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

[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?

Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight; I was just pointing why your contention that in biology "most things are a spectrum" doesn't actually support your case. If you want to make the case you should consider the approach I recommended to Poli and seanie. You say you have individuals with varying degrees of intersexedness, so look through your collection and pick out the individual (or the syndrome) you think is the most clearly intersexed, the one whose sex organs are the most ambiguous or closest to half and half. Post a link to a clinical description. Seanie will read the description , and then come back with either, "Yes, I was wrong. That's an actual hermaphrodite." or "No, that's a man because ..." or "No, that's a woman because...". Assuming his answer is one of the "because..."s, the rest of us can read his explanation and judge for ourselves whether it makes sense. Any way it goes down, at least we'll have moved past the endless Monty Python argument clinic.

Look at the results of surgery. Many cases of getting it wrong. It's not our examination, it's the doctors failing to accurately discern the answer.

 

[Politesse]

I just dropped out of high school altogether and started college early, myself. But the high school/community college relationship is more formalized these days. A substantial number of "dual enrollment" students take GE courses at the college as they finish their junior and senior years. I've gotten to know more about high school life than I ever cared to remember, I assure you...

They were raised in a confusing climate, promised by many of their friends and the media that it was now safe to "come out of the closet" if they were in one, even as the counter LGBTQ movement organized and expanded, and even many of their peers were getting sucked into the "manosphere" of misogynist online content creators. If they're in my classes now, they did most or all of high school in the uneasy Biden interregnum. Not a comfortable time to be alive, or have any sex or gender whatsoever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO, you and Bomb are looking very very hard to find an excuse to keep some people out because they do not ‘fit’ into your idea of worthy.

You seem unaware that a world exists outside your narrow life ( we all have narrow life experience) experience and anything out of your experience does not bear examining.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with worthy.

Rather, it is because we recognize things have cost. We actually consider the economics rather than blindly decree the people get good things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 problem here is that you are focusing on only one aspect of the image.

To each according to his need becomes extremely unfair to those who better themselves.

And there are always limits. The final frame dismisses that.

How can one 'better themselves' if all such avenues for betterment are blocked?

They aren't. The only people who truly have no avenue to better themselves are those who either are precluded because of a disability, or those who are too tied down with the need to be a caretaker.

I agree that those who can go further should be allowed to go further/deeper. But so should artificial barriers that prevent people from moving forward should be removed. No one should be forbidden to play pro basketball because I'm short. No one should not be allowed to play in the orchestra because I am not musically inclined. But everyone who is musically inclined should have the opportunity to explore that talent and do with it what they are able to do. Music and art education should not be only for those who were born to well off families. College should not be off limits to those who were born in families that struggle economically. High paying careers should not be only for white men. Certainly nothing like race/skin color/religion/country of origin should prevent anyone from achieving whatever they are able to achieve.

So long as you go for degrees that the market likes we already have that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was beneficial for fifty years' worth of women with unwanted pregnancies.

An actual law would have been better. Because we would then still have its protection.

Really, now, you think it wouldn't have been repealed by now??

 

[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.

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?

Because self-funding teams are inherently not taking away from the other sex. The only reason they would be cut is to create an equality of result rather than a equality of opportunity.

 

[Politesse]

It was beneficial for fifty years' worth of women with unwanted pregnancies.

An actual law would have been better. Because we would then still have its protection.

Really, now, you think it wouldn't have been repealed by now??

It may well have been, though Trump's regime has not been marked by many notable successes in the legislative branch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're being a summer child here.

The witch-hunters need targets to justify their own funding. You ensure equality of outcome to ensure they won't come after you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just dropped out of high school altogether and started college early, myself.

Yup, that's what I did. I lost one year of school abroad (what I learned of the world during that time was well worth it), so I ended up being 18 in high school. The college simply saw I was 18 and gave me an unrestricted enrollment packet rather than the restricted one for dual enrollment. One more year of high school that I would learn little in (the only top level course of interest that I had not done at that point was English, I would have needed 3 more credits worth of garbage) vs simply going to college? Easy choice.

 

[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.

You're being a summer child here.

The witch-hunters need targets to justify their own funding. You ensure equality of outcome to ensure they won't come after you.

I get that you're telling me how to do my job, but I'm doubtful that you have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[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?

Because self-funding teams are inherently not taking away from the other sex. The only reason they would be cut is to create an equality of result rather than a equality of opportunity.

No, they are cut to avoid inconveniencing football. And I seriously doubt that most of the axed sports were self-funding.

 

[Toni]

It was beneficial for fifty years' worth of women with unwanted pregnancies.

