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

[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'....

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.

That'a all well and good but that isn't what is happening here. The same stuff is repeated over and over again, and it's extremely rare for anyone to ever change their mind about anything. And, when that happens it's usually someone who already agrees with most of the other poster's viewpoint except for one minor detail.

Ok. Sure humans are the most destructive animals on the planet. They start wars. They torture and neglect other animals. They are violent, racist, sexist and often offensive to their peers or downright mean. Sometimes they even abuse their own children. Are you saying that we can't help ourselves because we are human? Is there not a better way of disagreeing?

I'm not just talking about this thread. I'm taking about many threads. For fuck sake, some liberals have referred to some posters who they view as moderates as Nazi's. WTF! That sure is a great way to help people unify against what's happening in the country these days! /s I think the late Rodney King was the more reasonable person when he said, "Why can't we all just get along". There is this concept called agreeing to disagree. It's usually done without the hatred and insults.

Ok. I apologize. I should have started a thread about this in the social science forum, but I didn't. It's something I've wondered about for a long time.

 

[laughing dog]

No need to apologize. I think to some degree we all get along. Frustration is part of life.

 

[Politesse]

Kinda hard to discuss social issues with folks of a certain background, though, without their taking something as a personal insult. "That's not FAIR! I didn't do it! Why are you accusing ME!" I mean, fascism is undeniably on the rise in this country. Calling a spade a spade is not "personally insulting" everyone who voted for Trump, it's just the truth. If he has his way unhindered, it's garland wars, secret police, and mysteriously missing neighbors all the way to a bank in the Caymans. Things aren't as bad in the UK yet, but it's not as though things are going well. We cannot prevent or avert this momentum if it is "impolite" to observe that it is happening, or that it affects more of us than just the right wing lunatic fringe. Bush instituted the Patriot Act so that our government could spy on our citizens. Obama expanded its powers. And it's not just powerful men. In Scotland, a famous chilldren's book author will pay people thousands of pounds in legal defense fees for anyone who videotapes women in the bathroom without their consent, as long as they claim that those women are men. Not for sexual pleasure (which her victims might not like but at least probably would never find out about) but for the specific purpose of legally and socially harassing them, and harassing any business that voluntarily "harbors" them.

And somewhere around all of this, there is the "common citizen", who is not a card-carrying Nazi, no. But in disposition and certainly in effect, they are a lot like the common citizens of Germany and Austria and Poland as the Nazis built their police state and people started to disappear, always conveniently looking the other way because so far it was only happening to other people.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, I know, I'm being alarmist. Yes, I know I'm a radical. Yes, I know no one here voiced support for the Nazis. Yes, I know I'm "just as bad" as the neo-Nazis, for daring to call them out. Yes, I know I'm personally responsible for Trump coming to power.

But I also know that I am not blind. And neither am I gagged yet.

 

[Toni]

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.

I’m not an academic but I’m married to one and have a lot of friends who are academics. Like you, I attended multiple universities.

I’ve lived all over the Midwest and for a while, lived outside and worked in Wash. DC. where it was impossible to escape politics.

As my father grew older and more ill and less able to hunt and fish, he took up ‘discussing’ politics. We did not agree, to put it politely. But we loved school other abd I think he respected the fact that I stood up for my position and could back them up, even if he did not like my conclusions. Perhaps that is how I learned my tolerance for other points of view and for loudly ‘ discussing’ things. I am not conflict averse. I prefer civility but other people are not always compliant ( irony here).

Personally, I’m not here for a formal debate. That was never my thing. I do like to read other people’s POV and engage in discussions of all kinds of issues.

I learn a lot from different posters and even when I disagree strenuously, I usually do respect the other person’s point of view or at least their right to have one.

There are a few issues that simply get people riled up. For the past 50 years, it’s been abortion rights. Now Transcrights have joined the party.

My experience with academics is that they have been trained to think deeply and to explore different ideas. It’s hella hard to earn a Ph.D. and most academics do not lose their ability to defend whatever position they take. If not born into them, it’s been learned and trained into them. And thank god for that!

You’ve talked about nurses standing up to docs. This is the same thing. Standing up and not mincing words.

 

[laughing dog]

So, male double rapists in female prisons?

Good idea or bad idea?

IMO, it is bad policy to allow any double rapist, regardless of sex or gender, access to a population of potential victims.

So the question to me is how to organize a prison as humanely as is feasible.

IMO, a transwoman who rapes women is a poseur in order to access victims. I would offer such a predator the choice of a woman’s prison with no contact with women or a men’s prison.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really, I get tired of being called names, being told I'm a hateful bigot, nazi adjacent, etc. while simultaneously being told that actual women are just overreacting when we don't want dicks in our showers.

Perhaps if you practiced showing respect to others, you would get it in return.

Poli, I would really like you to review some of our interactions from inception. Better yet, ask AI to read them out loud to you. There's a pretty clear pattern involved. Almost always, I start out respectful and patient... and you start out condescending and rude. I start out explaining my position and my reasoning, you insinuate that I'm an evil bigot. I present my case, you snip things out of context and mischaracterize them. After this has happened multiple times, I get sick of your shit and THEN I stop being nice and respectful toward you.

