using your Cuisinart reading (in)comprehension algorithm again. I'm contending that anyone who believes justice and equity really are what Toni's cartoon misdefines them as is one of the all too numerous "useful idiots" whom "Marxists out to steal all your money or something" take advantage of to con their way into power. And the thread connecting that contention back to sex discrimination is long and tangled due to the long and tangled history of this wide-ranging thread. It's perfectly possible to favor letting men use the ladies' room without buying all that "removing systemic barriers to equity" drivel -- Loren manages it just fine.

Here, once again, is the context you're determined to ignore:

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?
...

As you can see, you're the one who connected generosity with sex nondiscrimination, not I.