An actual law would have been better. Because we would then still have its protection.

Really, now, you think it wouldn't have been repealed by now??

Repealing a law is a lot of work. It would have been better protection than Roe V Wade.

 

[southernhybrid]

This penny ante, tit for tat shit is a waste of time.

For many weeks now, I have only been looking at this thread to clear it off the "New Posts" list. But this post caught my eye, and simply demands the question "Has it really taken you over 2,800 posts to reach that conclusion??"

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

Academics are not above shit-flinging discussions .

More importantly, in policy discussions, there need not necessarily be a wrong view. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of different priorities.

That doesn't excuse the seemingly endless insults, and repetitive remarks. When is enough, enough? I've never worked in academia but I did study at several colleges and I have had a few professional academics for friends who never acted like the people in some of these threads. Please tell us exactly what this waste of time accomplishes? I've already wasted enough time here and I have more time to waste compared to a lot of you. Just sayin'....

 

[Politesse]

That doesn't excuse the seemingly endless insults, and repetitive remarks. When is enough, enough? I've never worked in academia but I did study at several colleges and I have had a few professional academics for friends who never acted like the people in some of these threads.

Well, not at work. At the pub later? That's another story. Hours of strained politeness with deeply trying people will drive anyone up the wall eventually.

 

[thebeave]

This penny ante, tit for tat shit is a waste of time.

For many weeks now, I have only been looking at this thread to clear it off the "New Posts" list. But this post caught my eye, and simply demands the question "Has it really taken you over 2,800 posts to reach that conclusion??"

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

Academics are not above shit-flinging discussions .

More importantly, in policy discussions, there need not necessarily be a wrong view. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of different priorities.

That doesn't excuse the seemingly endless insults, and repetitive remarks. When is enough, enough? I've never worked in academia but I did study at several colleges and I have had a few professional academics for friends who never acted like the people in some of these threads. Please tell us exactly what this waste of time accomplishes? I've already wasted enough time here and I have more time to waste compared to a lot of you. Just sayin'....

I'm with you on that. Its so odd here sometimes. I also never meet people in real life who for whom insulting others is so routine, even (apparently) fulfilling. Thank Gawd. I do often wonder if they are like that IRL with their students, spouses, children, neighbors, coworkers, etc. Or is it some sort of secret fantasy they are fulfilling under the cloak of anonymity? If so, what sort of deranged mind gets an endorphin rush from trying to make others feel bad?

 

[Politesse]

Uh, plenty of people enjoy a good debate. Even a good argument from time to time. That is, like, and incredibly common thing to enjoy.

 

[laughing dog]

This penny ante, tit for tat shit is a waste of time.

For many weeks now, I have only been looking at this thread to clear it off the "New Posts" list. But this post caught my eye, and simply demands the question "Has it really taken you over 2,800 posts to reach that conclusion??"

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

Academics are not above shit-flinging discussions .

More importantly, in policy discussions, there need not necessarily be a wrong view. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of different priorities.

That doesn't excuse the seemingly endless insults, and repetitive remarks. When is enough, enough? I've never worked in academia but I did study at several colleges and I have had a few professional academics for friends who never acted like the people in some of these threads. Please tell us exactly what this waste of time accomplishes? I've already wasted enough time here and I have more time to waste compared to a lot of you. Just sayin'....

Well, I’ve seen such behaviour in seminars and academic conferences. More times than I expected. This is human behavior.

As to what it may accomplish, it permits people to examine their views, see different points of view and perhaps understand them better or even change their own, sharpen their views or tongue, and enjoy themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

If so, what sort of deranged mind gets an endorphin rush from trying to make others feel bad?

How’d that make you feel?

 

[Politesse]

No, no, we aren't supposed to feel bad that he called us all "deranged" and implied that we're sadists. He said it politely. You know, no swears. It's fine.

 

[southernhybrid]

Uh, plenty of people enjoy a good debate. Even a good argument from time to time. That is, like, and incredibly common thing to enjoy.

This isn't a good debate or even a good argument. It's an insult party. Debates have rules. Plus, debates usually have a point, and a time limit which gives each side a chance to state their views in a coherent manner. That isn't what is happening here. Nobody ever wins these threads. They just go on and an on aimlessly. There must be a better way to discuss/argue things. Of course, I'm bad for even bothering to point this out, when you obviously don't get it.

I don't blame the mods for letting the insults fly. They have a hard job and can't keep up with all of this crap. Now, I better go read some articles in Scientific American or read a good book instead of trying to explain why I find some of these discussions so unreasonable.