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

[bilby]

So even if the folks who have wasted thousands of posts in this thread arguing about how dangerous transwomen might be were 100% correct; Even if every transwoman were not only a manly man, but also a vile rapist and sexual predator; Even if these unsubstantiated slurs were completely true in every regard - banning transwomen from women's spaces would achieve absolutely nothing to protect against that threat.

You're just going to get sexually assaulted anyway, you silly hens, might as well just give up and come to terms with it.

Seriously?

You need professional help if that's what you got out of what I said.

I mean, I knew it was a waste of my time to re-engage with this thread, but I didn't think it's denzens had become quite so unhinged from reality.

I mean, seriously??

 

[bilby]

In summary:

1. Everyone is either male, or female.
2. There is one definitive test that tells us which category a particular person falls into.
3. Which test that is varies from case to case...

SRY Positive and has the ability to receive testosterone.

That includes all combinations of chromosomes that include at least one Y *except* CAIS (in my opinion), as well as de la Chapelle syndrome which has two X chromosomes with a translocated SRY gene. Some people will argue that CAIS should be considered male, given that their gonads differentiated to testicular tissue, but their mullerian ducts mature and their wolffian ducts dissolve, so as far as I'm concerned they end up having a female reproductive system. They also develop female secondary sex characteristics during puberty.

3. Which test that is varies from case to case... and it needs a lot of thinking to justify each time. But it's worth it because it allows us to defend our beloved false dichotomy.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're just going to get sexually assaulted anyway, you silly hens, might as well just give up and come to terms with it.

Seriously?

You need professional help if that's what you got out of what I said.

I mean, I knew it was a waste of my time to re-engage with this thread, but I didn't think it's denzens had become quite so unhinged from reality.

I mean, seriously??

Funny story about that...

In summary:

1. Everyone is either male, or female.
2. There is one definitive test that tells us which category a particular person falls into.
3. Which test that is varies from case to case...

SRY Positive and has the ability to receive testosterone.

That includes all combinations of chromosomes that include at least one Y *except* CAIS (in my opinion), as well as de la Chapelle syndrome which has two X chromosomes with a translocated SRY gene. Some people will argue that CAIS should be considered male, given that their gonads differentiated to testicular tissue, but their mullerian ducts mature and their wolffian ducts dissolve, so as far as I'm concerned they end up having a female reproductive system. They also develop female secondary sex characteristics during puberty.

3. Which test that is varies from case to case... and it needs a lot of thinking to justify each time. But it's worth it because it allows us to defend our beloved false dichotomy.

Seriously? You need professional help if that's what you got out of what Emily said. She explicitly provided a test where which test that is doesn't vary from case to case.

You appear to have re-engaged with the thread in the hope that it wouldn't be quite so unhinged from reality, but failed because you brought the quite so unhinged from reality with you -- much like a guy who went into a women's single-sex space to get away from toxic masculinity, but failed because he brought the toxic masculinity with him.

 

[Bomb#20]

What would be factually accurate would be to say that Semenya is a male with a disorder of sexual development that resulted in ambiguous or misleading genitals being recorded at birth.

So you think it's more accurate to say she's a male with a DSD that resulted in female appearance at birth, which led to female legal status and female upbringing. Whether that is why she has a female self identity is unknown/unknowable. Either way, it's her intersex traits at the heart of her legal case.

Is Semenya's XY chromosome pairing the definitive trait that makes her a male? Heather Heyer has the XY genotype and you said she's female since she was able to give birth.

You appear to have answered your own question.

 

[Arctish]

What would be factually accurate would be to say that Semenya is a male with a disorder of sexual development that resulted in ambiguous or misleading genitals being recorded at birth.

So you think it's more accurate to say she's a male with a DSD that resulted in female appearance at birth, which led to female legal status and female upbringing. Whether that is why she has a female self identity is unknown/unknowable. Either way, it's her intersex traits at the heart of her legal case.

Is Semenya's XY chromosome pairing the definitive trait that makes her a male? Heather Heyer has the XY genotype and you said she's female since she was able to give birth.

You appear to have answered your own question.

I have my own opinion but Emily Lake rejects "intersex" as a valid category. She has stated her opinion that Heather Heyer is female and Castor Semenya is male despite both of them having the XY karyotype, apparently because Heyer grew a uterus while Semenya's vagina doesn't lead to one (that we know of).

