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

[Emily Lake]

Nude where nudity was normal. The allegation was simple nudity, not doing things to others.

Male human getting his dick out in front of non-consenting women, in an area designated for women only.

But sure, keep defending the sex offender with multiple felonies - he changed his ID after all, so no he's totally a woman just like any other women, and any woman who objects to seeing his dick is clearly just a bigot, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even if we only recognize two sexes and sort everyone into one or the other, that does not mean there are only two genders, or that gender is immutable.

Gender identity can be whatever the heck you want it to be. It's irrelevant to me, and if it makes someone else happy no problem.

This isn't about want, it is about what. Your statement reads as if you don't think transgender actually exists.

I think it's a who, not a what. "Transgender" may represent an aspect of who a person is, but it has no bearing at all on what that person is.

I feel this is your largest failing in the conversation as you prematurely end biology at the organs and chromosomes. We know people are much more than that.

We can't predict much of anything about a person's aptitudes, likes, dislikes, sexuality from their chromosomes and DNA. Our identity is much deeper and you refuse to acknowledge that.

The what is the cosmos of chemicals that create our consciousness. That what leads to our who.

What I do NOT believe is that the label of transgender in any way supersedes or supplants the reality of sex, nor that it implies that a person can have an inner essence of the opposite sex. I don't believe in souls of any sort, much less in a cross-sexed soul.

You have no basis for any of that opinion. We don't choose who we are. At no point in my life did I choose to be heterosexual. I didn't choose to be my height. I don't regulate a single process in my body. I'm a convergence of tens of trillions of cells that I haven't the faintest idea exist. I'm barely aware of my own existence, only at macroscopic level. How much of our existence are we actually responsible for? Not much. Pretty much intake food/fluids (because your body has programmed you to), eject the waste. Take in oxygen, breath it back out (good luck trying to not do that, the body won't let you, it'll knock your sorry ass out and take over). Most of this stuff are reactions to signals we are being prompted with. We are not that much in control, we are following orders.

And that is where evolution generally got things right. Sexuality, there is a baseline, much like most things. Our sexual identity is not driven by choice, people don't choose to be straight or gay, they accept it. It is just easier being straight because most people are. Transgender goes down an even harder road. You are saying it doesn't exist... but it does and has for a long time. Transgender people have existed well before social media or the 1980s.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Loren, do you think that homosexuality is a paraphilia?

Huh? The paraphilia you were referring to was using them as props. Why is that exclusive to trans and not lesbians?

Do you think that lesbians use non-consenting women as props in their sexual role play out in public?

 

[Emily Lake]

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances. Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

"Trust me ladies, these particular men are totally safe. I know you can't tell that they're safe, and I know that they pretty much look like other men aside from some lipstick, but trust me - you've got nothing to worry about. It's all in your head, you should just be okay with these particular penises."

 

[Emily Lake]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

 

[Toni]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

I don’t know why you are unable to accept that indeed some individuals are trans, that this characteristic is genetic and present from birth but that is indeed your issue.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do we have any evidence of gender changing? We've tried that with homosexuality, conversion therapy goes very badly.

What do you mean by "gender" in this case?

We absolutely have evidence of people who spent a large portion of their lives living comfortably and successfully in their sexed bodies, with no observable or reported dysphoria or distress... but who later in life identify as trans. Hell, you've got two male human beings in this thread who you have interacted with as years as men, and who now identify as non-men of some unspecified sort.

We also have a fair bit of evidence that children who experience dysphoria at the onset of puberty grow out of it on their own about 80% of the time, and usually are simply gay.

And we have an ever-growing number of detransitioners.

 

[laughing dog]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

Toni’s approach is an attempt to minimize mindless discrimination. Yours is not. Your approach has the advantage of simplicity, but it is based on discrimination. You argue your advocacy is based on convinced historical evidence, but it is still discrimination.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fear of rape: real.
Fear of rape by fake trans in the bathroom: not realistic.

Fear of sexual offending by a male: real
Fear of sexual offending by a male in a bathroom: not realistic

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily has even admitted the situation existed for a long time without a problem.

What's changed is the reich wing stirring up hatred. They can't ship them off to the camps until they've sufficiently demonized them.

Oh for the love of dogs.

That's not what changed, Loren.

I swear this is probably the fifth time I've written this, so I'm going to shortcut it. Which will probably be misrepresented and twisted but I'm tired of explaining this only to have it ignored by people with an ideological axe to grind.

The rules of the game changed well before republicans got hold of it. Hell, republicans can only leverage it because democrats have handed them an easy win on a silver platter.

