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

[TomC]

What's worse, there's no indication that what happened to her was because of her male presentation.

Based on the small information available, the head line could probably be more accurately stated:
DRUNK IN BAR GETS BELLIGERENT. POLICE CALLED.
It needn't have anything to do with Strobel's sex or presentation.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

You sound very much like I used to be: assuming that social sciences had no real science to them, which, as it turns out, is quite false. Which I learned in college and after. Sure intro classes were very easy but so were intro science and math courses.

You didn't understand her point.

Yes, there is merit to the social sciences. But they are full of untestable stuff that has no business being called science. Real science needs either high precision observations or a whole lot of observations, and the social sciences have a very hard time actually doing this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question is how. I don’t know the answer but having men tell girls and women to just get over it—when what women and girls are afraid of is violence at the hands of men! is more than a little rich.

The problem is that fear is not the same thing as risk.

We see no good evidence of actual risk.

We see the whole issue blowing up when the reich wing wanted a bogeyman. Previously it was working fine.

We see repeated objections based on things that aren't actually risks.

All in all it looks very much like the attempts to keep the colored out of the white bathrooms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

As you say it's the coaches etc--the people in a position of authority. Not the other players.

You're stepping around a dollar to pick up a penny.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We aren't going to properly and humanely settle this issue without making two things clear, transgender people exist, transgender people are human beings. Once we can accept that as a culture, we can then provide them the medical support they need to be able to help determine and accept who they really are. Once we get there, we can cut this noise about danger because ultimately, the fear is caused by one simple thing, doubting who these people say they are.

The objective is to remove them from society.

 

[Toni]

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

You sound very much like I used to be: assuming that social sciences had no real science to them, which, as it turns out, is quite false. Which I learned in college and after. Sure intro classes were very easy but so were intro science and math courses.

You didn't understand her point.

Yes, there is merit to the social sciences. But they are full of untestable stuff that has no business being called science. Real science needs either high precision observations or a whole lot of observations, and the social sciences have a very hard time actually doing this.

Nope. I absolutely DID and DO understand her point—and yours. You are simply not correct.

 

[Toni]

The question is how. I don’t know the answer but having men tell girls and women to just get over it—when what women and girls are afraid of is violence at the hands of men! is more than a little rich.

The problem is that fear is not the same thing as risk.

We see no good evidence of actual risk.

We see the whole issue blowing up when the reich wing wanted a bogeyman. Previously it was working fine.

We see repeated objections based on things that aren't actually risks.

All in all it looks very much like the attempts to keep the colored out of the white bathrooms.

The problem is that if it isn’t a safety concern for you, you believe it does not exist.

You are remarkably without the ability to see things from the POV of persons who have different POV than you, perhaps some courses in humanities or social sciences could have helped with that.

I realize you think your opinions are formed with completely rational metrics and thoroughly applied analysis but like everyone else in the world, you form your opinions from your own particular point of view. You simply do not see any basis for consideration of other people’s POV.

 

[Toni]

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

As you say it's the coaches etc--the people in a position of authority. Not the other players.

You're stepping around a dollar to pick up a penny.

You are absolutely unable to see beyond the opinion you have formed to understand the point. Or unwilling. Because you quote mined until you stumbled upon something you thought made your pint. YOU twist yourself into knots to support whatever POV you already have.

Among the groups of people I said that girls and women are in danger from are also brothers, cousins, friends of brothers and cousins. I did not mention classmates. Or boyfriends, for that matter. All people girls should be able to trust, especially in a school situation where there is supposedly adult supervision.

Ask the victims of Jerry Sandusky about that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is you still haven't demonstrated someone who will go to the DMV to get the "F" license for the purpose of exploitation.

But you are letting male-presenting individuals into women's spaces. I can't imagine how this does not increase the threat?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Unfortunately, the activists on this have created this situation by demanding that gender dysphoria and clinical diagnosis NOT be a necessary component of being transgender, and that males having access to female intimate spaces NOT be contingent on any treatment or presentation. It's the activists who have demanded that anyone who says they're a woman MUST be given access to female spaces, services, and sports and CANNOT be challenged or doubted.

Where do we have one of those self id people attacking anyone?

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.

That would definitely help. But it's not going to happen without a generation growing up seeing it's not a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is made worse by the fact that *some* people who assert to be transwomen are doing so as a means of feeding a paraphilia using women as live action props in their sexual role play. Even if it's not many, they do exist, and that's a problem.

There are a lot more lesbians than trans.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, there is merit to the social sciences. But they are full of untestable stuff that has no business being called science. Real science needs either high precision observations or a whole lot of observations, and the social sciences have a very hard time actually doing this.

Funny story about that...

We aren't going to properly and humanely settle this issue without making two things clear, transgender people exist, transgender people are human beings. Once we can accept that as a culture, we can then provide them the medical support they need to be able to help determine and accept who they really are. Once we get there, we can cut this noise about danger because ultimately, the fear is caused by one simple thing, doubting who these people say they are.

The objective is to remove them from society.

That is an untestable sociological claim. You keep saying stuff like that, and it appears that your purpose is to tar reasonable arguments with guilt-by-association, as if it were up to you to pick among all the objectives of all the widely varying people you disagree with and issue a ruling on which of those objectives is "the" objective. You are effectively making an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacies.

 

[Toni]

This is made worse by the fact that *some* people who assert to be transwomen are doing so as a means of feeding a paraphilia using women as live action props in their sexual role play. Even if it's not many, they do exist, and that's a problem.

There are a lot more lesbians than trans.

I’m not certain what point you think you are making.

 

[Toni]

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??