She has not said whether she considers the person referenced earlier in this thread who had a penis, testis, and fully formed uterus with attached fallopian tube to be male, although I presume she does considering his proven ability to father children.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just want to be clear: I’m not afraid or unaccepting of trans people. I think that it is exceedingly rare for a trans person to attack a woman.

But it is not irrational or bigoted for women to be concerned about male bodies in female spaces.

We do not need more males telling us we will get used to it and that it’s no big deal.

This.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We still have no good evidence of a female-presenting person harming anyone in a women's room and the repeated presenting of serious flawed evidence makes me think there is no good evidence. You're defending against a non-threat. But we have clear evidence of harm to people using the bathroom that matches their birth but not what they present as. The transman doesn't have a penis to rape you with so you're safe, but he very well might end up dead and you don't seem to care. And you will have no good ability to detect when an actual predator walks in. You're running from a fake risk right to a real one.

You don't seem to be paying attention to what Emily writes -- you're arguing against some clueless Republican legislature, not against her. Of course she cares if a transman ends up dead; what she does not seem to care about is if a transman uses a men's room. Haven't you noticed that all her posts are about men in the women's room, not about women in the men's room? You're the only one talking about that. Well, you and those clueless Republican legislatures, who all seem to have bought into the dumbass notion that if we have single-sex spaces for women then it means we also have to have single-sex spaces for men. Not even Republican legislators are dumb enough to think men being a danger to women proves women are also a danger to men, so apparently they think symbolic fairness is more important than real fairness. What can you expect from a bunch of flag-burning-ban enthusiasts? They think protecting a symbol of freedom is more important than protecting freedom.

So what do you propose for male-presenting female-anatomy people? If you let them into the women's you make it effectively impossible to keep actual males out.

A ladies' room is, in essence, an affirmative action program -- it's a reservation of a certain number of slots for women because women have been historically discriminated against by men, for about forty million years. I don't expect you to approve of the custom on that account -- you are after all a well-known opponent of affirmative action for principled and perfectly coherent reasons. That isn't the point. The point is, if you were arguing, say, that Berkeley should not have an affirmative action program for black students, you wouldn't do it by arguing "Well, if there are slots reserved for black students then there would also have to be slots reserved for white students. Surely you don't want there to be whites-only slots.", would you? If you made such an argument people would laugh their asses off at you. But that is in effect the argument you are making every time Emily or whoever argues against making women endure co-ed intimate spaces and you reply with yet another "What about transmen?" rejoinder. So give it a rest.

I bring it up because her solution doesn't leave any viable place for them.

 

[laughing dog]

I think social expectations either change or they don’t. Either people become more accepting and less fearful of trans or they don’t. Laws may change the speed at which expectations alter. If the laws are successful, the expectations change faster and wider. If not, the change moves in the opposite direction.

I just want to be clear: I’m not afraid or unaccepting of trans people. I think that it is exceedingly rare for a trans person to attack a woman.

But it is not irrational or bigoted for women to be concerned about male bodies in female spaces.

The issue is how to reconcile your sentiments in the 1st paragraph with those in the 2nd paragraph into social practice.

We do not need more males telling us we will get used to it and that it’s no big deal.

Who is doing that?

[Fixed quote tag]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Transgenders" are like "illegal immigrants" and "dangerous vaccines". A problem that is being concocted to distract some of the public.

Male bovine excrement. The problem transgenders cause women is not concocted.

If it's not concocted why do we keep seeing poor evidence being trumpeted? Why do we not see any good evidence? Why did this suddenly show up when the reich wing needed a bogeyman?

 

[Bomb#20]

You don't seem to be paying attention to what Emily writes -- you're arguing against some clueless Republican legislature, not against her. Of course she cares if a transman ends up dead; what she does not seem to care about is if a transman uses a men's room. Haven't you noticed that all her posts are about men in the women's room, not about women in the men's room? You're the only one talking about that. Well, you and those clueless Republican legislatures, who all seem to have bought into the dumbass notion that if we have single-sex spaces for women then it means we also have to have single-sex spaces for men. ...

So what do you propose for male-presenting female-anatomy people?

It's not about me; you need to stop misrepresenting Emily. But I laid out my proposal in post #2421. Male-presenting female-anatomy people should use the all-gender room if they're male-presenting on purpose; otherwise they get their choice. And if there is no all-gender room, chisel the "Men" sign off the men's room door and put up an "All Genders" sign.

If you let them into the women's you make it effectively impossible to keep actual males out.