It used to be that the few transsexuals who used women's bathrooms had 1) a clinical diagnosis with active psychological treatment, 2) considerable counseling on how to ensure they didn't make actual women uncomfortable, 3) respect and consideration for actual women. It used to be that the clinicians were trusted to weed out transvestites with autogynephilia as well as just plain old nefarious men with bad intentions. It used to be that actual women had the authority to ask any male - even a genuine transsexual - to leave our single-sex spaces, and they would comply with that; if they didn't everyone else on the planet would have our backs. And it used to be that those transsexuals would NEVER have the gall to use changing rooms, showers, and spas where actual women would be exposed to their penises.

That changed, and it changed by coercion and without input or consideration for women at all.

Now, there's no clinical oversight, and anyone who decides they want to be a woman can just say so out loud. Now, any man who says the magic words expects to be accepted as being indistinguishable from actual women. Now we have adult males who have asserted a gender identity of "woman" using changing rooms and showers when the middle school and high school swim team are in there, and those males are naked with their dicks out. We have males with multiple felony sex offenses getting their pricks out in the female side of the nude spa, and the women who object are called evil hateful bigots for not wanting to see his prick. We have completely intact men convicted of violent crimes who discover their true inner self while in prison, and being moved and housed in shared cells with women. We have teenage girls being told that they have no right to visual privacy from the opposite sex while in the girl's locker rooms. We have men who were mediocre athletes who come back after the summer break as "women" to compete on women's teams and destroy women's records, and who walk around naked in the women's showers even though their naked dicks make the actual women highly uncomfortable - and those actual women are threatened that if they complain they'll be removed from the women's team.

Those are things that changed before republicans jumped on it. Hell, republicans jumped on it because it changed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Denying that a science is a science is in fact disrespect.

I’m sorry you don’t have a better grasp of what defines a field of studies a science or of what actual social sciences do.

You are just determined to be offended by me making a distinction between soft sciences and hard sciences. Do you also get this aggrieved when someone makes the distinction between the casual layman's use of the term hypothesis and the scientific use of the term hypothesis, and points out that someone's pet conjecture is not, in actuality, a scientific hypothesis?

 

[Emily Lake]

Even if we only recognize two sexes and sort everyone into one or the other, that does not mean there are only two genders, or that gender is immutable.

Gender identity can be whatever the heck you want it to be. It's irrelevant to me, and if it makes someone else happy no problem.

This isn't about want, it is about what. Your statement reads as if you don't think transgender actually exists.

I think it's a who, not a what. "Transgender" may represent an aspect of who a person is, but it has no bearing at all on what that person is.

I feel this is your largest failing in the conversation as you prematurely end biology at the organs and chromosomes. We know people are much more than that.

People are certainly more than that. But biological sex is not more than that. Biological sex is based exclusively on reproductive phenotype. Sex is a what, gender identity is a who.

We can't predict much of anything about a person's aptitudes, likes, dislikes, sexuality from their chromosomes and DNA. Our identity is much deeper and you refuse to acknowledge that.

The what is the cosmos of chemicals that create our consciousness. That what leads to our who.

Sex is not about a person's aptitudes, likes and dislikes, sexuality, or identity.

Look, me believing - sincerely and deeply to my core feeling and believing - that I'm tall... does not actually make me tall. A person sincerely and deeply feeling that they have the wrong body doesn't actually make their body wrong - it's the body they have, there's no wrong or right about it. A person sincerely and deeply feeling that they align with the regressive stereotypes applied to female humans doesn't make them female. A person can have whatever gender identity they feel they have - or none at all for that matter. Every bit of that is irrelevant to what sex they are.

What I do NOT believe is that the label of transgender in any way supersedes or supplants the reality of sex, nor that it implies that a person can have an inner essence of the opposite sex. I don't believe in souls of any sort, much less in a cross-sexed soul.

You have no basis for any of that opinion. We don't choose who we are. At no point in my life did I choose to be heterosexual. I didn't choose to be my height. I don't regulate a single process in my body. I'm a convergence of tens of trillions of cells that I haven't the faintest idea exist. I'm barely aware of my own existence, only at macroscopic level. How much of our existence are we actually responsible for? Not much. Pretty much intake food/fluids (because your body has programmed you to), eject the waste. Take in oxygen, breath it back out (good luck trying to not do that, the body won't let you, it'll knock your sorry ass out and take over). Most of this stuff are reactions to signals we are being prompted with. We are not that much in control, we are following orders.

And that is where evolution generally got things right. Sexuality, there is a baseline, much like most things. Our sexual identity is not driven by choice, people don't choose to be straight or gay, they accept it. It is just easier being straight because most people are. Transgender goes down an even harder road. You are saying it doesn't exist... but it does and has for a long time. Transgender people have existed well before social media or the 1980s.