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

Which, btw, happens all the time. Men, it seems, are programmed to stand up for men, including ‘men’ who transition into women. I’m assuming that’s what is going on here.

 

[Bomb#20]

What's worse, there's no indication that what happened to her was because of her male presentation.

Based on the small information available, the head line could probably be more accurately stated:
DRUNK IN BAR GETS BELLIGERENT. POLICE CALLED.
It needn't have anything to do with Strobel's sex or presentation.
Tom

Maybe. The bar owner and the cop said she was drunk. But then they would, wouldn't they? She and her friend said she was sober because she was the designated driver. But then they would, wouldn't they? We'll probably never know.

 

[bilby]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

Many fears are utterly irrational.

That you want to spin this as men discounting the fears of women is an effort to obscure the point that people discounting the irrational fears of other people is normal, healthy, and reasonable.

Show that your fear of transwomen in bathrooms is more reasonable than a fear of spiders, or you should expect to be asked for more than just fear as a grounds for changing law, custom, and practice.

Should anyone wanting to enter a bathroom be searched for spiders, or sprayed with insecticide, just because some users of that facility are utterly terrified of spiders?

That fear is real, and genuine, and utterly without merit as a reason for doing anything.

 

[Politesse]

Which, btw, happens all the time. Men, it seems, are programmed to stand up for men, including ‘men’ who transition into women. I’m assuming that’s what is going on here.

That may be the most bat-shit insane thing that's been written in this thread. No, men do not "stand up" for trans women, they rape them and then they kill them. That is what happens to trans women, and by forcing trans women to either use the men's room and risk getting raped and assaulted there, or risk breaking the law by using the women's, and thus risk getting sent to a men's prison where they will most certainly be raped or assaulted, you are helping their abusers gain and keep access to them. You may see yourself as defending the rights of cis women, but you are not taking an anti-rape position, here. Not by a long shot.

 

[Toni]

Which, btw, happens all the time. Men, it seems, are programmed to stand up for men, including ‘men’ who transition into women. I’m assuming that’s what is going on here.

That may be the most bat-shit insane thing that's been written in this thread. No, men do not "stand up" for trans women, they rape them and then they kill them. That is what happens to trans women, and what you are trying to help cover up by denying those women their womanhood.

Yes, I know. Men rape and kill women. That fact is reinforced daily in news accounts. That, exactly, is what some of the female responders in this thread are concerned about. Violence at the hands of men.

I’m absolutely not trying to cover up that fact. I absolutely do know that statistically speaking, trans women face more violence than do cis women, are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and have a number of elevated health risks compared with the general population, and with cis gendered individuals.

Why are you trying to minimize the threat that women—all women: cis and trans face? At the hands of men.

AFAIK or can remember, not one single person in this thread has expressed a lack of acceptance of transwomen. I certainly do not want to deny trans women their womanhood.

OTOH, there definitely are some in society who advocate for abolishing women’s medicine. Or at least the word woman as applied to obstetrics and gynecology. Because some trans men wish to retain their ability to conceive and carry children. More power to them. But not at the cost of erasing the word woman.

What some of us have expressed is a concern over individuals who fein being trans in order to gain acceptance to their preferred victims. And also an erosion of safety measures that women rely on in women only spaces.

No one has suggested one reliable method for a woman in a locker room shower to recognize that a person with a male appearing body is a threat or a pre-surgical trans woman.

Why are you trying to deny women what few vestiges of privacy and safety they possess?

 

[Jarhyn]

The question is how. I don’t know the answer but having men tell girls and women to just get over it—when what women and girls are afraid of is violence at the hands of men! is more than a little rich.

The problem is that fear is not the same thing as risk.

We see no good evidence of actual risk.

We see the whole issue blowing up when the reich wing wanted a bogeyman. Previously it was working fine.

We see repeated objections based on things that aren't actually risks.

All in all it looks very much like the attempts to keep the colored out of the white bathrooms.

Fear is often created by memetics rather than biologicals, and can be broken with memetics just as much.

When someone's fear reactions cause unnecessary incompatibility with others, even if it is a common reaction, we expect them to get it under control.

Ten years ago, folks were acting like allowing this might some day be a risk and a decade later, the risk has not materialized.

The reality is this: trans people have always existed; trans people exist at such low rates that they will never be understood by many; enough people are afraid of what they don't understand to cede control to those who promise to make the world "simple" again.

This has been done several times in history from ancient Rome, to Nazi Germany, to America today. It has a force like a loader, loading a shell into a cannot that is targeted at immigrants, religious minorities, and non-reproductive members in general.

It is a very painful thing to admit that the grandest of human intuitions, the intuition of SEX, the thing that we all seem to have built our religion and behaviors and species around, is not simple as we imagined, and this is a powerful force to draw people towards selfishness over reason. They don't want to accept the pain of this admission, forever, that their deepest beliefs, beliefs they allowed to shape them, are wrong.

I imagine that this is the source of a grand tantrum, and this tantrum is a sort of fuel for Nazi-MAGA, a call for allegiance to the cage people accepted because of a sunk cost, a belief that if they do not defend the cage they are trapped in, allowing it to trap them would have been for nothing.

They don't realize that it is still trapping them and has been and will be worse than if they did not, this cage of the Reproductive State.

I think there is so much more psychology and force behind this issue than we are mostly willing to admit.

What do you do about tens of millions of vocal folks whose only "cope" for the denial of their reproductive agency is that nobody else had agency there either?

Of course they hate planned parenthood and trans people and abortion because these things don't maintain the lie that kept them small and/or poor and/or barefoot in kitchens.

 

[Toni]

Some people very sincerely oppose abortion rights because they truly believe that abortion is murder.