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

[Toni]

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.

Which cultures were those?

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.

so, you are not interested. Understood.

 

[laughing dog]

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 your objection is based on numbers, then it is relevant, but it seems your position is based solely on probabilities of expected various issues.

 

[Emily Lake]

View attachment 51211

I'm far more moderate than you... but I've also drifted left a bit left over the past couple of decades. I used to be about one square left of center, but about the same down the libertarian scale.

 

[seanie]

I’ve barely changed in 25 years.

It’s just that everyone else has.

 

[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.

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

So you don't care if it gets female women killed to allow males into female intimate spaces?

Maybe you find that to be a compelling argument, but I don't.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

A good and passionate debate, sure. But in real life, when you can see the way your words hit, most people don't go around insinuating that the people they're interacting with are evil nazi bigots who want to genocide people.

 

[Emily Lake]

ost proof or retract.

I retract.

Thank you.

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

Dude, I've been posting here (with a break for a few years) for nearly 25 years. This interaction with you is an example of the way in which you tend to make baseless assertions as if they're fact, especially when doing so paints your interlocutor in a bad light and lets you feel justified in maligning them.

If you actually think hard about it, and go back in time... there have been a LOT of things you and I have agreed on. There are always some things on which we will disagree, and historically have done so. But this tendency of you to paint me as some sort of hard-right bigot is an entirely new invention unevidenced by history. It's also deeply illogical and fallacious. Try to remember that my views have been pretty stable for two dozen years or so, with relatively minor shifts... and perhaps consider whether or not it's your position that has drifted?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I don't believe that seanie has made this mistake at all. Admittedly, I also don't see much relevance.

I know that I have explicitly addressed the fact that many (not all) plants are anisogamous, and that many (not all) plants are hermaphroditic.

I'll also point out that many plants thrive when they cross-pollinate, even if they're hermaphroditic. Even plants that are capable of self-pollination fare better when they're not constantly fishing their own genetic pool.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which cultures were those?

The ones that YOU linked to to support your errant claim that many cultures recognize multiple sexes.

so, you are not interested. Understood.

How the hell do you reach this conclusion?

 

[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 your objection is based on numbers, then it is relevant, but it seems your position is based solely on probabilities of expected various issues.

It's based on neither of those... or both depending on how you look at it. Consider it to be based on Value-at-Risk.

Probability of encountering a transwoman in the women's showers at the local gym? Low.
Probability of encountering a penis in the women's showers at the local gym, given that a transwoman has been encountered there? Pretty high.
Impact of encountering a penis in the women's showers at the local gym? EXTREMELY LARGE.

At the end of the day, we're now in a situation where we have to make a rule that we didn't previously think needed to be made. I certainly never thought we would have a need for an explicit rule that excludes males from female intimate spaces and services. But here we are. Like I said, if the vast majority of transwomen were surgically altered, this would be a very different discussion. It's the fact that the vast majority of transwomen are entirely intact that makes it an issue.

Generally speaking, women don't want dicks and balls in our shared showers, changing rooms, nude spas, and prisons. The gender identity of the person to whom those dicks and balls are attached is entirely irrelevant. We don't care if they've taken the time to put on make-up and picked out a fashionable twin set to go with their dressy slacks, or whether they showed up with a beard and boots. How they present is as irrelevant as how they think about themselves inside their own minds. What matters to most women is the body that is in our midst when we are naked or vulnerable.

 

[seanie]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex.

What was it about the word “both” that confused you Toni?

 

[Politesse]

ost proof or retract.

I retract.

Thank you.

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

Dude, I've been posting here (with a break for a few years) for nearly 25 years. This interaction with you is an example of the way in which you tend to make baseless assertions as if they're fact, especially when doing so paints your interlocutor in a bad light and lets you feel justified in maligning them.

If you actually think hard about it, and go back in time... there have been a LOT of things you and I have agreed on.

Such as the above correction, which I note that you have accepted with little grace...

There are always some things on which we will disagree, and historically have done so. But this tendency of you to paint me as some sort of hard-right bigot is an entirely new invention unevidenced by history.

I don't think you are a "hard right bigot". I am well aware that you consider yourself a liberal Democrat feminist, and believe that the things you type about transgendered people and cis men among others are factual, unbiased, and reasonable. Kind and compassionate even. You are, more than you would ever fully acknowledge, a classic Democratic voter.

I also don't think your personality or reputation are any more relevant to the subject of the thread than any of the other derails.

Try to remember that my views have been pretty stable for two dozen years or so, with relatively minor shifts... and perhaps consider whether or not it's your position that has drifted?

Having "relatively" unchanging views for 24 years, even as the world around you has changed, is not the brag you think it is. At least not if you ask me. The world has changed greatly in that time. I disagree that the right-wing talking points you now parrot on certain issues like trans people and immigrants were always your perspective, though. Many of those tropes hadn't even been invented yet, in 2000.

Myself, I was sixteen and just starting college, two dozen years ago, and I am proud to have changed quite a few of my views since then. Most of them, really. Life has taught me a great deal, and my schooling even more. If I have "drifted" during that time, I find no reason at all to feel ashamed that I have done so.

 

[seanie]

Well I’m definitely an atheist, and it would appear I’m still quite left wing.

Go figure.

 

[Politesse]

Ha, I definitely was not an atheist in 2001! As some here can attest. I used to get caricatured as a fundy Christian missionary on these atheist fora, not a Woke Marxist SJW.

 

[seanie]

Cultists gonna cult.

 

[Politesse]

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...

You may well have done. Indeed, I would hope that you had. Like a lot of Supreme Court decisions, Roe was never meant to stand alone as the law of the land, only a nevessary stop gap to protect what the Justices felt was the Constitutional right of the citizen, until the time when (they hoped) the legislature could consider the matter and better define the government's position through a clearly stated law. Instead, a rickety and inconsistent chain of Stare Decisis decisions was constructed, as conservative theocrats watched for vulnerabilities, planned, and waited for the right appointments.

 

[Politesse]

Cultists gonna cult.

I hasten to add that neither portrayal was ever accurate.

 

[seanie]

Just a cheap joke on my part.

 

[Toni]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex.

What was it about the word “both” that confused you Toni?

I’m not at all confused about what gametes are necessary ( but still not sufficient) in order to produce offspring.

I do not believe that reproduction is the only function of sex.

In English, the word sex can mean multiple things: sexual intercourse between two humans, a variety of sex acts, to differentiate between make and female, to determine sex usually of a farm animal, as an abstract idea often to convey the notion of exciting/new and probably dozens more uses for the word in the US.

 

[seanie]

No, instead of evading the question, simply answer, in respect to trees, what you think I was referring to when I said “both”.

Can you do that Toni?