Why do you believe that? We spent the whole 20th century letting them into the women's while effectively keeping actual males out. Social convention worked almost all the time. Sure, it could be awkward for people like your SIL, who might need to mutter something about glandular conditions and/or produce an ID. But that was better than the current situation -- leftist ideologues insisting non-ops have a right to be considered female without even a psychiatrist's sign-off and getting support from spineless DMVs, thereby causing the public at large to no longer have a reason to believe an "F" on a driver's license is truthful.

... But that is in effect the argument you are making every time Emily or whoever argues against making women endure co-ed intimate spaces and you reply with yet another "What about transmen?" rejoinder. So give it a rest.

I bring it up because her solution doesn't leave any viable place for them.

"Her" solution? When has Emily ever said male-presenting female-anatomy people shouldn't use the men's room? You're attacking the Republican solution and calling it Emily's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a problem and you don't get to wave it away.

It's a tiny problem in comparison to other risks women have to face.

Exactly. Don't focus on "risk". Compare risks. When risks are presented without such a comparison it's at best stupid, at worst it's intended to mislead. And what is the cost of addressing the risk? There's always a cost--balance that cost vs what that cost could accomplish if put to different use.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice.

Some is not a choice, and is likely to have a neurological basis (unclear whether it's congenital or acquired). Some is a paraphilia. Some is a misplaced fixation driven by autism. Some is a coping mechanism for trauma related to their sexed body. And some is simply exploitation of a gigantic gaping loophole that lets males be in the presence of non-consenting naked females with no consequences.

If we had any remotely reasonable way to tell these apart, it would be an entirely different discussion, and there would be many options for how best to address those few with a neurological basis.

We do have a reasonable way, thry are called doctors, psychologists, social workers.

But like I said, some people want to pretend this isn't real which makes it harder to allow proper medical care for these people.

I feel, that if gender dysphoria was not mocked by many in public and used as political fodder, and those with gender dysphoria had appropriate treatment, this fear could become negligible.

I despise the way it's being used by republicans, but I also despise the way it's being used by democrats.

Moore-Coulter.

Bud Light has some trans do an add and the right wing are shooting up beer cans. Trump used national ads mocking transgenders and saying Harris supported them.

Democrats... it isn't really a thing other than acknowledging they exist. Sports, bathrooms, locker rooms are a muddled issue that requires a capacity for broader empathy for all parties in order to begin addressing.

Like, literally you could post that you have just now realized that you're trans, and piles of people would immediately support your *right* to go into the female side of the korean spa and get your junk out.

what about my Mom's junk? Can I put all of that hoarded and useless crap there too?

It shouldn't be politicized. But this extremity should never have been supported by politicians.

it generally isn't. You can find some, but it isn't a broadly accepted policy ideal among Democrats.

This entire topic would be a whole lot easier to tackle (for a large chunk anyway) if men would simply be decent to other men who like to present in female-typical ways.

Indeed. But let me mansplain why you are wrong about that....

 

[Toni]

I think social expectations either change or they don’t. Either people become more accepting and less fearful of trans or they don’t. Laws may change the speed at which expectations alter. If the laws are successful, the expectations change faster and wider. If not, the change moves in the opposite direction.

I just want to be clear: I’m not afraid or unaccepting of trans people. I think that it is exceedingly rare for a trans person to attack a woman.

But it is not irrational or bigoted for women to be concerned about male bodies in female spaces.

The issue is how to reconcile your sentiments in the 1st paragraph with those in the 2nd paragraph into social practice.

We do not need more males telling us we will get used to it and that it’s no big deal.

Who is doing that?

Read the thread. I'm not going through the thread and quoting or pointing out post numbers. Concerns expressed by women are at best, hand waved and sometimes women are called bigots with bigotry akin to white people being afraid to share water fountains or rest rooms with black folks.

Men, at best, are telling women that it's no big deal. And it's not. For them. Shit, most of the men posting here do not even have daughters so it's pretty useless to ask how they'd feel about their 12 year old daughter using the women's locker room at the Y with a non-surgical adult male in the shower next to her. Probably not as bad as she would feel. And of course, how would they be able to tell her whether or not some stranger was a danger or not? But only a few men posting on this forum much less this thread have children or daughters. I no longer expect men to give a shit about adult women.

[Fixed quote tag]

 

[Bomb#20]

Semenya's sex marker on a birth certificate being inaccurately recorded does not make Semenya female. His upbringing and legal status might be argued to make him socially a woman in the eyes of a lot of people, and I genuinely don't care how Semenya thinks of himself, or how he likes to present (which, by the way, is as a very typical male). Whatever makes him happy is fine by me in situations where sex doesn't matter.

