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

[seanie]

So why would only a fool concern themselves with “right” and “wrong” in resolving a political dispute?

How else are political disputes to be resolved, without contesting what is “right” or “wrong”?

 

[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.

Klanners are afraid, angry and insecure. Period. Full stop. Black people are simply their target.

Which does not in any way change the fact that it's a conditioned fear. Why should one conditioned fear be supported and another denied? What counts is actual risk, not perceived risk. And the data shows that the bathroom you present as produces a far better outcome than the bathroom that matches your anatomy.

 

[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….?

The problem with Title IX is the same thing that pervades all the anti-discrimination stuff: discrimination is measured by outcome, not opportunity.

Sports is a big time commitment and a certain amount of physical risk. Not everyone wants to and it's not balanced between the sexes.

Non-responsive to the question I asked. Equality of opportunity to participate in sports is a separate issue than who is willing to watch or pay to attend.

Yet you linked them. Why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Klanners are afraid, angry and insecure. Period. Full stop. Black people are simply their target.

Race and sex are extremely different categories of humans. The differences between people of different races is literally skin deep. The differences between people of different sexes is much deeper.

Which is why I find the ideologues bringing up racism as though it's relevant so dishonest.
Tom

You miss the point. I was using racism as a counterexample--a clear case of where the law quite rightly says fears are not to be supported by law. Thus merely showing fear about a situation is not enough to warrant a law, it needs to be a reasonable fear.

 

[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.

Taking pictures in bathrooms at all? Hell, just a machine that makes that sound and/or a flash would be traumatizing in a bathroom.

Acting explicitly in a way that everyone is already educated on how others will feel an assault is in progress upon them is, itself, a form of assault at this level.

I see no assault here, but I see someone reasonably being afraid of the situation. I do believe they should be arrested, I disagree on the charge they should be arrested for.

 

[laughing dog]

So why would only a fool concern themselves with “right” and “wrong” in resolving a political dispute?

No idea about that straw man.

How else are political disputes to be resolved, without contesting what is “right” or “wrong”?

By discussion and compromise, or the exercise of power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The relevance being what?

You seem to think the anatomy is all there is.

The failure of surgical "correction" of the intersexed shows that we have no adequate measure of the gender in the mind.

Not sure of the relevance to what I was actually replying to, but hey ho.

What do you mean by the failure of surgical “correction” of “the intersexed”?

What has that to do with “gender in the mind”?

Every human is either male or female, incredibly rare DSDs that may make that distinction unobvious at birth notwithstanding.

What on earth has this to do with obvious, unambiguous males, without a DSD, declaring themselves female, and being allowed into female only spaces?

There was a period where doctors tried to surgically "correct" intersexed babies. Oops, turns out they were not remotely reliable in deciding which way to go. Thus the best info of the time proved incapable of determining whether the mind was male or female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you’ve never played baseball, then.

A solid fence limits the distance a ball can fly.

But you’re right: why is there any fence? What is lost if a short kid sees the game?

How much is enough profit? How much profit is needed to offset the damage done to those inadequately compensated?

Why do some people only feel ok if they feel they are above everyone else?

Chain link is a better ball-stopper than the pictured fence because it has give.

And you're still engaging in economic creationism. You want the benefit (watching the game) without the cost (tickets).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reality is that men's sports do get more funding, still get first/best shot at facilities, practice times, game times, transportation, etc. The excuse is that men's sports teams generate more income but I'd really love to see an actual accountant's analysis of that.

Self-funding teams have been cut to comply with Title IX.

Bull fucking shit.

Title IX and Cutting Collegiate Athletic Teams During the Pandemic | Sports Litigation Alert

sportslitigationalert.com

It's talking about the pandemic, but it mentions the cutting I was talking about. Since said cutting predates most of the internet direct references are going to be scarce.

Note the mention of a safe harbor--in practice institutions will choose the safe harbor that ensures no litigation even if it's unfair.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow. I just cannot believe how openly some people think that everyone having access to good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs is hindering rich people from having good things.

The example was entertainment, not necessity.

And you still aren't establishing that your goal is possible.

 

[Politesse]

Title IX's provisions do not normally require outcomes to be measured, unless a specific misconduct has been alleged on the part of the government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Love the term "economic creationists". I think it expresses the concept better than my comparison to an infinite pool of money that can be taxed.

Literally anything expresses the concept better than that oft-repeated strawman.

Literally nobody believes in an infinite pool of money that can be taxed, other than the fictional characters you invent and control, and who you prefer to argue against because real people tend to be able to easily refute your nonsense.

There are plenty of misguided idiots who argue economics, but none make this argument you so desparately wish they might.

Let it go.

Saying nobody believes it doesn't make it so. It just means you haven't thought it through.

The answer is always you can tax to afford social good X. Never is there any attempt to establish whether this is the case, it's taken as a given. But the only way it can be a given is if the pool is infinite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We told you what would happen. In the adult world it could be a viable option in more liberal areas, but it is completely non-viable in school.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So you don't care if it gets them killed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So far I have seen no indication that they were permitted in there in the first place, nor that they were trans.

Of cases where there's no question about them it stands at one rape of the trans person, zero rapes by the trans people. And multiple incidents of violence against male-presenting individuals with female anatomy in the women's room.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's obviously impossible to hide if they are from the same area, but what if they aren't?

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.

Adults, yes. Otherwise equal facilities in reasonably liberal areas, I would use the "any" facilities as a sign of support. Primary or secondary school, no way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Men wearing skirts is relevant in this case--because the attacker was described as "wearing a skirt". Notably, not described as female-presenting and the original article said it didn't appear to be a trans situation.

And note that yet again the presented case looks questionable. I consider that very telling--there's quite a bit of effort being put into demonizing the trans. Why is it the only unquestionable cases are of violence to them, not by them? If they have truly solid cases why keep presenting the iffy ones? (And, yes, we have unquestionable rapes by trans individuals--from before they transitioned. Which can be very hard to dig out.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

But I brought that up because the offender was described as "wearing a skirt". I'm saying a skirt-like garment could be a kilt and thus is not female-specific attire--and without that we have absolutely no indication the individual was trans. Most kilts are patterned and fairly heavy garments, but some of the stuff marketed for outdoor use is light and not patterned and would readily be mistaken for a skirt.

 

[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?

This is false.

We have some few individuals with reproductive system ambiguities. But doctors can reliably identify them as male of female once exams more than a cursory visual look are performed.

If they could do that we would have had the bad outcomes from surgical "correction" of the intersexed. But it went badly, thus it is clear the doctors can't even with detailed examination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Politesse mentioned high school students. There exist high school students who also take college courses. In my state, this is not uncommon.

Yup. I was taking 6 college credits/semester IIRC for two years while in high school. Evenings/weekends only. (Yes, there were weekends. There were some 1 credit PE "classes" that consisted of a single overnight hike. Hey, credit for something I would do anyway, good!)