Perhaps you might consider actually being respectful yourself, instead of assuming that you have carte blanche to be an asshole and everyone else must defer to your sensitivities?

I haven't "forced" you to do anything. And no one is "forced" to pretend you aren't acting like a jerk when you intentionally say things you know will offend people, then play the victim when they react as exactly as one would expect. If you want the freedom to say whatever you like, the good news is that you already have it, but that comes with the necessary caveat that others have the exact same privilege.

Orwellian, really! As though the entire government weren't taking your side at present. You could probably have me arrested, if you really wanted to try, but supposedly I'm oppressing you somehow? What am I going to do, throw a hankerchief at the screen?

None of this has anything to do with my post. It's just one more case of you mischaracterizing my views, taking things out of context, and basically engaging in a bad-faith and malice-ridden fashion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really, I get tired of being called names, being told I'm a hateful bigot, nazi adjacent, etc. while simultaneously being told that actual women are just overreacting when we don't want dicks in our showers.

Perhaps if you practiced showing respect to others, you would get it in return...

She's shown respect for people over and over and over. She also gets defensive when people repeatedly malign her and purposely misinterpret her posts. I am beginning to think that a few of you here are just getting more and more annoyed that she won't just capitulate and shut her trap like a good girl.

The first thing she ever posted on this forum was a screed just like the ones in this thread, intentionally misnaming and misgendering people and demanding the "right" to shove other people in the closet.

Post proof or retract.

When was this supposed "respect" phase? She's certainly never shown me anything other than saloon manners.

All the goddamned time. Every time there's a new thread and I interact with you for the first time in that thread. Hell, I reset multiple times within a thread with you.

 

[Politesse]

ost proof or retract.

I retract. Upon review, you were actually posting here quite a while before you got onto politics.

 

[TSwizzle]

The University of Pennsylvania has backed down to Donald Trump’s Department of Education by agreeing to resolve Title IX violations over transgender former Quakers swimmer Lia Thomas. The Department of Education made the announcement Tuesday afternoon. Penn will now adopt strict definitions for male and female competitors under White House guidelines and erase Thomas from the school's history books. Furthermore, the school will restore records to swimmers impacted by Thomas' inclusion in women's NCAA competitions and issue an apology to those parties. The Ivy League institution’s decision comes after the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn – money that had been earmarked and funded by the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Daily Mail

Penn probably capitulated because of the money. A hollow victory but a victory none the less.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yep, all those high schoolers who've had penectomies and orchiectomies and vaginoplasties...

There aren't nearly as many transwomen who've gone through complete sex trait modification surgeries as you seem to think.

The number is not relevant, not even to your dismissive attitude.

Why do you think it's not relevant? I think it's fairly important. For example, if 95% of self-declared transwomen had undergone penectomies and orchiectomies, I'd have a lot less objection to them using women's facilities. If the vast majority of transwomen didn't have a penis, I wouldn't object to them using the female side of the nude spa, seeing as they haven't got a dick to expose . To me, the fact that less than 80% of the males who demand access to female intimate spaces on the basis of them being "women" have actual wedding tackle is very, very relevant.

I might still object in other particular situations, but the reasons would be different. For example, I might still take umbrage at someone who spent the majority of their life with a male body and male presentation being lauded as "The highest paid female CEO"... but that has little to do with their body. That objection has a lot more to do with a male essentially appropriating recognition that is intended to drive equality. It's the same objection I would have if Rachel Dolezal were to be lauded as "The best black leader" or some such - it's an affront to the spirit of the recognition.

What do you think this means? What psychological transformation do you think occurs?

I think any male who makes the psychological transformation would not be a direct threat to women.

That didn't answer my question. You seem to be assuming that there is some sort of psychological change that occurs, but I have no idea what change you think that is. In what way does the psychology of a male alter when they decide that they're actually a woman on the inside?

Perhaps we can start a bit more basic: What is the psychological difference between males and females, how significant are those differences, and how large are the variances within each sex? Is there material overlap in the distributions by sex, or are the means of each outside the 1sd for the other?

 

[Emily Lake]

I am looking at that post, and still not seeing what the hell you're on about. No matter what way you explain it, Marxism simply does not naturally follow from policies of non-discrimination.

Marxism doesn't follow from policies of non-discrimination.
Marxism has shaped policies of equity.

 

[Emily Lake]

And I’m not clear how pointing out trees are sexed is misogyny.

Feel free to explain

Given that you don’t understand botany or biology of any species, and being utterly and completely wrong in what you think you know, it is difficult to assess your belief about trees as anything but meaningless and in fact is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Can you be more specific? Exactly what has seanie gotten wrong in any of his (or her, I don't know) posts that reference the biology of sex as it pertains to animals or plants?

 

[Toni]

And I’m not clear how pointing out trees are sexed is misogyny.

Feel free to explain

Given that you don’t understand botany or biology of any species, and being utterly and completely wrong in what you think you know, it is difficult to assess your belief about trees as anything but meaningless and in fact is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Can you be more specific? Exactly what has seanie gotten wrong in any of his (or her, I don't know) posts that reference the biology of sex as it pertains to animals or plants?