... Semenya has 5-ARD, and at puberty, he got the same testosterone flood that all other boys get around that same age. He ... he ...he ... he ... he ... He is male in every single way that matters when it comes to athletic performance.

You know what doesn't make a difference in sports? What gender stereotype a person feels they best align with.

...
And why are you calling Semenya "he"? She's got a vagina.

Semenya is a guevedoce. That literally means "testicles at twelve". Semenya is over twelve.

She calls herself a "different kind of woman". If you want to get rid of gendered pronouns, that's one thing. But if you're just being a dick, that's not cool.

Want it or not, English has gendered singular pronouns, and Semenya's gender is male, so using "he" is correct English. What grounds do you have for implying that telling the truth in correct English is being a dick and isn't cool? Who died and put the gender ideology subculture in charge of defining "dick" and "cool" for the whole Anglosphere? The English language is not you lot's private property. Why the bejesus should the rest of us make word choices that explicitly stipulate the correctness of the ideology we are disputing and implicitly stipulate that its ideologues are the rightful authorities on what does or does not constitute misgendering? Why the bejesus should the rest of us, not to put too fine a point on it, lie for you? Would you also like us to doff our hats and tug our forelocks in your presence, Your Ladyship?

When I was a kid it was generally taken for granted by social convention that everyone was a Christian. Anyone who had doubts about the correctness of Christianity was expected to keep quiet about them and pay lip service to the common "universally" shared belief. Anyone who failed to play his assigned role in that consensus-theater was considered not cool and just being a dick, by the Christians. This social convention of keeping our views to ourselves was of course asymmetrical -- Christians were counted cool and undickish when they made a public show of their opinions. Is there some way you're an iota different from the Christians of my childhood? Do Emily and the other gender critical people here have some unscientific opinion of our own that you're volunteering to pretend to agree with for the sake of politely respecting our sensibilities? This "cool" non-"dick" lying you're advocating -- is it a one-way street? Is it a mission you'd send your troops on but wouldn't go on yourself?

Guys like you are a huge problem.*

Yes, infidels are always a huge problem for beliefs with power ambition.

* see what I did there?

What, you mean calling her a guy? Big deal, women call other women "guys" all the time. I've even heard guys do it.

 

[Arctish]

Semenya's sex marker on a birth certificate being inaccurately recorded does not make Semenya female. His upbringing and legal status might be argued to make him socially a woman in the eyes of a lot of people, and I genuinely don't care how Semenya thinks of himself, or how he likes to present (which, by the way, is as a very typical male). Whatever makes him happy is fine by me in situations where sex doesn't matter.

... Semenya has 5-ARD, and at puberty, he got the same testosterone flood that all other boys get around that same age. He ... he ...he ... he ... he ... He is male in every single way that matters when it comes to athletic performance.

You know what doesn't make a difference in sports? What gender stereotype a person feels they best align with.

...
And why are you calling Semenya "he"? She's got a vagina.

Semenya is a guevedoce. That literally means "testicles at twelve".

Guevedoce means "penis at twelve". The testicles can remain underdeveloped and undescended.

Semenya is over twelve.

She calls herself a "different kind of woman". If you want to get rid of gendered pronouns, that's one thing. But if you're just being a dick, that's not cool.

Want it or not, English has gendered singular pronouns, and Semenya's gender is male, so using "he" is correct English.

Semenya has male sex traits. She also has female sex traits. Her gender is female.

What grounds do you have for implying that telling the truth in correct English is being a dick and isn't cool?

It's not the truth. It's Emily Lake imposing her ideas about Semenya's gender on Semenya herself, despite Semenya having stated her gender very clearly.

Tell me something Bomb#20. If you asked 100 random guys if someone who has a vagina could ever be a man, and didn't reference DSDs or chromosomes, how many of them do you think would say "yes"?

Who died and put the gender ideology subculture in charge of defining "dick" and "cool" for the whole Anglosphere? The English language is not you lot's private property. Why the bejesus should the rest of us make word choices that explicitly stipulate the correctness of the ideology we are disputing and implicitly stipulate that its ideologues are the rightful authorities on what does or does not constitute misgendering? Why the bejesus should the rest of us, not to put too fine a point on it, lie for you? Would you also like us to doff our hats and tug our forelocks in your presence, Your Ladyship?