Whether it's choice or not is irrelevant Jimmy. I don't know how to communicate this any more clearly - if someone feels themselves to be transgender, and wishes to dress in clothing typical of the opposite sex and behave in a matter they believe is concomitant with the opposite sex, I'm perfectly happy to have them do so. When I say I don't care, that's not a negative judgement - it's a very literal statement that I have no feeling one way or another how a person presents or expresses themselves (within the bounds of appropriateness, I don't support nudists going to the office in the buff for example). If a female human views themselves as a man in some personal sense of the word man, and wants to wear flannel shirts and steel-toed boots with a buzz cut, go for it! If a male human views themselves as a woman in some personal sense of the word woman, and wants to wear a spinny skirt with mary-janes and long hair, go on and rock it then!

I literally have no skin in the game on how other people identify.

But that identity does not alter their actual real sex. Nor do I believe that their identity should supersede sex in policy. That's what I care about.

 

[Emily Lake]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

I don’t know why you are unable to accept that indeed some individuals are trans, that this characteristic is genetic and present from birth but that is indeed your issue.

I accept that some people identify as trans. I do not accept that a male person is a female. These are different things entirely. I don't know why you're unable to accept that a man who feels that they are a woman isn't actually for realsies a female human being.

Transwomen are men, and that's perfectly acceptable and fine. Being a male human being (a man) is a prerequisite of being a transwoman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

Toni’s approach is an attempt to minimize mindless discrimination. Yours is not. Your approach has the advantage of simplicity, but it is based on discrimination. You argue your advocacy is based on convinced historical evidence, but it is still discrimination.

Toni's approach, from my perspective, is a very dedicated attempt to avoid offending some people's feelings, even if doing so requires the suspension of logic and rationality.

I don't support mindless discrimination. I support appropriate separation of the sex in situations where sex matters. I think it's entirely appropriate and reasonable to discriminate on the basis of sex when we're talking about access to single-sex spaces, services, and sports.

If you want to approach this as a way to eliminate discrimination, then you should be arguing to eliminate all sex-specific spaces and services in all cases. You should be arguing to make all things unisex all the time. All bathrooms, all locker rooms, all changing rooms, all shared showers, all prisons, all sports.

Unless that's what you're arguing for, then you are NOT arguing to eliminate discrimination. All you're doing is replacing the aspect on which discrimination should be applied.

 

[Toni]

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

No True Scotsman, Toni.

A transwoman is a transwoman if they say they're a transwoman - right? That's how it works, isn't it? There's no way to tell whether any given male human who asserts they're a transwoman is actually a transwoman or not.

Some people who say that they're transwomen have harmed women in female-only spaces... but somehow they're not "real" transwomen according to you. Why? Apparently because they hurt women, and a "real" transwoman would never hurt a woman. Therefore if they hurt a woman, they're not a "real" transwoman.

Why take this approach? Why is it so unreasonable to simply accept that males have an increased likelihood to sexually offend against women and children, and how they present or how they think of themselves doesn't actually change that?

Toni’s approach is an attempt to minimize mindless discrimination. Yours is not. Your approach has the advantage of simplicity, but it is based on discrimination. You argue your advocacy is based on convinced historical evidence, but it is still discrimination.

Toni's approach, from my perspective, is a very dedicated attempt to avoid offending some people's feelings, even if doing so requires the suspension of logic and rationality.

I don't support mindless discrimination. I support appropriate separation of the sex in situations where sex matters. I think it's entirely appropriate and reasonable to discriminate on the basis of sex when we're talking about access to single-sex spaces, services, and sports.

If you want to approach this as a way to eliminate discrimination, then you should be arguing to eliminate all sex-specific spaces and services in all cases. You should be arguing to make all things unisex all the time. All bathrooms, all locker rooms, all changing rooms, all shared showers, all prisons, all sports.

Unless that's what you're arguing for, then you are NOT arguing to eliminate discrimination. All you're doing is replacing the aspect on which discrimination should be applied.

I see zero benefit in traumatizing or worse law abiding persons. I am as aware as you are of the potential for harm if someone accesses female only spaces through deception, in this case feigning being trans, for nefarious reasons

I’m aware of the potential for serious emotional trauma for females confronted by a male appearing body in a female only space, particularly those who have experienced sexual abuse or assault or rape.

I’m not trans and my actual in person experience with trans individuals is limited but enough that I recognize the sincerity and the harm in not being recognized for who they are. Don’t we all want to be seen? And accepted?

I don’t want any person to be traumatized by this situation where there seem to be few if any reasonable ways to ensure everyone’s safety and also everybody’s rights.