Everything. Specifically refusing to understand that within a species of tree, some come in male and female forms ( do not get a female ginko tree!!) and some are self pollinating: they are, for lack of a better term, hermaphrodites.

 

[Emily Lake]

Only in the reproductive sense. Cultures all over the world have recognized that not every one falls into one of two categories. Such individuals were not only recognized but held in esteem in many cultures throughout the world.

This is incorrect.

No culture in the world has ever recognized a different actual sex, and if they did they were wrong. On the other hand, some cultures throughout the world have recognized a third gender role within their society.

Here's something you might give some thought to. Those societies that recognize a third gender role are almost exclusively⁽¹⁾ societies with extremely strict sex-based divisions and rights within their cultures. They are pretty much exclusively patriarchal, and women are treated as secondary to men. They're societies that divide up chores and duties and privileges on the basis of sex. And in those societies, they create an in-between-category for males who don't live up to the rigid expectation of men in that society - and that in-between-category is almost always populated by gay men. Interestingly, those third roles allow men to be excluded from all of the privileges and responsibilities that men are normally expected to have... but it does NOT reduce them down all the way to the restrictions and expectations of women. It gives them a status that is below "real men" but above "real women". And at no point whatsoever are those men assumed to be a different actual sex.

I am aware of exactly one culture that allowed for a third gender category for females, that being Albanian Sworn Virgins. That was a legal category that allowed females to own property when there wasn't a male to inherit and run it - and it came at the cost of being forbidden to marry or reproduce. So sure, they get to take on the more privileged male function in there culture, but only if they relinquish any right to have a family of their own. Not sure that's really a win.



⁽¹⁾ I say almost exclusively, because I'm not an expert. That said, I am unaware of any that does NOT follow that pattern. I am unaware of any culture that has a historically established third gender role that has actual liberty with respect to what roles each sex can take on.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were interested in how other cultures deal with those who do not fit nicely into little boxes labeled male or female.

First off, none of this thread is actually about the rare individuals with ambiguous genitalia at birth who are difficult to classify as either male or female. All of that is a gigantic red herring intended to distract attention away from the issue of entirely karyotypical and phenotypical males of the humans species that demand access to spaces where women are naked or vulnerable as a legal right, without consent from any of the women who don't want to see their dicks and who don't want dick-havers to see them naked.

Secondly, none of the cultures you mentioned actually see those people as being a different SEX.

If you want to argue that sex and gender are discretely different things with no meaningful connection, you better keep it straight.

 

[seanie]

Everything. Specifically refusing to understand that within a species of tree, some come in male and female forms ( do not get a female ginko tree!!) and some are self pollinating: they are, for lack of a better term, hermaphrodites.

So you did fail to understand my use of the word “both”?

 

[Emily Lake]

This is about to veer far off topic... but this notion that private property is somehow an affront to others, paired with the insinuation that all fences are somehow bad, is naive and unsophisticated. You're doing a really good job of not explicitly saying so, but the tacit thrust of your post is the complete elimination of property rights.

What's infantile is your reduction of my post to "all fences are bad", which of course I did not say and wouldn't say. I do however, deny the notion that helping someone get past a fence, if that fence is barring there access to a public space that they are forced to pay for, is an injustice. If I'm going to pay for the operation of a park just like any other citizen, then I should have equal access to that park just like any other citizen.

In truth, I'm not a huge fan of the Enclosure Acts, but I'm prctical-minded enough to understand that that ship has sailed. What I don't see is why private property rights would in any way apply to publically owned land, insititutions, or services, which seems to be what you're saying if you think that letting kids onto a public field requires a "complete elimination of property rights".

And why do you think you're paying for that park? The baseball team pays for it. From ticket sales.

What Bomb and I noted was an opaque fence. That's about ticket revenue.

There's a public soccer field near here with a very beefy, lockable fence. Still almost totally transparent, though. (The fence exists because the field sits several feet below terrain, it also serves as an emergency retention basin. It would make a mess if it was used, but much less of a mess than if that water were rampaging through the city.)

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.

Meh. Apparently you feel the need to throw your doors wide open and allow anyone who wants to be there free access to your house?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I swear I made exactly this argument in a different thread...

 

[Emily Lake]

Except that I dismissed nothing. I've tried to explain in the tiniest words possible that no one denies sex exists, and "sometimes matters".

Mmm.... Not really though.

You will say that nobody denies that sex exists, sure. But you'll also argue that sex is an ambiguous uncertain category, that nobody actually knows what sex another person is unless they're actually having a sexual relationship, and that it's essentially a spectrum of poorly defined attributes that anybody can have. So of one side of your mouth you say it exists, and out of the other side you rob it of all meaning and distinction.

Similarly you give lip service to sex mattering, but you simultaneously refuse to identify which spaces and services are the ones where it matters. And to make matters worse, you seem to persistently imply that gender identity matters more than sex in all of those cases, and that disallowing males to cross sex-based restrictions at their whim is a gross violation of non-discrimination.