When I was a kid it was generally taken for granted by social convention that everyone was a Christian. Anyone who had doubts about the correctness of Christianity was expected to keep quiet about them and pay lip service to the common "universally" shared belief. Anyone who failed to play his assigned role in that consensus-theater was considered not cool and just being a dick, by the Christians. This social convention of keeping our views to ourselves was of course asymmetrical -- Christians were counted cool and undickish when they made a public show of their opinions. Is there some way you're an iota different from the Christians of my childhood? Do Emily and the other gender critical people here have some unscientific opinion of our own that you're volunteering to pretend to agree with for the sake of politely respecting our sensibilities? This "cool" non-"dick" lying you're advocating -- is it a one-way street? Is it a mission you'd send your troops on but wouldn't go on yourself?

What about Emily imposing her belief about Semenya's gender on everybody else, including Semenya?

Emily Lake can think what she likes. She and I agree on a lot of things, and she has very good information on the biological aspects of sex and sexual development. But she's very rigid when it comes to gender, and I believe she's pretty conservative about gender norms. That's fine for her to believe and advocate. But it's disrespectful and IMO pretty fracking arrogant to declare someone is mistaken about their own gender, especially when their self image conforms with social norms.

Semenya has a vagina. For a lot of people, that is the defining trait of a woman - not her ovaries, not her uterus, not her breasts. It doesn't matter if she's had a radical hysterectomy and itty-bitty man titties. If she has a vagina, men will treat her as a woman. But it appears Emily Lake won't, even if Semenya makes it very clear that her gender is female and therefore, the correct pronoun in English to use to refer to her is "she".

Guys like you are a huge problem.*

Yes, infidels are always a huge problem for beliefs with power ambition.

* see what I did there?

What, you mean calling her a guy? Big deal, women call other women "guys" all the time. I've even heard guys do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if I removed your brain and kept you alive as just a brain in a jar, would you still think of yourself as a woman? Or would you say, "I don't have a uterus anymore, therefore I have no gender identity."

And if I did a brain transplant and put you in a body with a penis, would you start claiming you were a man?

This is an absurdity. *IF* we were capable of transplanting brains, then the entire fucking topic of this discussion is moot.

It's not absurd. If we don't destroy ourselves in the not too distant future we will probably be able to move a mind into a computer.

That said, if you were to stick my brain inside a typical male body, with all of the male bits and pieces and skeleton and attachment points and capabilities, I would be a man. I might be a behaviorally unusual and very confused man, but I would observably be a man.

And many of us do not agree with that position. You would be in a male body, that wouldn't make your mind male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously, though, why would we think something with as many clear morphological "sliders" as the human body clearly has, would lack for "sliders" in the brain, or that important parts that vary would only vary in one dimension and all at the same time?

That's just silly, and would prevent mutations from surprising everyone.

While I agree with what you're saying you missed my point--I was saying she nailed it in they react as if non-standard is defective.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But we have solid evidence for harm caused by having to use the bathroom that doesn't match your presentation.

What evidence is this? Where can it be found?

It was presented in this thread. Exactly as we expected--male-presenting individuals using the women's causes arrests and violence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Seriously, though, why would we think something with as many clear morphological "sliders" as the human body clearly has, would lack for "sliders" in the brain, or that important parts that vary would only vary in one dimension and all at the same time?

That's just silly, and would prevent mutations from surprising everyone.

While I agree with what you're saying you missed my point--I was saying she nailed it in they react as if non-standard is defective.

Ah, you're referencing the issue of forced normativity, of calling conditions "disorders" and villifying people through this purity impulse.

Yes, that's how people react to seeing what they do not understand.

 

[Bomb#20]

But we have solid evidence for harm caused by having to use the bathroom that doesn't match your presentation.

What evidence is this? Where can it be found?

It was presented in this thread. Exactly as we expected--male-presenting individuals using the women's causes arrests and violence.

Sounds like you're talking about Strobel. And you're the guy who wrote:

"Except I see repeated references to very low quality evidence, no unquestionable cases.
And reality has taught me that a sea of low quality data almost always means false."​

Strobel is low quality evidence if ever there was any. She isn't even what you're claiming her as an example of, "having to use the bathroom that doesn't match your presentation". She didn't have to use the women's room; that was her choice. What's worse, there's no indication that what happened to her was because of her male presentation. Before she went into the women's room she went into the men's room, and then she identified herself to the bar staff as a man. It's entirely likely that if she hadn't done those things and had just gone into the women's room in the first place, nothing bad would have happened to her. Strobel gave the bar owner every reason to think the "F" on her license was a lie; that's on her.