I also wrote this as someone who has reacted very badly to what now, as an adult I recognize as PTSD as a result of sexual assault. I was washing dishes, cleaning a family chore. My little sister came up behind me to scare me —the way siblings do but in this instance I was washing a large sharp butcher knife. I whirled around with the knife grasped in my fist—and fortunately realized it was my sister and not the person who assaulted me , usually from behind. I did not stab my sister abd indeed laughed before returning to my task and trying not to cry. PTSD almost caused me to hurt my sister. But I definitely understand the potential for severe harm as a result of being re-traunstized.

PTSD is not necessarily predictable.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see zero benefit in traumatizing or worse law abiding persons. I am as aware as you are of the potential for harm if someone accesses female only spaces through deception, in this case feigning being trans, for nefarious reasons

I’m aware of the potential for serious emotional trauma for females confronted by a male appearing body in a female only space, particularly those who have experienced sexual abuse or assault or rape.

I’m not trans and my actual in person experience with trans individuals is limited but enough that I recognize the sincerity and the harm in not being recognized for who they are. Don’t we all want to be seen? And accepted?

I don't think you and I are going to ever come to an agreement on this. I feel where you're coming from, and I respect your view. But I also strongly disagree with your entire premise.

I don't see any benefit in traumatizing or harming law abiding people either. Where I disagree with you is that I also don't see any benefit to women by allowing males into female-only spaces in order to avoid traumatizing males. Loren and TomC and Jimmy and Poli and Bomb#20 are all males of the human species. I don't want any of them to be traumatized or harmed in any way... but women's intimate spaces aren't shields for vulnerable men. And I don't think that excluding males from female single-sex spaces is traumatizing. I don't think that ANY males should have a legal right to access female spaces because they are not female.

I'm perfectly happy to recognize a transgender person as being transgender. But that still doesn't make them the opposite sex. A transwoman is a male of the human species, and nothing can actually change that. Sincerity about their gender identity is irrelevant - that's not a heartless or cruel thing to say, there's no ill will involved. It's simply reality.

It's entirely and completely possible for me to accept a transwoman as a transwoman without me having to pretend that they are female. I cannot recognize them as female, because they are not female.

 

[Toni]

I see zero benefit in traumatizing or worse law abiding persons. I am as aware as you are of the potential for harm if someone accesses female only spaces through deception, in this case feigning being trans, for nefarious reasons

I’m aware of the potential for serious emotional trauma for females confronted by a male appearing body in a female only space, particularly those who have experienced sexual abuse or assault or rape.

I’m not trans and my actual in person experience with trans individuals is limited but enough that I recognize the sincerity and the harm in not being recognized for who they are. Don’t we all want to be seen? And accepted?

I don't think you and I are going to ever come to an agreement on this. I feel where you're coming from, and I respect your view. But I also strongly disagree with your entire premise.

I don't see any benefit in traumatizing or harming law abiding people either. Where I disagree with you is that I also don't see any benefit to women by allowing males into female-only spaces in order to avoid traumatizing males. Loren and TomC and Jimmy and Poli and Bomb#20 are all males of the human species. I don't want any of them to be traumatized or harmed in any way... but women's intimate spaces aren't shields for vulnerable men. And I don't think that excluding males from female single-sex spaces is traumatizing. I don't think that ANY males should have a legal right to access female spaces because they are not female.

I'm perfectly happy to recognize a transgender person as being transgender. But that still doesn't make them the opposite sex. A transwoman is a male of the human species, and nothing can actually change that. Sincerity about their gender identity is irrelevant - that's not a heartless or cruel thing to say, there's no ill will involved. It's simply reality.

It's entirely and completely possible for me to accept a transwoman as a transwoman without me having to pretend that they are female. I cannot recognize them as female, because they are not female.

We do disagree. I believe that trans women are women and trans men are men and need to be respected as such.

I do struggle a bit where sports are concerned because I am old enough to remember the days before Title IX and see the continuing inequalities between funding and other support for female vs male teams. But so far, most female players do not see a problem and don’t feel they are being crowded out. I defer to their judgement.

 

[TSwizzle]

I do struggle a bit where sports are concerned because I am old enough to remember the days before Title IX and see the continuing inequalities between funding and other support for female vs male teams. But so far, most female players do not see a problem and don’t feel they are being crowded out. I defer to their judgement.

Initially that was true because they were badgered, bullied or shamed into agreement or they feared being cancelled or branded a terf. Those days are gone thankfully.

 

[laughing dog]

Emily has even admitted the situation existed for a long time without a problem.

What's changed is the reich wing stirring up hatred. They can't ship them off to the camps until they've sufficiently demonized them.

Oh for the love of dogs.

If only people let that work, most of these issues would dissolve.

 

[seanie]

“Sush ladies! The occasional double rapist in a women’s prison is no big deal.

Be kind.”